Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Daniel Rocha]

Actually, this is something I noticed in arxiv, pre prints of people
outside theoretical physics, have the appearance of being done in word
processors. They are later edited to the final form in journals.


2013/5/22 Eric Walker 

> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Michele Comitini <
> michele.comit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The following argument is complete nonsense and stops me from reading the
>> full article.  No one, unless writing a book that requires complex
>> mathematical notation is so foul to use TeX instead of LaTeX.  If one does
>> it means that he spends more time studying TeX than doing his homework.
>>  This is a  (even if fundamental) report not a mathematical essay so using
>> a wysiwyg word processor suffice.
>>
>
> I think this argument is a good one.  It suggests that the authors have
> not prepared the paper for submission to a physics journal; or, that, at
> any rate, it is not far along in the process.  Lubos Motl does not appear
> to be drawing a distinction between TeX and LaTeX; he is drawing a
> distinction between TeX/LaTeX, on one hand, and a simple PDF typed up in a
> normal word processor, on the other.  Presumably the former would be the
> expected form of submission to a mainstream physics journal.  This is one
> of the details that makes me think there is no intention to submit for
> publication.
>
> Eric
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Michele Comitini <
michele.comit...@gmail.com> wrote:

The following argument is complete nonsense and stops me from reading the
> full article.  No one, unless writing a book that requires complex
> mathematical notation is so foul to use TeX instead of LaTeX.  If one does
> it means that he spends more time studying TeX than doing his homework.
>  This is a  (even if fundamental) report not a mathematical essay so using
> a wysiwyg word processor suffice.
>

I think this argument is a good one.  It suggests that the authors have not
prepared the paper for submission to a physics journal; or, that, at any
rate, it is not far along in the process.  Lubos Motl does not appear to be
drawing a distinction between TeX and LaTeX; he is drawing a distinction
between TeX/LaTeX, on one hand, and a simple PDF typed up in a normal word
processor, on the other.  Presumably the former would be the expected form
of submission to a mainstream physics journal.  This is one of the details
that makes me think there is no intention to submit for publication.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Andrew" 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:34:42 PM
> 
> 
> If we're going all Bayesian on this, we'd need to calculate some
> priors. It's my impression that generally speaking it's not easy to
> bribe a high-ranking scientist, and not easy to bribe Swedish
> people, so as far as bribing a high-ranking Swedish scientist, I'm
> going to say "not very likely" :). That takes care of #1.

You wants your Bayesian, we got 'em :

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Axil Axil]

Joe Hughes said:

Also I always enjoyed reading Dr. Kim's papers on lenr and i think these
tests make some of those theories less plausible,


Axil asks:

What are your reasons for thinking this way?


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Joe Hughes  wrote:

> Two things that confuse me about the two tests.
> First, they both utilized completely different power sources that were
> supposedly part of his trade secret. the supply during the first test was a
> three phase supply but the second one was a single phase output supply. Is
> it practical that for the power to be so critical to this device for him to
> be able to switch power inputs so easily or is the power not important and
> this is just Rossi trying to distract folks from the real magic in his
> system? Second, Rossi is incredibly paranoid and for good reason i might
> add, so was their something the first test showed that he was concerned
> about which caused him to 'paint' the second ecat to hide something? I'm
> hypothesizing that the uneven paint job was an afterthought to hide
> something and not prepared purposefully like that.
>
> Also why did he agree to the test now? Is he comfortable enough in his
> progress in the design and with his partners now that he is willing to
> begin sharing with others or is it some form of misdirection play on his
> part?
>
> Also I always enjoyed reading Dr. Kim's papers on lenr and i think these
> tests make some of those theories less plausible, however would love to
> read his comments on the tests. i don't believe he has ever posted on here.
>
>
>
> Andrew  wrote:
>
> The remaining "output hoax" possibility is beamed RF into the "antenna
> resistors". Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around
> in the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the
> input side is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box
> there - the waveform generator - that's off limits.
>
> Andrew
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* David Roberson 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
> You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers.  Can you
> imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path
> radiation caused serious injuries?  This is far outside the realm of
> reality.
>
> The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be
> set aside with the proper scrutiny.
>
> Dave
>  -Original Message-
> From: Andrew 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
>  Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly
> coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know.
>
> If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.
>
> Andrew
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* David Roberson 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
> And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they
> were all blinded by the high power IR.  Give me a break.
>
> Dave
>  -Original Message-
> From: Terry Blanton 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
> Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.
>
> Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.
>
> Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
> create spot heating of the test device.
>
> :-)
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

If we're going all Bayesian on this, we'd need to calculate some priors. It's 
my impression that generally speaking it's not easy to bribe a high-ranking 
scientist, and not easy to bribe Swedish people, so as far as bribing a 
high-ranking Swedish scientist, I'm going to say "not very likely" :). That 
takes care of #1.

Rossi did not have a direct hand in this testing, but indirectly he did, via 
his pal Professor Levi, who was on-site at Rossi's facility where the testing 
was performed. There were some off-limit constraints on the operation of the 
tests. What precisely these were is not entirely clear. So #2 should read 
"Rossi and close associates" really. 

#3 is ridiculous I think. I don't see much evidence of incompetency in general.

#5 might be "Aliens/The Illuminati/The Secret Government made him do it" but I 
didn't say that. And never would, actually.

