Re: [Vo]:Near earth asteroid info

2013-02-08 Thread Rob Dingemans

Hi,

On 7-2-2013 22:19, Jed Rothwell wrote:

I don't know why this is in the Business section.


That does not surprise me at all, as it may have an incredible huge 
impact on the way (some of) the traders may react.


Kind regards,

Rob




[Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding

2013-02-08 Thread Moab Moab
It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First he'll
need enough votes.

http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861


Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding

2013-02-08 Thread Rob Dingemans

Hi,

Thanks for the info, it can never be mentioned often enough :-) .

Kind regards,

Rob



Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding

2013-02-08 Thread Peter Gluck
George Miley tries the Way of Technology, excellent!
Peter

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com wrote:

 Hi,

 Thanks for the info, it can never be mentioned often enough :-) .

 Kind regards,

 Rob




-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com


Re: [Vo]:Mayans and Near Earth Asteroid

2013-02-08 Thread Terry Blanton
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:22 PM, de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com wrote:
 Actually, I think they actually foresaw the US fiscal cliff, which really 
 reached crisis proportions on exactly December 12, 2012..., uh, or was that 
 Dec 21, 2012?

No, it was the reelection of Obama.  ;)



Re: [Vo]:Mayans and Near Earth Asteroid

2013-02-08 Thread ChemE Stewart
Obamageddon?

On Friday, February 8, 2013, Terry Blanton wrote:

 On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:22 PM, de Bivort Lawrence 
 ldebiv...@gmail.comjavascript:;
 wrote:
  Actually, I think they actually foresaw the US fiscal cliff, which
 really reached crisis proportions on exactly December 12, 2012..., uh, or
 was that Dec 21, 2012?

 No, it was the reelection of Obama.  ;)




Re: [Vo]:Urgent: Until Feb9, can vote for Dr Miley 10kw LENR Thermal Electric Generator

2013-02-08 Thread Terry Blanton
AFAIK, this is the first ARPA-E funding of LENR.  Interesting that it comes
on the heels of the resignation of Steven Chu.

Coincidence?


Re: [Vo]:Urgent: Until Feb9, can vote for Dr Miley 10kw LENR Thermal Electric Generator

2013-02-08 Thread Moab Moab
Don't forget to open your email and klick the confirmation link.


On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 AFAIK, this is the first ARPA-E funding of LENR.  Interesting that it
 comes on the heels of the resignation of Steven Chu.

 Coincidence?




Re: [Vo]:Urgent: Until Feb9, can vote for Dr Miley 10kw LENR Thermal Electric Generator

2013-02-08 Thread Terry Blanton
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com wrote:
 Don't forget to open your email and klick the confirmation link.

http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861

Done.



RE: [Vo]:nanocavities

2013-02-08 Thread Jones Beene
This is coincidental to the BEC paper mentioned by Axil yesterday.

From: Peter Gluck 

Can this:

Nanoscopic Microcavities Offer Newfound Control in Light
Filtering: Unique Nanostructure Produces Novel 'Plasmonic Halos':


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130207150907.htm?goback=%2Egde_
1807453_member_212276134

be of any use/inspirtion for Ed Storms' LENR theory?

Peter



Here is the prior citation:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/bose-einstein-condensate-created-at-r
oom-temperature/

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/29/1210842110

In fact this could be important for LENR at the theoretical
level, should it be broad enough to include other boson quasiparticles, such
as the magnon.

The definitions are similar: polaritons are quasiparticles
resulting from strong coupling of electromagnetic waves with an electric or
magnetic dipole-carrying excitation. The magnon could be imagined to be the
subset of that - where the coupling is only magnetic. However, it may be
only a partial subset with other features included.

Polaritons describe the dispersion of light (photons) with
an interacting phonon resonance; while the magnon would describe the
dispersion of spin current with an interacting resonance. 

Using the same general terms, superconductivity where the
Cooper pair is the boson, would describe the dispersion of charge within an
interacting phonon resonance. (the last is my interpretation, which may not
be correct).

Thus we have a linking of three BEC phenomena which may
happen either at room temperature or close- in the case of the RTSC. 


From: Axil Axil 


http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/bose-einstein-condensate-created-at-r
oom-temperature/
 
Bose-Einstein condensate created at room
temperature
 
Can those interested in LENR draw any
lessons from this formulation?
  
Cheers:Axil

attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding

2013-02-08 Thread Akira Shirakawa

On 2013-02-08 11:49, Moab Moab wrote:

It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First
he'll need enough votes.

http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861


It would have been in LENUCO's best interest to let people know about 
this in advance!


What a wasted opportunity. (if not for funding, at least for visibility 
/ public awareness) No chances to take the lead within the remaining 
time over other projects with 1500+ votes.


Cheers,
S.A.



Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding

2013-02-08 Thread Moab Moab
Akira, the votes are coming in fairly quick now, just 4 hours ago the
counter was at 18, now we're past 80.

If anything this will show the LENR supporters across the internet forums
what we are capable of.


On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Akira Shirakawa
shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote:

 On 2013-02-08 11:49, Moab Moab wrote:

 It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First
 he'll need enough votes.

 http://futureenergy.**ultralightstartups.com/**campaign/detail/861http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861


 It would have been in LENUCO's best interest to let people know about this
 in advance!

 What a wasted opportunity. (if not for funding, at least for visibility /
 public awareness) No chances to take the lead within the remaining time
 over other projects with 1500+ votes.

 Cheers,
 S.A.




[Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy

2013-02-08 Thread Jed Rothwell
People here have often remarked that an improved battery would help with
wind and solar power, by storing energy and leveling demand. That is true.
But other methods of storing energy on a large scale already exist. One of
the most cost-effecting and reliable ones is pumped hydroelectric storage.
It is about 70% to 85% efficient. Not as good as batteries, but not bad.
Sometimes, an old technology is a good way to enhance a new one.

Here is article about it:

Portugal Inaugurates Alqueva Pumped-Storage Hydroelectric Project Expansion

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/02/portugal-inaugurates-alqueva-pumped-storage-hydroelectric-project-expansion


BEJA, Portugal An extension of Portugal's Alqueva pumped-storage
hydroelectric plant has doubled its capacity to 520 MW.

The new addition -- called the Alqueva 2 -- was announced by utility
company Energia de Portugal (EDP) in October 2007 as a means of storing
power produced by southern Portugal's booming wind power sector. . . .


520 MW is a lot.

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding

2013-02-08 Thread Jed Rothwell
You do not have to use Linked In for this vote. Enter you name at the
bottom and the bot will send you an e-mail.

As Akira said, it is a shame they did not publicize this earlier.

- Jed


RE: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy

2013-02-08 Thread Jones Beene
Speaking of synergy with hydroelectric (gravity) which can be added to
wind/solar farms in close proximity, there is what I think is an even
greater potential synergy - since it is not as dependent on proper location.

 

This goes back to Peter Graneau's proposal presented in Infinite Energy a
couple of years ago (issue 94) to add boosting to hydroelectric.

 

This article is well worth a re-read. A proof of concept should be not
overly difficult. Too bad this one did not get into the ARPA contest. (or if
it has gone forward, I am not aware of it).

 

Jones

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

People here have often remarked that an improved battery would help with
wind and solar power, by storing energy and leveling demand. That is true.
But other methods of storing energy on a large scale already exist. One of
the most cost-effecting and reliable ones is pumped hydroelectric storage.
It is about 70% to 85% efficient. Not as good as batteries, but not bad.
Sometimes, an old technology is a good way to enhance a new one.