I think it's between #2 (modified) and #4.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Eric Walker 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:20 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:


I'm still somewhat skeptical about the whole thing simply because there are 
too many unknowns but the arguments that it is just a hoax are getting harder 
to believe ... it would have to be the biggest, most elaborate hoax in science 
history and would require a lot of people to keep it going and they'd have to 
keep quiet.


  Putting my lateral thinking cap on, I see these four possibilities:
1.. Rossi and the "third-party" testers are in cahoots, and we have been 
punked. 
2.. Rossi, like the Amazing Randi, has pulled off a fantastic magic trick 
and fooled everyone, including the authors of the recent paper.
3.. Rossi and all involved in the testing are unqualified, and what was 
seen was powered solely by the input power, resulting in a COP <1, and the 
observations and conclusions were inaccurate and flawed. 
4.. Rossi is operating something that probably has at least ~2.6+ COP.
  Anyone care to attempt to calculate the conditional probabilities of each of 
these four scenarios, given that we know the affiliations of the people 
involved in the testing?  For the lateral thinkers out there -- is there a 
fifth or sixth possibility that has not been mentioned?  It seems to me that 
(1) is vanishingly small, and (2) and (3) seem far-fetched, although not as 
much as (1).


  Eric

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:

I'm still somewhat skeptical about the whole thing simply because there are
> too many unknowns but the arguments that it is just a hoax are getting
> harder to believe ... it would have to be the biggest, most elaborate hoax
> in science history and would require a lot of people to keep it going and
> they'd have to keep quiet.
>

Putting my lateral thinking cap on, I see these four possibilities:

   1. Rossi and the "third-party" testers are in cahoots, and we have been
   punked.
   2. Rossi, like the Amazing Randi, has pulled off a fantastic magic trick
   and fooled everyone, including the authors of the recent paper.
   3. Rossi and all involved in the testing are unqualified, and what was
   seen was powered solely by the input power, resulting in a COP <1, and the
   observations and conclusions were inaccurate and flawed.
   4. Rossi is operating something that probably has at least ~2.6+ COP.

Anyone care to attempt to calculate the conditional probabilities of each
of these four scenarios, given that we know the affiliations of the people
involved in the testing?  For the lateral thinkers out there -- is there a
fifth or sixth possibility that has not been mentioned?  It seems to me
that (1) is vanishingly small, and (2) and (3) seem far-fetched, although
not as much as (1).

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

My sense is that Rossi forbade them using a scope on the power feed in order to 
"protect proprietary drive waveform information". I really need to re-read that 
paper now. If they were only allowed to use this power meter, all sorts of 
shenanigans might be possible. Only theoretically of course :)

Andrew


- Original Message - 
From: "Alan Fletcher" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


> User manual is at : 
> http://www.industrial-needs.com/manual/power-anlayser-pce-830.pdf
> Again, no mention of DC.
> 
> - Original Message -
>> > From: "Mark Jurich" 
>> > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:15:19 PM
>> > 
>> > FYI  (To anyone):
>> > 
>> > Here's a link to Info on the PCE Instruments PCE-830-1 Power
>> > Analyzer
>>  
>> > http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/power-analyzer-pce-holding-gmbh-power-analyzer-pce-830-1-det_60706.htm
>> 
>> 
>> Oh-oh  no mention of DC at all. That Bryce fellow is going to
>> have a field day!
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Alan Fletcher]

User manual is at : 
http://www.industrial-needs.com/manual/power-anlayser-pce-830.pdf
Again, no mention of DC.

- Original Message -
> > From: "Mark Jurich" 
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:15:19 PM
> > 
> > FYI  (To anyone):
> > 
> > Here's a link to Info on the PCE Instruments PCE-830-1 Power
> > Analyzer
>  
> > http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/power-analyzer-pce-holding-gmbh-power-analyzer-pce-830-1-det_60706.htm
> 
> 
> Oh-oh  no mention of DC at all. That Bryce fellow is going to
> have a field day!

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

Daniel Rocha wrote:
They tested a dummy device, that is, an empty reactor, which showed a 
supposedly correct IR emission. The input was the same.

and this is important here. I'm not done thinking about this. Let's say that 
there's a covert HF power feed, for example. For Daniel's statement to make 
sense simultaneously in this case, somebody would need to creep about and flip 
a secret switch. That's too rich a conspiracy for my blood.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:32 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  The meter appears to have important limitations.  We need to see data showing 
the actual input waveform in real time in order to be confident that the 
measurements are accurate.  I assume that the scientists performed this test 
during their evaluation.

  Dave
  -Original Message-
  From: Alan Fletcher 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 11:22 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


> From: "Mark Jurich" 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:15:19 PM
> 
> FYI  (To anyone):
> 
> Here's a link to Info on the PCE Instruments PCE-830-1 Power Analyzer
 
> http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/power-analyzer-pce-holding-gmbh-power-analyzer-pce-830-1-det_60706.htm


Oh-oh  no mention of DC at all. That Bryce fellow is going to have a field 
day!

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[David Roberson]

The meter appears to have important limitations.  We need to see data showing 
the actual input waveform in real time in order to be confident that the 
measurements are accurate.  I assume that the scientists performed this test 
during their evaluation.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 11:22 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


> From: "Mark Jurich" 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:15:19 PM
> 
> FYI  (To anyone):
> 
> Here's a link to Info on the PCE Instruments PCE-830-1 Power Analyzer
 
> http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/power-analyzer-pce-holding-gmbh-power-analyzer-pce-830-1-det_60706.htm


Oh-oh  no mention of DC at all. That Bryce fellow is going to have a field 
day!