Here is article about it:

Portugal Inaugurates Alqueva Pumped-Storage Hydroelectric Project Expansion

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/02/portugal-inaugu
rates-alqueva-pumped-storage-hydroelectric-project-expansion


BEJA, Portugal An extension of Portugal's Alqueva pumped-storage
hydroelectric plant has doubled its capacity to 520 MW.

The new addition -- called the Alqueva 2 -- was announced by utility company
Energia de Portugal (EDP) in October 2007 as a means of storing power
produced by southern Portugal's booming wind power sector. . . .


520 MW is a lot.

- Jed

 



Re: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy

2013-02-08 Thread Jed Rothwell
Here is a ring island proposal for pumped hydro in the North Sea. This is
basically a large hole in the ocean:

http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/2013/january/belgium-considers-ring-island-energy-storage-scheme.html

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding

2013-02-08 Thread Terry Blanton
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com wrote:
 It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First he'll
 need enough votes.

 http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861

Funding is not conditional upon getting enough votes.  It does,
however, help.  Selection is by ARPA-E committee.



Re: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy

2013-02-08 Thread Jed Rothwell
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Speaking of synergy with hydroelectric (gravity) which can be added to
 wind/solar farms in close proximity . . .


In many places. But not, for example, in Texas, where the landscape is
flat. Not a lot of uphill to go to.

They put some wind farms on gigantic mesas in Texas, which are up in the
air but still pretty flat. Not a lot of water out there, either.

I expect the Pacific Northwest would be ideal for this.

As I mentioned, in Belgium they are thinking of making a hole in the ocean.
The ocean is flat but this works anyway. Perhaps it would work in the Gulf
of Mexico off of Texas.

I view wind and pumped storage as a temporary solution before we get cold
fusion or some kind of plasma fusion. We need the clean energy now, so we
should build it. There will be a long overlap while we install cold fusion,
maybe 20 to 40 years. We should use wind turbines during that transition,
rather than coal. The turbines will pay back and even wear out in 20 years.
We will get our money's worth. Jim Dunn and I has a spirited debate about
how long the transition is likely to take. I say sooner, he says later.
Either way, a wind turbine installed the day serious cold fusion research
begins will likely pay for itself. I described part of our conversation
here:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthefuturem.pdf

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding

2013-02-08 Thread James Bowery
OK, guys, what is #($*#$ is going on here?

If Miley has what he claims to have -- a system that consistently produces
power with no input power -- isn't it GAME OVER regarding Norman Ramsey's
statement in the preamble of the DoE's cold fusion report that stated:

Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and
reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the
discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims
of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents
of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not
consistent and reproducible at the present time. However, *even a single
short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary*.-

Dr. Norman Ramsey, Nobel laureate and professor of physics at Harvard
University was the only person on the the 1989 Department of Energy cold
fusion review panel to voice a dissenting opinion. Ramsey insisted on the
inclusion of this preamble as an alternative to his resignation from the
panel.

Moreover, isn't it also GAME OVER regarding Gibbs's demand for a system
that not only demonstrates the effect but has market potential?

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com wrote:
  It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First
 he'll
  need enough votes.
 
  http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861

 Funding is not conditional upon getting enough votes.  It does,
 however, help.  Selection is by ARPA-E committee.




RE: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy

2013-02-08 Thread Jones Beene
 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

In many places. But not, for example, in Texas, where the landscape is flat.
Not a lot of uphill to go to.

 

They put some wind farms on gigantic mesas in Texas, which are up in the air
but still pretty flat. Not a lot of water out there, either.

 

I expect the Pacific Northwest would be ideal for this.

 

 

Well, to get back to Peter Graneau's actual proposal - the synergy attaches
to an already existing hydroelectric facility. 

 

It is another kind of in situ synergy which is not related to wind/solar. It
would add its own boost as a separate effect, even when those are added to
pumped storage. Any existing dam or pumped storage facility could have this
device, assuming it works - as a replacement turbine.

 

Apparently, a lot of folks did not fully understand the implications of his
original article in IE, myself included. 

 

In short, his suggestion is to exchange the old type of water turbine (which
is very efficient but that is not the point) for a new type of turbine, and
it looks similar but it can capture hydrogen bond energy in addition to
gravitational energy. I suspect that some of the net electrical or
mechanical power will need to be recycled to do this, but he suggests a 2:1
net gain.

 

This is not exactly the same thing as the water arc explosion, if I
understand it. In effect, more net energy is available from water flow
itself (according to Peter) but the excess energy is chemical not
gravitational.

 

However, I think one of the major problems is that this contention is
lacking in real proof, and in a situation where it should be rather
straightforward to provide proof and where there would be a lot of interest
from people like TVA.

 

Jones



Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding

2013-02-08 Thread Edmund Storms
Well said James. We have three other companies claiming to have  
commercial generators of power. Each of these claims is based on  
dubious demonstrations. What is the Miley claim based on? Can we  
expect his claim to be debated and examined in the way the Rossi claim  
has experienced?  Just where does the Miley claim fall in the process  
of competing claims for a practical device.  What reason does anyone  
have to vote for his claim? I think these questions must be examined  
before we all get excited.



Ed
On Feb 8, 2013, at 9:25 AM, James Bowery wrote:


OK, guys, what is #($*#$ is going on here?

If Miley has what he claims to have -- a system that consistently  
produces power with no input power -- isn't it GAME OVER regarding  
Norman Ramsey's statement in the preamble of the DoE's cold fusion  
report that stated:


Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent  
and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not  
complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in  
a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in  
that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the  
experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and  
reproducible at the present time. However, even a single short but  
valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary.-


Dr. Norman Ramsey, Nobel laureate and professor of physics at  
Harvard University was the only person on the the 1989 Department of  
Energy cold fusion review panel to voice a dissenting opinion.  
Ramsey insisted on the inclusion of this preamble as an alternative  
to his resignation from the panel.


Moreover, isn't it also GAME OVER regarding Gibbs's demand for a  
system that not only demonstrates the effect but has market potential?


On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com  
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com  
wrote:
 It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe.  
First he'll

 need enough votes.

 http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861

Funding is not conditional upon getting enough votes.  It does,
however, help.  Selection is by ARPA-E committee.






Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding

2013-02-08 Thread Alain Sepeda
we are above 100 , at this speed it is victory...

I've networked via linked-in, via office, via mail...

the only needed number of vote is 380...

2013/2/8 Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com

 Akira, the votes are coming in fairly quick now, just 4 hours ago the
 counter was at 18, now we're past 80.

 If anything this will show the LENR supporters across the internet forums
 what we are capable of.


 On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com
  wrote:

 On 2013-02-08 11:49, Moab Moab wrote:

 It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First
 he'll need enough votes.

 http://futureenergy.**ultralightstartups.com/**campaign/detail/861http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861


 It would have been in LENUCO's best interest to let people know about
 this in advance!

 What a wasted opportunity. (if not for funding, at least for visibility /
 public awareness) No chances to take the lead within the remaining time
 over other projects with 1500+ votes.

 Cheers,
 S.A.





Re: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy

2013-02-08 Thread Alexander Hollins
I take it none of you have played the game Myst?  There is a tall water
tower that can be connected to a windmill that then pumps water from the
ocean into the tower, and the water can then be redirected to machines that
run directly off the pressure, air compressor style.

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  ** **

 *From:* Jed Rothwell 

 ** **

 In many places. But not, for example, in Texas, where the landscape is
 flat. Not a lot of uphill to go to.

 ** **

 They put some wind farms on gigantic mesas in Texas, which are up in the
 air but still pretty flat. Not a lot of water out there, either.

 ** **

 I expect the Pacific Northwest would be ideal for this.

 ** **

 ** **

 Well, to get back to Peter Graneau’s actual proposal – the synergy
 attaches to an already existing hydroelectric facility. 

 ** **

 It is another kind of *in situ* synergy which is not related to
 wind/solar. It would add its own boost as a separate effect, even when
 those are added to pumped storage. Any existing dam or pumped storage
 facility could have this device, assuming it works - as a replacement
 turbine.

 ** **

 Apparently, a lot of folks did not fully understand the implications of
 his original article in IE, myself included. 

 ** **

 In short, his suggestion is to exchange the old type of water turbine
 (which is very efficient but that is not the point) for a new type of
 turbine, and it looks similar but it can capture “hydrogen bond energy” in
 addition to gravitational energy. I suspect that some of the net electrical
 or mechanical power will need to be recycled to do this, but he suggests a
 2:1 net gain.

 ** **

 This is not exactly the same thing as the water arc explosion, if I
 understand it. In effect, more net energy is available from water flow
 itself (according to Peter) but the excess energy is *chemical* not
 gravitational.

 ** **

 However, I think one of the major problems is that this contention is
 lacking in real proof, and in a situation where it should be rather
 straightforward to provide proof and where there would be a lot of interest
 from people like TVA.

 ** **

 Jones



[Vo]: Heat Engines Simplified

2013-02-08 Thread David Roberson

On many occasions posts are placed in vortex that discuss the efficiency of 
heat engines and cycles as well as whether or not all the heat can be extracted 
from a system and so on.  A thought occurred to me earlier today which made 
much of the confusion go away and I wanted to share that concept with the 
others in the group.  It is my hope that this unusual way of looking at these 
types of problems will simplify these outwardly complex looking systems.


The first thing that needs to be considered is that the conservation of energy 
is preserved in these machines and systems.  When we speak of efficiency, it is 
should not be considered a loss of energy at all, but the lack of ability to 
extract all of the energy that is available from the source.   The energy that 
is not turned into work by the machine is simply returned to the environment 
and could be released under the right circumstances.


My thought experiment followed an interesting path.  First, think of having an 
isolated system such as a resistor in empty space that is at essentially zero 
Kelvin and  kinetic energy that matches.  This resistor has leads attached to 
it and we connect a voltage source.  According to standard electrical rules, 
energy will be given to the resistor at a rate proportional to the power 
applied.  For example, if 1 watt is being delivered to the resistor, then it is 
absorbing energy at a rate of 1 joule per second.


I am quite confident that everyone reading vortex posts understands that the 
increase in resistor internal energy is mainly going to be in the form of 
thermal energy.   This is just a way to characterize kinetic energy of the 
molecules of the material.  And kinetic energy just means that the atoms are in 
motion relative to each other, which can also be measured by the temperature of 
the device.


So, after a period of time with power applied to the resistor, it will heat up 
and contain a well defined number of joules of energy.  I realize that someone 
could chase down every last joule of energy in what ever form it takes, but 
this is a discussion to help simplify the concept for people wishing a better 
understanding of the principles so lets not bring in the secondary processes at 
this time.


Someone asked the question as to whether or not the heat within a system could 
be mostly extracted and I think we can shed light upon that issue.  First of 
all, if the external voltage source is removed and the system monitored for a 
very long time, it will be seen to radiate heat energy according to the 
Stefan-Boltzmann law until it ultimately has none left to radiate.  This energy 
is in the form of IR radiation initially and eventually changes over to lower 
frequency peak emissions until there is no more energy available.  Second, the 
resistor atoms slowly loose some of their energy of motion (kinetic), so they 
move slower.  There is no theoretical law that prevents us from capturing most 
the radiated energy by one method or the other with a super conductor antenna - 
energy conversion device.  Of course this would be impractical, but the 
principle is there.  The end result of this complicated activity would be that 
the heat energy has been recovered in some other form and none is lost so the 
conservation of energy prevails.


Now, it seems strange that we always speak in terms of two heat sinks when we 
talk of the efficiency of a heat engine.  If you think carefully about the 
processes at work, you will see that this is just a short hand way of saying 
that you begin with kinetic energy of the source driving your heat engine, 
which is measured by the temperature of the source, and end up by not 
extracting all of the kinetic energy.  The low temperature sink is the place 
where your engine allows the kinetic energy to escape that was not converted 
into mechanical work.  This is a simple way to think of the engine.  It's 
design is imperfect since the input kinetic energy of the source does not all 
get converted.  Thermal radiation can behave as a perfect heat engine, except 
that its output is in the form of electromagnetic radiation instead of 
mechanical work.


Always remember that energy is energy and that heat energy is just one of many 
types available.  Generally, there is a process that will convert one form into 
another, and some are easier to work with than others.  Raw heat is not the 
ideal energy form to work with, especially when compared to an easily converted 
type such as electrical energy.   The heat can be converted into electrical 
energy, but the process does not typically function without allowing some of 
the input heat energy to escape simple conversion.


And, if you convert electrical energy into mechanical work, such as raising a 
heavy load into the air with an electrical motor,  some of the input electrical 
energy will be converted into that less useful form of heat energy.  It is not 
lost, but harder to put into use after that process.



Re: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy

2013-02-08 Thread David Roberson
One big problem with this concept is that there are not many locations 
available to place new facilities.  And the few that remain are not likely to 
be near the generation equipment.  Another major problem is that new dams 
destroy wild streams that are not too well protected.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Feb 8, 2013 10:32 am
Subject: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy


People here have often remarked that an improved battery would help with wind 
and solar power, by storing energy and leveling demand. That is true. But other 
methods of storing energy on a large scale already exist. One of the most 
cost-effecting and reliable ones is pumped hydroelectric storage. It is about 
70% to 85% efficient. Not as good as batteries, but not bad. Sometimes, an old 
technology is a good way to enhance a new one.

Here is article about it:

Portugal Inaugurates Alqueva Pumped-Storage Hydroelectric Project Expansion

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/02/portugal-inaugurates-alqueva-pumped-storage-hydroelectric-project-expansion


BEJA, Portugal An extension of Portugal's Alqueva pumped-storage hydroelectric 
plant has doubled its capacity to 520 MW.

The new addition -- called the Alqueva 2 -- was announced by utility company 
Energia de Portugal (EDP) in October 2007 as a means of storing power produced 
by southern Portugal's booming wind power sector. . . .


520 MW is a lot.

- Jed


 


Re: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy

2013-02-08 Thread Terry Blanton
Pumped storage destabilized the spin of the earth.  As you raise the
mass from the surface, the rotation of the planet slows.

This could easily cause the moon to be flung from orbit.

(T.I.C.)



RE: [Vo]: Heat Engines Simplified

2013-02-08 Thread Jones Beene
 

 

From: David Roberson 

 

Always remember that energy is energy and that heat energy is just one of
many types available.  Generally, there is a process that will convert one
form into another, and some are easier to work with than others.  

 

This is not accurate. There is high grade energy - such as electrical and
low grade energy such as heat. 