 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

Interesting. To quote from the spec
  Frequency range in automatic mode
 45 to 65Hz / 0.1Hz / 0.1Hz
 

The frequency characteristics of the probes is unknown, but presumably they 
match this roughly.

Andrew

- Original Message - 
From: "Mark Jurich" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:15 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


> FYI  (To anyone):
> 
> Here's a link to Info on the PCE Instruments PCE-830-1 Power Analyzer :
> 
> http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/power-analyzer-pce-holding-gmbh-power-analyzer-pce-830-1-det_60706.htm
> 
> - Mark 
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Mark Jurich" 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:15:19 PM
> 
> FYI  (To anyone):
> 
> Here's a link to Info on the PCE Instruments PCE-830-1 Power Analyzer
 
> http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/power-analyzer-pce-holding-gmbh-power-analyzer-pce-830-1-det_60706.htm


Oh-oh  no mention of DC at all. That Bryce fellow is going to have a field 
day!

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[David Roberson]

Joe,

As time advances Rossi is improving his design.  He has made marvelous progress 
during the last couple of years and I hope that we can convince him to begin 
production of a useful device soon.  It is reasonable to assume that the drive 
system can be of a single phase which is less complicated to implement than a 
three phase one.  He may have determined that it will be easier to supply the 
drive requirements for a number of connected modules in this new configuration 
and that might be the reason for the change.  We will have to wait for that 
information.

I suspect that the final system that holds Rossi's ECATs will have a coolant 
flowing to remove the internally generated heat instead of radiating it as for 
this test.  A coating may not be required for the normal operation but must be 
used for this test to keep operation within reasonable limits.  His decision to 
allow this test no doubt forces him to do things that he does not do in the 
final product.  An example would be the temperature of the outer surface which 
will be held to around 300 C in his system but in this test is much hotter.  
This temperature variation will have a large impact upon stable operation with 
drive further complicating these tests.

It is about time for him to allow the third party testing!  The good news is 
that this suggests that he feels that his design is close to final.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Joe Hughes 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 10:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Two things that confuse me about the two tests.
First,  they both utilized completely different power sources that were 
supposedly part of his trade secret. the supply during the first test was a 
three phase supply but the second one was a single phase output supply. Is it 
practical that for the power to be so critical to this device for him to be 
able to switch power inputs so easily or is the power not important and this is 
just Rossi trying to distract folks from the real magic in his system? Second, 
Rossi is incredibly paranoid and for good reason i might add, so was their 
something the first test showed that he was concerned about which caused him to 
'paint' the second ecat to hide something? I'm hypothesizing that the uneven 
paint job was an afterthought to hide something and not prepared purposefully 
like that. 

Also why did he agree to the test now? Is he comfortable enough in his progress 
in the design and with his partners now that he is willing to begin sharing 
with others or is it some form of misdirection play on his part?

Also I always enjoyed reading Dr. Kim's papers on lenr and i think these tests 
make some of those theories less plausible, however would love to read his 
comments on the tests. i don't believe he has ever posted on here. 



Andrew  wrote:


The remaining "output hoax" possibility is beamed RF into the "antenna 
resistors". Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around in 
the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the input side 
is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box there - the 
waveform generator - that's off limits.
 
Andrew
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   David   Roberson 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a   gem
  


  
You definitely should drop any reference   to powerful lasers.  Can you imagine 
the liability that Rossi would face   when reflections or direct path radiation 
caused serious injuries?  This   is far outside the realm of reality.
  
 
  
The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can   be 
set aside with the proper scrutiny.
  
 
  
Dave
  
  
  
-Original   Message-
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l   
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
Subject: Re:   [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

  
  
  
Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly   
coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. 
  
 
  
If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.
  
 
  
Andrew
  

- Original Message - 

From: David Roberson 

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem




And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they 
were all blinded by the high power IR.  Give me a break.

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.

Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.

Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
create spot heating of the test device.

:-)

[Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Mark Jurich]

FYI  (To anyone):

Here's a link to Info on the PCE Instruments PCE-830-1 Power Analyzer :

http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/power-analyzer-pce-holding-gmbh-power-analyzer-pce-830-1-det_60706.htm

- Mark 

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Joe Hughes" 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:45:55 PM
> 
> Two things that confuse me about the two tests.
>  Second, Rossi
> is incredibly paranoid and for good reason i might add, so was their
> something the first test showed that he was concerned about which
> caused him to 'paint' the second ecat to hide something? I'm
> hypothesizing that the uneven paint job was an afterthought to hide
> something and not prepared purposefully like that.

He knew in advance that they were going to do radiometric calorimetry, and he 
knew what temperature range they were going to use. So he painted it with an 
appropriate substance to have a high emitivity (or whatever).

The first four tests-- two described by Penon,  plus the November and December 
tests -- were all high temperature, so they were all painted the same.

RE: [Vo]:[Vo] substitutes?

[DJ Cravens]

no Ni H data   well not from gas but you might want to look up the CETI 
data.
George Miley did an analysis on some of that data.  Recall the outer layer was 
Ni 
or Ni with a slight Pd overcoat.
 