 

There are always losses going from low-grade to high-grade, and only going
the other way can losses be avoided, but often there are losses that way as
well. 

 

There are NO circumstances where low grade energy can be converted to high
grade energy without substantial losses. 

 

With IR heat to electricity - which is the extreme case, the losses are
typically 95% and they are not avoidable, so to reduce them to 75% would be
miraculous - and in fact this has never been accomplished in practice.

 

Jones



[Vo]:FW: Re: Boeing Li-ion battery

2013-02-08 Thread Roarty, Francis X
Below are some interesting insights from Keng Chi, a respected Switching power 
supply engineer/author/Consultant that I have the privilege to consider a 
friend. He has helped to shape some of my views on cavity suppression and has 
always been more open to the possible existence of natural/organic forms of 
LENR.
Fran

From: kengchi goah [mailto:kengchi.g...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 1:06 PM
To: Roarty, Francis X
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Boeing Li-ion battery

Frank:
Nice to hear you.  Of course, I do not mind you cc our exchange to Vortex-I.
For a long time, I have been questioning Princeton Plasma Lab's magnetic 
confinement approach.  They are utterly heading the wrong direction. No wonder 
after more than 50 years and billions spent, they cannot show something.


Keng
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Roarty, Francis X 
francis.x.roa...@lmco.commailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:
Keng,
Would you mind if I cc this exchange to Vortex-l? I did put Jones on CC since 
this is all stuff he has been pursuing vigorously. Vortex-l has discussed the 
possibility of these fires being ignited by LENR and frequently revisits LENR 
as the source for molten rock magma. Jones Beene has even posited this as the 
primary heat source for the suns' corona.  Jones also characterized Casimir 
confinement as occurring at the boundary where 3D becomes 2D  -your further 
progression from a 2D seam to a 1D tunnel is intriguing...  Your mechanism 
for energy transfer is also interesting but needs clarification..are you 
suggesting the Field creating the casimir confinement can transfer energy 
directly between the moving gas atoms in the cavity and the walls.. do you not 
need some asymmetrical event to prevent these energies from cancelling to zero? 
Some form  of thermal or electrical rectification to derive energy?
If ZPE is a precondition as I suspect then going from a 2D plane where random 
gas motion is limited to 360 degrees about one  axis becomes just fwd and 
backward motion along a single axis... My posit is this type of confinement 
allows for self assembly of a Maxwellian or Heisenberg trap.. and if Naudts is 
right about this being relativistic hydrogen then the energy available sky 
rockets because confinement is a warp  that suppresses virtual particles 
not a well  or luminal velocity which compress these virtual particles like 
rain against the windshield of a speeding car [Haisch and Rhuda] . I am saying 
this isn't relativistic in the sense of an object approaching C or approaching 
an event horizon - this is a negative relativistic effect where the temporal 
motion of hydrogen is suppressed by Casimir geometry relative to our normal 
time line. From the perspective of the hydrino, time in the macro world slows 
down in the same manner we attribute to the Twin Paradox but without the 
limitation of the  Pythagorean relationship between V^2 and C^2 .  IMHO a 
reverse form of time dilation becomes possible based on the inverse cube of 
plate spacing [Casimir geometry] and is the underlying physics behind catalytic 
action.
Fran

From: kengchi goah 
[mailto:kengchi.g...@gmail.commailto:kengchi.g...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 4:36 PM
To: francis roarty; Roarty, Francis X
Subject: EXTERNAL: Boeing Li-ion battery

Frank:

I tend to believe that the jelly roll structure of the subject battery is 
conducive to monoatomic hydrogen energy shedding; exactly the effects we talked 
about.
Recall at one point I was suggesting that magma, molten rock, heat source may 
be due to the same mechanism: atomic hydrogen seeps into crust fissure (2D seam 
or 1D funnel) and its electron shield (energy packet) undergoes redistribution 
to comply with the extremely confined boundary condition. Energy is released in 
the process.

If Boeing, battery manufacturer, and NTSB investigators keep looking for answer 
in charger, battery monitor, or anything external, they may be wasting their 
time.

Keng



Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding

2013-02-08 Thread Ruby
Hey Moab, thanks for the update.  i'll post it up and let's get this guy 
some votes!


Ruby


On 2/8/13 2:49 AM, Moab Moab wrote:
It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First 
he'll need enough votes.


http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861




--
Ruby Carat
r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org
United States 1-707-616-4894
Skype ruby-carat
www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org



Re: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy

2013-02-08 Thread Jed Rothwell
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

One big problem with this concept is that there are not many locations
 available to place new facilities.


These can be new, man-made facilities, such as a hole in the ocean.

They have a lot of them in Switzerland where they make alpine lakes. It is
like having a gigantic cistern far up in a mountain. Quote:

Today there are 556 hydropower plants in Switzerland that each have a
capacity of at least 300 kilowatts, and these produce an average of around
35,830 gigawatt hours (GWh) per annum, 47% of which is produced in
run-of-river power plants, 49% in storage power plants and approximately 4%
in pumped storage power plants.

http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00490/00491/index.html?lang=en



  And the few that remain are not likely to be near the generation
 equipment.  Another major problem is that new dams destroy wild streams
 that are not too well protected.


You do not need a stream, although in some cases they use existing natural
streams. If the pumped storage lake is man-made, you stop the downhill flow
completely while pumping up, or while waiting on stand-by. You cannot stop
the flow in a natural hydroelectric plant. That would hurt the river
wildlife.

- Jed


Re: [Vo]: Heat Engines Simplified

2013-02-08 Thread David Roberson




-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Feb 8, 2013 1:06 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]: Heat Engines Simplified



 
 

From:David Roberson 
 


Always remember that energy is energy and that heat energy is justone of many 
types available.  Generally, there is a process that willconvert one form into 
another, and some are easier to work with than others. 
 
This is not accurate.There is “high grade energy” – such as electrical and 
“lowgrade energy” such as heat. 


You can give it additional names and that is ok, but it is still energy.  Show 
where the conservation of energy does not apply and I will agree.  Do you 
consider radiation as low grade energy?  If so, what is the criteria that you 
use to define it?


I am not trying to say that heat energy is easy to convert into other forms, 
but I suggest that this is possible in theory.  That is the purpose of my post. 
 I want to help others understand the basic principles and not concentrate upon 
the complexities that make the subject so difficult to understand.  Help me 
take the mystery out of the subject.


 
There are always lossesgoing from low-grade to high-grade, and only going the 
other way can losses beavoided, but often there are losses that way as well. 


Losses?  Where is the energy going that is lost?  You should state that it is 
difficult to convert heat into electricity directly or other types of energy 
you refer to as high-grade.  This does not mean that it is impossible.  If you 
know of why it is impossible, please indicate the theory that makes that true.  
All of the energy can be converted into radiation given enough time.  Do you 
accept that as true?  And again, what is the criteria used to define high-grade 
versus low-grade energy?
 
There are NO circumstanceswhere low grade energy can be converted to high 
grade energy withoutsubstantial losses. 


Nothing has actually been lost.  That is a bad term to use that helps to 
complicate the understanding of others.  Why not rephrase it to say something 
like:  Only a relatively small amount of the heat energy from a source can be 
extracted by most processes and converted into electrical energy of other non 
heat types.  The energy remains that is not converted, but becomes more 
difficult to convert since the temperature of the material containing this 
energy source is lowered.
 
With IR heat toelectricity – which is the extreme case, the losses are 
typically 95% andthey are not avoidable, so to reduce them to 75% would be 
miraculous –and in fact this has never been accomplished in practice.


Why bring up the practical issues when theory is being discussed?  The use of 
the words not avoidable is improper unless you know of a proven theory that 
makes this happen.  I assume you are aware that radio waves can be captured by 
the right antenna structures and most of the energy collected.  Light emitted 
by an atom can be absorbed completely by a second atom without loss of energy.  
I would expect that IR radiation can be treated in a similar fashion to these 
other members of the family.


So, what is practical and what is possible are two different things.  I am 
discussing what is possible to help others understand the principles involved.


Please follow up on your thoughts if you have scientific proofs to support 
them.   I would love to explore this subject in detail.
 
Jones


 


Re: [Vo]:nanocavities

2013-02-08 Thread pagnucco
Peter,

You may also be interested in the following paper on nanochannels -

CHANNELING, SUPERFOCUSING, AND NUCLEAR REACTIONS - Yu N. Demkov
http://144.206.159.178/FT/8304/558634/11919154.pdf

While it discusses the extreme focusing of ~1 MeV proton wave-functions,
perhaps particles/ions in micro-/nano-channels in zeolites,
nano-crevices, nanostructures, ..., experience more wave-function
focusing than expected - possibly increasing tunneling probability
by dramatically increasing overlap of channel particle wave-functions.

Peter Hagelstein recently noted that fusion probability is directly
related to wave-function overlap, and it is certainly responsible for
muon-catalyzed fusion, electron-capture, etc.

An excerpt from the paper:
... The radius of this focus can be in principle very small, less
than 10^#8722;2 nm. This looks fantastically small and is even less than
the thermal vibrational amplitude of a single atom in the lattice.
Such a possibility occurs because the geometrical position of the
channel relative to the lattice can be defined much better than the
position of a single atom in a lattice which can be estimated by the
amplitude of its thermal vibrations. This is also connected with the
long-range order within the lattice and with essential coupling of
this order with the channel. So we have a needle-like focusing area
where the flux density of particles increases hundreds and even thousand
times relative to the initial one outside of the lattice! Such an
unprecedented sharpness of the focusing peak allows us to call this
effect the super-focusing ...

-- Lou Pagnucco


Peter Gluck wrote:
 Can this:

 Nanoscopic Microcavities Offer Newfound Control in Light Filtering: Unique
 Nanostructure Produces Novel 'Plasmonic Halos':
 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130207150907.htm?goback=%2Egde_1807453_member_212276134
 be of any use/inspirtion for Ed Storms' LENR theory?

 Peter


 --
 Dr. Peter Gluck
 Cluj, Romania
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com





Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding

2013-02-08 Thread Jed Rothwell
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:


 We have three other companies claiming to have commercial generators of
 power. Each of these claims is based on dubious demonstrations. What is the
 Miley claim based on?


Not even a dubious demonstration, as far as I know. No demonstration at all.

Still, I say more power to him! Heck, fund him. It is a better bet than
ITER, or clean coal.

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding

2013-02-08 Thread Edmund Storms
The sarcasm is appreciated, Jed. But seriously, are we in the field  
free to propose money be spent on any claim regardless of its  
reality?  If so, how can anyone trust what we say about other claims  
or about the reality of LENR in general?  May a spokesman for CF  
support any idea regardless of its demonstrated lack of reality?


Ed
On Feb 8, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

We have three other companies claiming to have commercial generators  
of power. Each of these claims is based on dubious demonstrations.  
What is the Miley claim based on?


Not even a dubious demonstration, as far as I know. No demonstration  
at all.


Still, I say more power to him! Heck, fund him. It is a better bet  
than ITER, or clean coal.


- Jed





Re: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy

2013-02-08 Thread Eric Walker
On Feb 8, 2013, at 9:01, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 One big problem with this concept is that there are not many locations 
 available to place new facilities. 

I think this has been mentioned here before, but what about diverting the 
unneeded power to drive electrolysis and capture the hydrogen for later use in 
a generator that makes use of an internal combustion engine or is sold on the 
consumer market?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding

2013-02-08 Thread Jed Rothwell
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

The sarcasm is appreciated, Jed.


I am glad someone recognizes it as such.


But seriously, are we in the field free to propose money be spent on any
 claim regardless of its reality?  If so, how can anyone trust what we say
 about other claims or about the reality of LENR in general?


I gave these questions serious consideration. In the
recommendation field I selected a low level for viability. I went ahead
because this is merely an opportunity to pitch the idea at one of our
other Future Energy events in New York, Boston, and Silicon Valley. If
George wants to pitch, I say give him a chance. His ideas will have to
stand on their own merit. If he has no good data, he will be ignored.

It is not as if I am a member of a funding committee and I just handed him
$1 million for a project sight unseen. I'm only saying, give the man a
chance to present at a conference.  I sincerely believe that whatever he
has, it probably has more merit than ITER.

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding

2013-02-08 Thread Edmund Storms
Yes, by all means give George a chance to be heard. Nevertheless, I  
think that all proposals need to be treated with the same level of  
skepticism.  Rossi, for example, is required to PROVE his claims,  
which he has not done in many minds. I suggest George needs to do the  
same before we in the field give him our support to get the very small  
funds potentially available from the government.  The reviewers will  
examine the claims critically. If they discover that the claims do not  
meet conventional standards but were nevertheless advocated by many  
people in the field, this will not reflect well on our objectivity.


Ed


On Feb 8, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

The sarcasm is appreciated, Jed.

I am glad someone recognizes it as such.


But seriously, are we in the field free to propose money be spent on  
any claim regardless of its reality?  If so, how can anyone trust  
what we say about other claims or about the reality of LENR in  
general?


I gave these questions serious consideration. In the recommendation  
field I selected a low level for viability. I went ahead because  
this is merely an opportunity to pitch the idea at one of our  
other Future Energy events in New York, Boston, and Silicon Valley.  
If George wants to pitch, I say give him a chance. His ideas will  
have to stand on their own merit. If he has no good data, he will be  
ignored.


It is not as if I am a member of a funding committee and I just  
handed him $1 million for a project sight unseen. I'm only saying,  
give the man a chance to present at a conference.  I sincerely  
believe that whatever he has, it probably has more merit than ITER.


- Jed





Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding

2013-02-08 Thread James Bowery
Edmund, why not pitch your proposed research program so we can vote with a
clear conscience?

https://ultralight.wufoo.com/forms/future-energy-application-form/



On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

 Yes, by all means give George a chance to be heard. Nevertheless, I think
 that all proposals need to be treated with the same level of skepticism.
  Rossi, for example, is required to PROVE his claims, which he has not done
 in many minds. I suggest George needs to do the same before we in the field
 give him our support to get the very small funds potentially available from
 the government.  The reviewers will examine the claims critically. If they
 discover that the claims do not meet conventional standards but were
 nevertheless advocated by many people in the field, this will not reflect
 well on our objectivity.

 Ed



 On Feb 8, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

 The sarcasm is appreciated, Jed.


 I am glad someone recognizes it as such.


  But seriously, are we in the field free to propose money be spent on any
 claim regardless of its reality?  If so, how can anyone trust what we say
 about other claims or about the reality of LENR in general?