Dennis

 
From: eric.wal...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 19:43:44 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] substitutes?
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM, David Roberson  wrote:



It appears that you would like to see an experiment where the mix of D to P is 
adjusted.  Have you seen any correlation in the data from earlier tests that 
support the idea that a 50/50 mix would be the most active?



When it comes to Ni/H, I have almost no data to work with -- just a reaction 
that will not produce gammas (assuming it can even proceed).  I do not know 
what Rossi has said on the topic, and I take Bob's word that Rossi has said 
that more D2 did not improve things.


Here are some interesting thoughts to add, though:This reaction does not 
produce 4He, which to my knowledge has only been seen with Pd/D and not with 
Ni/H.

In hot fusion, I believe p+d will proceed preferentially over d+d.I do not 
necessarily think a ratio different from the natural one (1 D2 per ~6000 H2) 
would be more efficient -- there may be something about d clogging things up in 
the environment that would decrease the rate of reaction if there were more of 
it, although this is a parameter that could be fiddled with. So a ratio of 1:1 
for d/p might work out or it might mess things up.

As I mentioned earlier, without some kind of recharging, the d in this scenario 
would be consumed and any reaction would peter out.I like this reaction more as 
the source of heat than one involving Ni+p and a specific isotope of Ni (or 
hydrinos, or hydrotons) simply because it sounds vaguely more plausible, and 
because it dovetails nicely with my favorite hypothesis for Pd/D, which is the 
d+d+Pd→4He+Pd reaction I'm always looking into.  That is to say there is a 
mechanism for triggering the reaction (Auger-like kicking of the protons and 
deuterons when an x-ray comes in from the environment and scatters on an inner 
shell Nickel electron). So my reasons for liking this reaction are not very 
profound.


Eric
  

[Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Mark Jurich]

FYI  (To anyone):

Here's a link to Info on the Optris PI160 Thermal Imager:

  http://www.optris.com/thermal-imager-pi160

- Mark

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Andrew" 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:07:19 PM
> Dave,
> 
> Good call on the metal screening. I'll tell Harry to call off the
> mutant and ill-tempered sea bass :)
> 
> I started out this morning very gung-ho about it all, and as the day
> has progressed, and I read more peripheral material, I ended up with
> more open questions than answers. I think of myself as open-minded
> but strongly analytic too.
> I couldn't put a number on how convinced I am. It's not 0% and
> neither is it 100%. Let's say I'm 50/50 for now. The fence is
> uncomfortable, but at least a path to the resolution of open issues
> appears to exist. I can't say fairer than that. If I have an agenda,
> I'd describe it as the fervent desire for this thing to work!
> 
> Best, Andrew

Although it would be wonderful if every experiment checked for everything, but 
in the series of tests (or demonstrations as the wiki police call them), almost 
every possible fake has been checked in at least ONE experiment.

So in a sense the elimination of fakes is cumulative. In the very first test 
they weren't allowed to look into the control bx. In later tests they were, and 
no we seem to be back to secret. (They should at least have measured and/or 
weighed it).

For another example, look at my experiment/equipment table :
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_eai_table_v4.php

In the April 19 test they DID check for RF : Bianchini checked for 
electromagnetic fields from 5 Hz to 3 GHz.

With the exception of two cases, the testers were allowed and encouraged to 
bring their own equipment, or they were free to borrow Rossi's, and to do a 
basic calibration. (eg weighing the fat-cat they used a bathroom scale, and 
checked it by having two people check their weights. Probably good enough to 10 
/ 180 lbs, and establishes that it's moving freely)

The two excepted cases are : 

a) No SPECTRAL radiation detectors
b) For the heat-exchanger test Rossi pre-fixed the thermocouples and didn't 
allow testers to bring their own.
   (A fatal error to that experiment  --- and with the plumber and his toolbag 
-- which Krivit scorned -- 
could have been done in half an hour).

So for any particular test Rossi has to guess WHICH fake he can use. "My gosh 
-- they're sweeping for RF fields, so I'll have to turn THAT off. Just as well 
I've still got the spot laser rigged up!" ... "Oh dear, they're going to 
measure the current on ALL the leads, so I've got to us the " etc etc.

Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved

[Edmund Storms]

Robin, you are making an assumption here. You are assuming that no  
energy has been lost before the neutrino is emitted and the electron  
is absorbed. Suppose, as I have proposed, the energy  is lost as a  
series of photons before the electron is added so that no energy  
remains to be carried by the neutrino. Cold fusion is unique because  
it requires this kind of process, i.e. the energy must be lost before  
the fusion process is complete. In contrast, hot fission occurs when  
all energy is lost at the time fusion is complete.  That is the  
essential difference between the two phenomenon.  You need to read my  
papers to see how CF must work to be consistent with what has  been  
observed.  The process can only be properly understood by considering  
all aspects of the process, not just this one event.


Ed Storms



On May 21, 2013, at 8:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Tue, 21 May 2013 18:28:19  
-0600:

Hi,
[snip]

However, if protium was fusing into deuterium, which is an
extremely rare reaction to begin with, there should be gamma
radiation.


There is no gamma radiation from the p-e-p reaction (as distinct  
from the p-p
reaction). The energy disappears with the neutrino. Therefore  
*effectively* this

reaction produces no energy.
However useful energy would be released from subsequent fusion  
reactions

involving the D formed in the p-e-p reaction.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Joe Hughes]

Two things that confuse me about the two tests.
First,  they both utilized completely different power sources that were 
supposedly part of his trade secret. the supply during the first test was a 
three phase supply but the second one was a single phase output supply. Is it 
practical that for the power to be so critical to this device for him to be 
able to switch power inputs so easily or is the power not important and this is 
just Rossi trying to distract folks from the real magic in his system? Second, 
Rossi is incredibly paranoid and for good reason i might add, so was their 
something the first test showed that he was concerned about which caused him to 
'paint' the second ecat to hide something? I'm hypothesizing that the uneven 
paint job was an afterthought to hide something and not prepared purposefully 
like that. 

Also why did he agree to the test now? Is he comfortable enough in his progress 
in the design and with his partners now that he is willing to begin sharing 
with others or is it some form of misdirection play on his part?

Also I always enjoyed reading Dr. Kim's papers on lenr and i think these tests 
make some of those theories less plausible, however would love to read his 
comments on the tests. i don't believe he has ever posted on here. 



Andrew  wrote:

>The remaining "output hoax" possibility is beamed RF into the "antenna 
>resistors". Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around in 
>the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the input side 
>is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box there - the 
>waveform generator - that's off limits.
>
>Andrew
>  - Original Message - 
>  From: David Roberson 
>  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
>  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM
>  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
>
>  You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers.  Can you 
> imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path 
> radiation caused serious injuries?  This is far outside the realm of reality.
>
>  The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be 
> set aside with the proper scrutiny.
>
>  Dave
>  -Original Message-
>  From: Andrew 
>  To: vortex-l 
>  Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
>  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
>
>  Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly 
> coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. 
>
>  If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.
>
>  Andrew
>- Original Message - 
>From: David Roberson 
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
>Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
>
>And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they 
> were all blinded by the high power IR.  Give me a break.
>
>Dave
>-Original Message-
>From: Terry Blanton 
>To: vortex-l 
>Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
>
>Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.
>
>Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.
>
>Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
>create spot heating of the test device.
>
>:-)
>

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] substitutes?

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

 It appears that you would like to see an experiment where the mix of D to
> P is adjusted.  Have you seen any correlation in the data from earlier
> tests that support the idea that a 50/50 mix would be the most active?
>

When it comes to Ni/H, I have almost no data to work with -- just a
reaction that will not produce gammas (assuming it can even proceed).  I do
not know what Rossi has said on the topic, and I take Bob's word that Rossi
has said that more D2 did not improve things.

Here are some interesting thoughts to add, though:

   - This reaction does not produce 4He, which to my knowledge has only
   been seen with Pd/D and not with Ni/H.
   - In hot fusion, I believe p+d will proceed preferentially over d+d.
   - I do not necessarily think a ratio different from the natural one (1
   D2 per ~6000 H2) would be more efficient -- there may be something about d
   clogging things up in the environment that would decrease the rate of
   reaction if there were more of it, although this is a parameter that could
   be fiddled with. So a ratio of 1:1 for d/p might work out or it might mess
   things up.
   - As I mentioned earlier, without some kind of recharging, the d in this
   scenario would be consumed and any reaction would peter out.

I like this reaction more as the source of heat than one involving Ni+p and
a specific isotope of Ni (or hydrinos, or hydrotons) simply because it
sounds vaguely more plausible, and because it dovetails nicely with my
favorite hypothesis for Pd/D, which is the d+d+Pd→4He+Pd reaction I'm
always looking into.  That is to say there is a mechanism for triggering
the reaction (Auger-like kicking of the protons and deuterons when an x-ray
comes in from the environment and scatters on an inner shell Nickel
electron). So my reasons for liking this reaction are not very profound.

Eric

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved

[mixent]

In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Tue, 21 May 2013 18:28:19 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>>> However, if protium was fusing into deuterium, which is an  
>>> extremely rare reaction to begin with, there should be gamma  
>>> radiation.

There is no gamma radiation from the p-e-p reaction (as distinct from the p-p
reaction). The energy disappears with the neutrino. Therefore *effectively* this
reaction produces no energy.
However useful energy would be released from subsequent fusion reactions
involving the D formed in the p-e-p reaction.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] substitutes?

[David Roberson]

Eric,

It appears that you would like to see an experiment where the mix of D to P is 
adjusted.  Have you seen any correlation in the data from earlier tests that 
support the idea that a 50/50 mix would be the most active?

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 10:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] substitutes?


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:39 AM, DJ Cravens  wrote:




Ni-62
If we assume that speculation about Rossi is correct, whatmaterials other than 
Ni-62 could be used?
If it is p + X reaction, what other isotopes other than Ni62could be used?
Or perhaps it is really a p+p reaction with Ni-62 donating something???






For Ni/H, my favorite hypothesis:


d+p+Ni → 3He+Ni


In this reaction, the nickel is just a bystander and absorbs some of the 
momentum of the reaction, so that there is no gamma.  Along this line of 
thinking, occasionally there will be spallation and fusion with the nickel and 
cluster decay, where an alpha or two break off.


An interesting implication is that eventually the deuterium will be used up, 
and you'll have to replenish it.  In this instance, it is the deuterium that is 
being replenished and not an isotope of nickel.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] substitutes?