 I gave these questions serious consideration. In the
 recommendation field I selected a low level for viability. I went ahead
 because this is merely an opportunity to pitch the idea at one of our
 other Future Energy events in New York, Boston, and Silicon Valley. If
 George wants to pitch, I say give him a chance. His ideas will have to
 stand on their own merit. If he has no good data, he will be ignored.

 It is not as if I am a member of a funding committee and I just handed him
 $1 million for a project sight unseen. I'm only saying, give the man a
 chance to present at a conference.  I sincerely believe that whatever he
 has, it probably has more merit than ITER.

 - Jed





Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding

2013-02-08 Thread Edmund Storms
Good idea. However I think I have a better chance of getting support  
from private sources.  My only concern is how the field presents its  
claims to the world. This submission is one of the ways. I think it is  
useless as a source of funding but it is going to be noticed.  Many  
different ideas have been proposed and would like funding.  The Miley  
proposal is the only one we as a field can vote on, thereby showing  
our agreement that this is a worthy idea. My question is, Is this a  
worthy idea? How do we know?


Ed
On Feb 8, 2013, at 2:42 PM, James Bowery wrote:

Edmund, why not pitch your proposed research program so we can vote  
with a clear conscience?


https://ultralight.wufoo.com/forms/future-energy-application-form/



On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Yes, by all means give George a chance to be heard. Nevertheless, I  
think that all proposals need to be treated with the same level of  
skepticism.  Rossi, for example, is required to PROVE his claims,  
which he has not done in many minds. I suggest George needs to do  
the same before we in the field give him our support to get the very  
small funds potentially available from the government.  The  
reviewers will examine the claims critically. If they discover that  
the claims do not meet conventional standards but were nevertheless  
advocated by many people in the field, this will not reflect well on  
our objectivity.


Ed



On Feb 8, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

The sarcasm is appreciated, Jed.

I am glad someone recognizes it as such.


But seriously, are we in the field free to propose money be spent  
on any claim regardless of its reality?  If so, how can anyone  
trust what we say about other claims or about the reality of LENR  
in general?


I gave these questions serious consideration. In the recommendation  
field I selected a low level for viability. I went ahead because  
this is merely an opportunity to pitch the idea at one of our  
other Future Energy events in New York, Boston, and Silicon  
Valley. If George wants to pitch, I say give him a chance. His  
ideas will have to stand on their own merit. If he has no good  
data, he will be ignored.


It is not as if I am a member of a funding committee and I just  
handed him $1 million for a project sight unseen. I'm only saying,  
give the man a chance to present at a conference.  I sincerely  
believe that whatever he has, it probably has more merit than ITER.


- Jed








Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding

2013-02-08 Thread Jed Rothwell
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

Yes, by all means give George a chance to be heard. Nevertheless, I think
 that all proposals need to be treated with the same level of skepticism.
  Rossi, for example, is required to PROVE his claims, which he has not done
 in many minds.


If Rossi wants to join this Future Energy Campaign and pitch his ideas, I
will endorse him with as much enthusiasm than I felt for George Miley.
Maybe more. I would figure that if Rossi wants to speak, maybe he is also
willing to do a proper test and present credible information.

I would support any credible cold fusion scientist who signs up for this
opportunity. I do not believe many of the claims, but I figure they deserve
this as much as the other applicants do. Here are the others:

http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/



 I suggest George needs to do the same before we in the field give him our
 support to get the very small funds potentially available from the
 government.


It sure would be a good idea! I am 100% in favor of Miley doing the same
kind of public demonstrations as Rossi did, only without Rossi's idiotic
mistakes and what I assume is deliberate obfuscation.

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy

2013-02-08 Thread Jed Rothwell
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:


 I think this has been mentioned here before, but what about diverting the
 unneeded power to drive electrolysis and capture the hydrogen for later use
 in a generator that makes use of an internal combustion engine or is sold
 on the consumer market?


A fuel cell would be more efficient than an internal combustion engine or
gas turbine. There is ongoing research to develop that. I think at present
this is not as efficient as pumped hydro storage (70% to 85% -- as I
mentioned). It has the advantage that you can send the hydrogen by pipeline
and recombine it closer to a big city where they need the electricity. That
may have lower transmission losses than electric power lines do. Also pipes
are cheaper and take up less space than high voltage electric power lines.

Do a Google search for electrolysis energy storage and you find stuff
like this:

http://www.incoteco.com/upload/ENSFinalReport.pdf

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding

2013-02-08 Thread Alain Sepeda
I feel those relative skepticism a bit strange and unjustified.
If you read all the project they are mainstream but very risky/uncertain.
The project of Miley is not interesting because of LENR... it is the less
uncertain part, and if Miley cannot make his technology work he can ask
DGT, Rossi, Piantelli, celani, Brillouin... of course the problem will be
to manage the fee and the ego of each...

It is interesting because of usin TEG, and integrated fan cooling , to
build a home CHP

I'm always surprised how many people are so doubtful about the commercial
claims, while there are honest business evidences, corporate CV.
of course not absolutely solid, but nothing is rock-solid in innovation.

I am much more concerned about some mainstream technologies, based on
classic and known theories, but that will probably never be effective in
reality.

why do we put such a crazy level of evidence on LENR, while we are so loose
with evidences in usual technologies...

nothing is certain, but few facts are more certains than LENR, and few
bleeding edge technologies are validated by so much business evidences than
LENR.
not because it is easy, but because every body expect all in LENR to be
fraud, and if you see someone investing, communicating, in LENR, you know
that he is thousand times more careful than if investing in fashion
technology...

If I have to accuse some evidence to be loose, some technology to be
uncertain, I won't take LENR, and I won't put even Rossi as the first
candidate for risky business. Aldo Proia have reduced his risk position
with Prometeon.

loose business are very very popular... good theory, good models, trust,
consensus, and frauded evidences, with delusion and politically correct
collective denial.

the reason to vote for Miley, beside that he deserve a chance more than for
yet another useless fashion energy source, is that his project is different
from Rossi/DGT, and it can give a big momentum onto LENR technology...

today the LENr companies should not even be competing, but cooperating,
because there is more rooms for them than they can occupy for the next 5
years.

and about skepticsm we should more focus on fashion mainstream science.


Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding

2013-02-08 Thread Rob Dingemans

Hi,

On 8-2-2013 22:38, Edmund Storms wrote:
Yes, by all means give George a chance to be heard. Nevertheless, I 
think that all proposals need to be treated with the same level of 
skepticism. Rossi, for example, is required to PROVE his claims, which 
he has not done in many minds. I suggest George needs to do the same 
before we in the field give him our support to get the very small 
funds potentially available from the government. The reviewers will 
examine the claims critically. If they discover that the claims do not 
meet conventional standards but were nevertheless advocated by many 
people in the field, this will not reflect well on our objectivity.


I disagree, I think Andrea already did prove his claims. The problem is 
only that almost nobody seems to understand what is going on.


In my opinion it all has to do with the vibration with the right 
frequency of the Nickel granulate were the Hydrogen is flowing across.

Possibly the research of Frank Znidarsic can enlighten us.
Nobody was sofar able to look inside the vessel during operation (I 
think neither Andrea was able to see this), but could it no be true that 
a plasma is created due to the vibration?
And when this happens the hydrogen protons are most likely fused with 
the Nickel resulting in Copper and a massive amount of energy is 
released and therefore the process is also partially self-sustaining.
This also explains why Andrea had no other option than to downsize the 
first reactor vessels to the current modular smaller size, to keep it 
controllable.
Otherwise you might get a reactor vessel that in the very long run could 
end up with temperatures as high as inside the Sun!
And besides what about the equipment that Andrea had operational but 
didn't focus on during the presentations that generated the obscure 
frequencies?