[Bob Higgins]

Given the history of Cold Fusion, when Rossi was having some success with
H2, wouldn't you expect him to try to amp-up the result by using D2 instead
of H2?  Wouldn't Focardi have suggested the experiment?  Rossi, claims that
D2 doesn't work in his reactor - a claim made as though he has tried it
with his working Ni+catalyst system that works with H2 and found a negative
result with D2.

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:39 AM, DJ Cravens  wrote:
>
>  Ni-62
>>
>> If we assume that speculation about Rossi is correct, what materials
>> other than Ni-62 could be used?
>>
>> If it is p + X reaction, what other isotopes other than Ni62 could be
>> used?
>>
>> Or perhaps it is really a p+p reaction with Ni-62 donating something???
>>
>
> For Ni/H, my favorite hypothesis:
>
> d+p+Ni → 3He+Ni
>
> In this reaction, the nickel is just a bystander and absorbs some of the
> momentum of the reaction, so that there is no gamma.  Along this line of
> thinking, occasionally there will be spallation and fusion with the nickel
> and cluster decay, where an alpha or two break off.
>
> An interesting implication is that eventually the deuterium will be used
> up, and you'll have to replenish it.  In this instance, it is the deuterium
> that is being replenished and not an isotope of nickel.
>
> Eric
>
>


-- 

Regards,
Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[David Roberson]

Andrew,

That is all that anyone can ask of you.  Keep an open mind and hopefully you 
will eventually find the truth.  It appears that there will always be questions 
to answer and it is good to resolve as many as possible.  The scientists that 
performed these experiments are high caliber and would most likely want to be 
extremely careful about any announcements of this magnitude.  Put yourself in 
their shoes and you might find that you hesitate to deliver news that would 
ruin your reputation if shown false.

I have faith in their ability and have also been following Rossi for a couple 
of years.  During this time I have seen him make statements that fall into 
place when measured against a model that I constructed earlier to understand 
how a device that generates a lot of heat can be controlled by much less heat.  
Initially, I thought that this could not be true, but my model convinces me 
otherwise.

It is in our collective best interest to get this right and you can be 
confident that there are many following this list that will ensure that any 
tricks are uncovered as soon as possible.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 10:06 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem



Dave,
 
Good call on the metal screening. I'll tell Harry to call off the mutant and 
ill-tempered sea bass :)
 
I started out this morning very gung-ho about it all, and as the day has 
progressed, and I read more peripheral material, I ended up with more open 
questions than answers. I think of myself as open-minded but strongly analytic 
too. I have been running with the Woodward crowd for over 15 years, and if that 
isn't fringe and speculative physics, I don't know what is.
 
I couldn't put a number on how convinced I am. It's not 0% and neither is it 
100%. Let's say I'm 50/50 for now. The fence is uncomfortable, but at least a 
path to the resolution of open issues appears to exist. I can't say fairer than 
that. If I have an agenda, I'd describe it as the fervent desire for this thing 
to work!
 
Best, Andrew
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   David   Roberson 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:58 PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a   gem
  


  
The ECAT is made of metal if I recall   correctly which would not allow RF to 
penetrate to activate the resistor   antennas.  Some might be able to follow 
the wiring into the device, but   the level would have to be quite large which 
would most likely demolish the   instrument readings.
  
 
  
Andrew, are you approaching this from the point of view of a skeptic that   
absolutely does not believe that the ECAT works?  If so, I can understand   why 
you are stretching so far.  Could you be convinced that Rossi   actually has a 
working device?
  
 
  
Dave
  
  
  
-Original   Message-
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l   
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:51 pm
Subject: Re:   [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

  
  
  
The remaining "output hoax" possibility is beamed RF into the "antenna   
resistors". Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around in   
the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the input side  
 is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box there - the   
waveform generator - that's off limits.
  
 
  
Andrew
  

- Original Message - 

From: David Roberson 

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem




You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers.  Can you 
imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path 
radiation caused serious injuries?  This is far outside the realm of 
reality.

 

The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be 
set aside with the proper scrutiny.

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem




Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly 
coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. 

 

If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.

 

Andrew

  
-   Original Message - 
  
From:   David   Roberson 
  
To:   vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent:   Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM
  
Subject:   Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
  


  
And, of course, the reason that they   misread the instruments was that 
they were all blinded by the high power   IR.  Give me a break.
  
 
  
Dave
  
  
  
-Original   Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
To:   vortex-l 
Sent:   Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a   gem

  
Mr. G

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Daniel Rocha]

They tested a dummy device, that is, an empty reactor, which showed a
supposedly correct IR emission. The input was the same.


2013/5/21 Andrew 

> **
> Daniel,
>
> I'm misunderstanding this reference of yours to the control with the empty
> reactor.  If there's a gizmo, then I assume it's either in the power supply
> or the waveform generator. I suspect you're making a serious point that I'm
> missing here.
>
> Andrew
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Daniel Rocha 
> *To:* John Milstone 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:02 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
> But that would mean another device, a circuit, which modified the input
> when they compared with the empty reactor.
>
>
> 2013/5/21 Andrew 
>
>> **
>> I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am), but irrelevant it is
>> not. If the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz and the majority of
>> the power is being pumped at 200 Hz (arbitrary numbers), and the probes are
>> 40 dB down at 200 Hz
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>  - Original Message -
>> *From:* Jed Rothwell 
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>  *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:25 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>>
>>  Andrew  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>  Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the
>>> obvious question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at
>>> it.
>>>
>>
>> I do not think they were allowed to look at it, but it is irrelevant.
>> They measured the power going into the power supplies and wave form
>> generator. Output power far exceeded all input power into the entire
>> system. It does not matter what the power supplies did.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

Daniel,

I'm misunderstanding this reference of yours to the control with the empty 
reactor.  If there's a gizmo, then I assume it's either in the power supply or 
the waveform generator. I suspect you're making a serious point that I'm 
missing here.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Daniel Rocha 
  To: John Milstone 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:02 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  But that would mean another device, a circuit, which modified the input when 
they compared with the empty reactor. 



  2013/5/21 Andrew 

I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am), but irrelevant it is not. 
If the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz and the majority of the power 
is being pumped at 200 Hz (arbitrary numbers), and the probes are 40 dB down at 
200 Hz

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:25 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  Andrew  wrote: 

Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the 
obvious question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at it.


  I do not think they were allowed to look at it, but it is irrelevant. 
They measured the power going into the power supplies and wave form generator. 
Output power far exceeded all input power into the entire system. It does not 
matter what the power supplies did.


  - Jed







  -- 
  Daniel Rocha - RJ
  danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] substitutes?

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:39 AM, DJ Cravens  wrote:

 Ni-62
>
> If we assume that speculation about Rossi is correct, what materials other
> than Ni-62 could be used?
>
> If it is p + X reaction, what other isotopes other than Ni62 could be used?
>
> Or perhaps it is really a p+p reaction with Ni-62 donating something???
>

For Ni/H, my favorite hypothesis:

d+p+Ni → 3He+Ni

In this reaction, the nickel is just a bystander and absorbs some of the
momentum of the reaction, so that there is no gamma.  Along this line of
thinking, occasionally there will be spallation and fusion with the nickel
and cluster decay, where an alpha or two break off.

An interesting implication is that eventually the deuterium will be used
up, and you'll have to replenish it.  In this instance, it is the deuterium
that is being replenished and not an isotope of nickel.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

Dave,

Good call on the metal screening. I'll tell Harry to call off the mutant and 
ill-tempered sea bass :)

I started out this morning very gung-ho about it all, and as the day has 
progressed, and I read more peripheral material, I ended up with more open 
questions than answers. I think of myself as open-minded but strongly analytic 
too. I have been running with the Woodward crowd for over 15 years, and if that 
isn't fringe and speculative physics, I don't know what is.

I couldn't put a number on how convinced I am. It's not 0% and neither is it 
100%. Let's say I'm 50/50 for now. The fence is uncomfortable, but at least a 
path to the resolution of open issues appears to exist. I can't say fairer than 
that. If I have an agenda, I'd describe it as the fervent desire for this thing 
to work!

Best, Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:58 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  The ECAT is made of metal if I recall correctly which would not allow RF to 
penetrate to activate the resistor antennas.  Some might be able to follow the 
wiring into the device, but the level would have to be quite large which would 
most likely demolish the instrument readings.

  Andrew, are you approaching this from the point of view of a skeptic that 
absolutely does not believe that the ECAT works?  If so, I can understand why 
you are stretching so far.  Could you be convinced that Rossi actually has a 
working device?

  Dave
  -Original Message-
  From: Andrew 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:51 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  The remaining "output hoax" possibility is beamed RF into the "antenna 
resistors". Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around in 
the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the input side 
is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box there - the 
waveform generator - that's off limits.

  Andrew
- Original Message - 
From: David Roberson 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers.  Can you 
imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path 
radiation caused serious injuries?  This is far outside the realm of reality.

The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be 
set aside with the proper scrutiny.

Dave
-Original Message-
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly 
coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. 

If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that 
they were all blinded by the high power IR.  Give me a break.

  Dave
  -Original Message-
  From: Terry Blanton 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.

Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.

Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
create spot heating of the test device.

:-)

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Daniel Rocha]

But that would mean another device, a circuit, which modified the input
when they compared with the empty reactor.


2013/5/21 Andrew 

> **
> I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am), but irrelevant it is not.
> If the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz and the majority of the
> power is being pumped at 200 Hz (arbitrary numbers), and the probes are 40
> dB down at 200 Hz
>
> Andrew
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jed Rothwell 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:25 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
> Andrew  wrote:
>
>
>>  Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the
>> obvious question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at
>> it.
>>
>
> I do not think they were allowed to look at it, but it is irrelevant. They
> measured the power going into the power supplies and wave form generator.
> Output power far exceeded all input power into the entire system. It does
> not matter what the power supplies did.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[David Roberson]

The ECAT is made of metal if I recall correctly which would not allow RF to 
penetrate to activate the resistor antennas.  Some might be able to follow the 
wiring into the device, but the level would have to be quite large which would 
most likely demolish the instrument readings.

Andrew, are you approaching this from the point of view of a skeptic that 
absolutely does not believe that the ECAT works?  If so, I can understand why 
you are stretching so far.  Could you be convinced that Rossi actually has a 
working device?

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:51 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem



The remaining "output hoax" possibility is beamed RF into the "antenna 
resistors". Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around in 
the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the input side 
is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box there - the 
waveform generator - that's off limits.
 
Andrew
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   David   Roberson 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a   gem
  


  
You definitely should drop any reference   to powerful lasers.  Can you imagine 
the liability that Rossi would face   when reflections or direct path radiation 
caused serious injuries?  This   is far outside the realm of reality.
  