In principle this is in my opinion the same mechanism that causes hot 
fusion to take place.
As the heat itself results in energy and a high frequency and therefore 
keeps the process self-sustaining as long as sufficient source-material 
is available.


It would probably be much better for the ITER project to focus on the 
frequency of the plasma instead of the temperature.


Kind regards,

Rob

Energy Ξ Communication




Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding

2013-02-08 Thread Edmund Storms


On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:42 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote:


Hi,

On 8-2-2013 22:38, Edmund Storms wrote:
Yes, by all means give George a chance to be heard. Nevertheless, I  
think that all proposals need to be treated with the same level of  
skepticism. Rossi, for example, is required to PROVE his claims,  
which he has not done in many minds. I suggest George needs to do  
the same before we in the field give him our support to get the  
very small funds potentially available from the government. The  
reviewers will examine the claims critically. If they discover that  
the claims do not meet conventional standards but were nevertheless  
advocated by many people in the field, this will not reflect well  
on our objectivity.


I disagree, I think Andrea already did prove his claims. The problem  
is only that almost nobody seems to understand what is going on.


So Rob, you think Andre has proven his claims in many minds. You say  
that you believe him, but I do not get the impression that this is the  
general opinion. In my case, I think he has shown that he can make  
excess energy on occasion, but that does not seem to be a general  
opinion.


In my opinion it all has to do with the vibration with the right  
frequency of the Nickel granulate were the Hydrogen is flowing across.

Possibly the research of Frank Znidarsic can enlighten us.
Nobody was sofar able to look inside the vessel during operation (I  
think neither Andrea was able to see this), but could it no be true  
that a plasma is created due to the vibration?
And when this happens the hydrogen protons are most likely fused  
with the Nickel resulting in Copper and a massive amount of energy  
is released and therefore the process is also partially self- 
sustaining.
This also explains why Andrea had no other option than to downsize  
the first reactor vessels to the current modular smaller size, to  
keep it controllable.
Otherwise you might get a reactor vessel that in the very long run  
could end up with temperatures as high as inside the Sun!
And besides what about the equipment that Andrea had operational but  
didn't focus on during the presentations that generated the obscure  
frequencies?


The issue here is not what causes the reaction, but whether the claims  
for a commercial product are justified.  The Miley claim, which  
started this discussion, is based on a commercial generator of heat.   
The question was whether anyone should believe and support this claim.


In principle this is in my opinion the same mechanism that causes  
hot fusion to take place.


This conclusion is not justified by what is observed.  I suggest you  
read my paper where this issue is discussed.



As the heat itself results in energy and a high frequency and  
therefore keeps the process self-sustaining as long as sufficient  
source-material is available.


It would probably be much better for the ITER project to focus on  
the frequency of the plasma instead of the temperature.


How do you propose the frequency be measured?  It's the temperature  
that produces a useful result, so why ignore it?


Regards,

Ed


Kind regards,

Rob

Energy Ξ Communication






Re: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy - electrolysis

2013-02-08 Thread David L Babcock

On 2/8/2013 5:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

I think this has been mentioned here before, but what about
diverting the unneeded power to drive electrolysis and capture the
hydrogen for later use in a generator that makes use of an
internal combustion engine or is sold on the consumer market?


A fuel cell would be more efficient than an internal combustion engine 
or gas turbine. There is ongoing research to develop that. I think at 
present this is not as efficient as pumped hydro storage (70% to 85% 
-- as I mentioned). It has the advantage that you can send the 
hydrogen by pipeline and recombine it closer to a big city where they 
need the electricity. That may have lower transmission losses than 
electric power lines do. Also pipes are cheaper and take up less space 
than high voltage electric power lines.


Do a Google search for electrolysis energy storage and you find 
stuff like this:


http://www.incoteco.com/upload/ENSFinalReport.pdf

- Jed


I read most of ENS Final Report and extracted some tidbits:

Electrolysis ranges from ~75% efficient for LV hydrogen to ~85% for 
HV hydrogen.  I did not wade in deeper to dope that out.  So, it's 
similar to pumped hydro, except that the efficiency of the fuel cell 
must be multiplied in.


The cost-to-implement in Denmark, 2008, was high, needing total relief 
from their 80% motor fuel taxes, to even consider. (Proposal was for 
hydrogen depots for vehicles.)


The Europeans (and us merikans I suppose) price their electricity 
minute-by-minute when figuring which utility owes what when the sun 
hides but the winds pick up.  This often results in a zero cost/MWHr, 
which is Important to Avoid.


If you inject hydrogen into the intake of a working Diesel engine (and 
adjust fuel/air ratio as required), it will slow down.  Engine has to 
reworked to deal with the low power-to-volumn of hydrogen.


Yours,
Dave B.


[Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

2013-02-08 Thread Kevin O'Malley
Hello Vorts:
See below for confirmation from YE Kim that the formation of a BEC at room
temperature gives his LENR theory a leg up.






Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
1:22 PM (4 hours ago)
to yekim, ayandas, pkb
Hello Dr. Kim. I left you a voicemail regarding this. Does the formation of
a BEC at room temperature make your theory of Deuteron Fusion more viable?
Wasn't the main criticism of your theory that BECs couldn't form at higher
temperatures?
 Y. E. Kim, Bose-Einstein Condensate Theory of Deuteron Fusion in Metal,
J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. *4*, 188 (2011),
best regards,
Kevin O'Malley
  408%20460%205707
--

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/29/1210842110

Polariton Bose–Einstein condensate at room temperature in an Al(Ga)N
nanowire–dielectric microcavity with a spatial potential trap

Ayan Dasa,1,
Pallab Bhattacharyaa,1,
Junseok Heoa,
Animesh Banerjeea, and
Wei Guob

Author Affiliations

Edited by Paul L. McEuen, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and approved
December 21, 2012 (received for review June 28, 2012)

Abstract

A spatial potential trap is formed in a 6.0-μm Al(Ga)N nanowire by varying
the Al composition along its length during epitaxial growth. The polariton
emission characteristics of a dielectric microcavity with the single
nanowire embedded in-plane have been studied at room temperature.
Excitation is provided at the Al(Ga)N end of the nanowire, and polariton
emission is observed from the lowest bandgap GaN region within the
potential trap. Comparison of the results with those measured in an
identical microcavity with a uniform GaN nanowire and having an identical
exciton–photon detuning suggests evaporative cooling of the polaritons as
they are transported into the trap in the Al(Ga)N nanowire. Measurement of
the spectral characteristics of the polariton emission, their momentum
distribution, first-order spatial coherence, and time-resolved measurements
of polariton cooling provides strong evidence of the formation of a
near-equilibrium Bose–Einstein condensate in the GaN region of the nanowire
at room temperature. In contrast, the condensate formed in the uniform GaN
nanowire–dielectric microcavity without the spatial potential trap is only
in self-equilibrium.

Bose–Einstein condensation
exciton–polariton
Footnotes
1To whom correspondence may be addressed.
E-mail: ayan...@umich.edu or p...@umich.edu.



Author contributions: A.D. and P.B. designed research; A.D. and J.H.
performed research; J.H., A.B., and W.G. contributed new reagents/analytic
tools; A.D. analyzed data; and P.B. wrote the paper.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

This article contains supporting information online at
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.
1210842110/-/DCSupplemental.

Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.
Reply
Reply to all
Forward
Kim, Yeong E
5:24 PM (32 minutes ago)
to me, ayandas, pkb

Hi, Kevin,

Yes, the formation of a BEC of deuterons (or other Bose nuclei) makes my
theory more viable.

** **

The claim, made by some that BECs could not form at room temperatures, was
based on an inconclusive conjecture

which assumes that the Maxwell-Boltzmann (MB ) velocity distribution
applies for deuterons in a metal.

This conjecture was not based on any theories nor on any experimentally
observed facts.

The MB velocity distribution is for an ideal gas containing non-interacting
particles.

There are no justifications to assume the MB velocity distribution for
deuterons in a metal.

The published paper by Dasa, et al. quoted below indicates that the
conjecture is not justified.

** **

I have stated at seminars and conferences (in the proceedings) that



“The BEC formation of deuterons in metal at room temperatures depends on
the velocity distribution

of deuterons in metal at room temperatures. The velocity distribution of
deuterons in metal has not

determined by theories nor by experiments and is not expected to be the MB
distribution”

** **

The published paper by Dasa, et al. supports the above statement.

Yeong

** **

*keSent:* Friday, February 08, 2013 4:22 PM
*To:* Kim, Yeong E
*Cc:* ayan...@umich.edu; p...@umich.edu
*Subject:* Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature


Re: [Vo]:nanocavities

2013-02-08 Thread Eric Walker
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:08 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

While it discusses the extreme focusing of ~1 MeV proton wave-functions,
 perhaps particles/ions in micro-/nano-channels in zeolites,
 nano-crevices, nanostructures, ..., experience more wave-function
 focusing than expected - possibly increasing tunneling probability
 by dramatically increasing overlap of channel particle wave-functions.


Ron Maimon was getting at a similar idea by having two deuterons meet near
a palladium spectator nucleus, at the classical turning point where the
strength of the positive charge of the palladium nucleus would push the
positively charged deuterons back out again.  With 20 keV of initial
kinetic energy, the deuterons would penetrate the electron shells as far as
the K shell before turning around again.  At the turning point their de
Broglie waves would be enhanced,, or, presumably, focused, and as a
result overlap and tunneling would be more likely.

Several significant difficulties with this approach were raised which have
not yet been brought to Ron's attention.  Presumably he would set us
straight on what I misunderstood of what he was saying.

Eric


Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

2013-02-08 Thread Chuck Sites
Its great to read Kim's reply.  I;ve followed Dr. YE Kim's work for years
along with the Scott and Talbot Chubbs.   I was convinced years ago, that
the only mechanism that would work for cold fusion was a BEC.  A
Bose Einstein Condensate.  It's a known physics fact that particles that
enter the BEC state form a single quantum state, and become something that
is just best described as weird.  The actual matter wave (the De Broglie
wave) that describes matter at the smallest scales, overlaps.  When you
have overlapping waveforms of a particle that has an attractive nuclear
 potential, they just snap together within very well defined probabilities.
  It's the particles waveform overlap that will induce fusion.

What Kim shows is that within solids metals, deuterium ions screened and
charge neutralized by the metals electron sea, can condense and form a BEC.
 When deuterium is in a BEC state there is probability that the deuteriums
will interact via strong interactions. Dr. Kim has suggest two things of
interest.  First, that condensation could happen in a hydrated metal and
the rules that describe the quantum overlap are modified my the metals
electronic environment.   In YE Kim's theory, it only takes 10-100
Deuterium ions to make a BEC within a metal.  And the number of ions in the
BEC glob is temperature relative.

I think Kim's theory is pretty convincing with deuterium in metals,  What
has been difficult for me is explaining the Hydrogen in metal systems.  The
problem being that H-ion is a fermion quantum 1/2 spin state, and is forced
to follow the Pauli exclusion principle and so will never have an
overlapping waveforms or the potential for strong interactions between
protons.

Perhaps a pair of H ions waveforms interacting with W/Z's might flip enough
to the Proton-Proton chain.  As it is now, I really struggle to understand
how H in a metal creates excess heat.

Best Regards,
Chuck



s
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hello Vorts:
 See below for confirmation from YE Kim that the formation of a BEC at room
 temperature gives his LENR theory a leg up.






 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
 1:22 PM (4 hours ago)
  to yekim, ayandas, pkb
 Hello Dr. Kim. I left you a voicemail regarding this. Does the formation
 of a BEC at room temperature make your theory of Deuteron Fusion more
 viable? Wasn't the main criticism of your theory that BECs couldn't form at
 higher temperatures?
  Y. E. Kim, Bose-Einstein Condensate Theory of Deuteron Fusion in
 Metal, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. *4*, 188 (2011),
 best regards,
  Kevin O'Malley
   408%20460%205707

 --

 http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/29/1210842110

 Polariton Bose–Einstein condensate at room temperature in an Al(Ga)N
 nanowire–dielectric microcavity with a spatial potential trap

 Ayan Dasa,1,
 Pallab Bhattacharyaa,1,
 Junseok Heoa,
 Animesh Banerjeea, and
 Wei Guob

 Author Affiliations

 Edited by Paul L. McEuen, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and approved
 December 21, 2012 (received for review June 28, 2012)

 Abstract

 A spatial potential trap is formed in a 6.0-μm Al(Ga)N nanowire by varying
 the Al composition along its length during epitaxial growth. The polariton
 emission characteristics of a dielectric microcavity with the single
 nanowire embedded in-plane have been studied at room temperature.
 Excitation is provided at the Al(Ga)N end of the nanowire, and polariton
 emission is observed from the lowest bandgap GaN region within the
 potential trap. Comparison of the results with those measured in an
 identical microcavity with a uniform GaN nanowire and having an identical
 exciton–photon detuning suggests evaporative cooling of the polaritons as
 they are transported into the trap in the Al(Ga)N nanowire. Measurement of
 the spectral characteristics of the polariton emission, their momentum
 distribution, first-order spatial coherence, and time-resolved measurements
 of polariton cooling provides strong evidence of the formation of a
 near-equilibrium Bose–Einstein condensate in the GaN region of the nanowire
 at room temperature. In contrast, the condensate formed in the uniform GaN
 nanowire–dielectric microcavity without the spatial potential trap is only
 in self-equilibrium.

 Bose–Einstein condensation
 exciton–polariton
 Footnotes
 1To whom correspondence may be addressed.
 E-mail: ayan...@umich.edu or p...@umich.edu.



 Author contributions: A.D. and P.B. designed research; A.D. and J.H.
 performed research; J.H., A.B., and W.G. contributed new reagents/analytic
 tools; A.D. analyzed data; and P.B. wrote the paper.

 The authors declare no conflict of interest.

 This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

 This article contains supporting information online at
 http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.
 1210842110/-/DCSupplemental.

 Freely available online through the 

Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming

2013-02-08 Thread Chuck Sites
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote:

 Heartland is funded by Koch, and other deep pocket anonymous donors.


 I have to give them some credit -- tactically speaking, they are quite
 effective at mobilizing public opinion.

 Eric

 Isn't that the truth,  For a few million bucks you too can turn an orange
into a turnip. That is pretty much the gist of it. That is the purpose of
propaganda when used as a weapon.

Best Regards,
Chuck