 
  
The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can   be 
set aside with the proper scrutiny.
  
 
  
Dave
  
  
  
-Original   Message-
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l   
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
Subject: Re:   [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

  
  
  
Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly   
coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. 
  
 
  
If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.
  
 
  
Andrew
  

- Original Message - 

From: David Roberson 

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem




And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they 
were all blinded by the high power IR.  Give me a break.

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.

Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.

Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
create spot heating of the test device.

:-)

Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved

[Jed Rothwell]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Vortex will not accept an attachment so you will have to find the paper
> elsewhere.
>
> J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 11 (2013) 1-15
> Research Article
> Nature of Energetic Radiation Emitted from a Metal Exposed to H2
> Edmund Storms* and Brian Scanlan
>


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

or

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

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

I'm not getting anything like the buzz I experienced in 1989 on 
sci.physics.fusion, I must say. I suspect it's because I'm older!

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:49 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  Andrew  wrote:


I think you're right. Would you be interested in their response?


  Of course. I am sure we would all be interested.


I have said several times that I've read the paper. Nevertheless, it seems 
time for another reading.


  I find I must read a paper like this several time, and I have to look up 
concepts I am unfamiliar with. It sure is easier to do that than it was before 
we had the Internet.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Harry Veeder]

It would be really cool if the lasers are mounted on sharks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7bYNAHXxw

Harry


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:47 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers.  Can you
> imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path
> radiation caused serious injuries?  This is far outside the realm of
> reality.
>
> The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be
> set aside with the proper scrutiny.
>
> Dave
>  -Original Message-
> From: Andrew 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
>  Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly
> coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know.
>
> If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.
>
> Andrew
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* David Roberson 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
>  And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that
> they were all blinded by the high power IR.  Give me a break.
>
> Dave
>  -Original Message-
> From: Terry Blanton 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
> Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.
>
> Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.
>
> Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
> create spot heating of the test device.
>
> :-)
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[David Roberson]

I agree with Jed's advice Andrew.  This is an important issue which perhaps you 
should pursue.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Andrew  wrote:



I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am), 



Not at all.


 

but irrelevant it is not. If the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz and 
the majority . . .



I suggest you read the paper and find out if it has enough information to 
eliminate this possibility. If it does not, write a paper describing a 
potential problem. Send it to the authors, and see if they checked for the 
problem.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

The remaining "output hoax" possibility is beamed RF into the "antenna 
resistors". Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around in 
the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the input side 
is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box there - the 
waveform generator - that's off limits.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers.  Can you imagine 
the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path radiation 
caused serious injuries?  This is far outside the realm of reality.

  The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be 
set aside with the proper scrutiny.

  Dave
  -Original Message-
  From: Andrew 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly 
coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. 

  If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.

  Andrew
- Original Message - 
From: David Roberson 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they 
were all blinded by the high power IR.  Give me a break.

Dave
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.

Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.

Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
create spot heating of the test device.

:-)

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Jed Rothwell]

Andrew  wrote:

**
> I think you're right. Would you be interested in their response?
>

Of course. I am sure we would all be interested.


>

> I have said several times that I've read the paper. Nevertheless, it seems
> time for another reading.
>

I find I must read a paper like this several time, and I have to look up
concepts I am unfamiliar with. It sure is easier to do that than it was
before we had the Internet.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[David Roberson]

You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers.  Can you imagine 
the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path radiation 
caused serious injuries?  This is far outside the realm of reality.

The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be set 
aside with the proper scrutiny.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem



Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly coerced 
into producing something that's not a spot, you know. 
 
If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.
 
Andrew
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   David   Roberson 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a   gem
  


  
And, of course, the reason that they   misread the instruments was that they 
were all blinded by the high power   IR.  Give me a break.
  
 
  
Dave
  
  
  
-Original   Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
To: vortex-l   
Sent:   Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a   gem

  
Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.

Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.

Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
create spot heating of the test device.

:-)

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

I think you're right. Would you be interested in their response?

I have said several times that I've read the paper. Nevertheless, it seems time 
for another reading. 

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  Andrew  wrote:


I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am), 


  Not at all.



but irrelevant it is not. If the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz 
and the majority . . .


  I suggest you read the paper and find out if it has enough information to 
eliminate this possibility. If it does not, write a paper describing a 
potential problem. Send it to the authors, and see if they checked for the 
problem.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[David Roberson]

Andrew,

Don't you think that it would be unusual for them to specifically mention that 
they carefully inspected the waveforms to ensure that there was no fraud 
attempt?  The assumption is that Rossi and others are not trying to influence 
the test.  They discussed the power measured and had they found a problem I am 
sure it would have been mentioned.

It would be more productive for you to look up the specifications for the 
instrumentation used for the test and to see if you find that they are not 
accurate when RF or DC is sent through them.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:21 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem



Dave,
 
That would be great if they joined in. It's not that I think there was foul 
play so much as, going by what's been written in the paper, there's nothing to 
suggest that they guarded against it. So, for example, there's no frequency 
spectrum published on the input power feed. The paper raises more questions 
than answers.
 
Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the obvious 
question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at it.
 
Best, Andrew
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   David   Roberson 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:16 PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a   gem
  


  
Andrew,
  
 
  
I would be very surprised to find that these highly educated and   qualified 
scientists would fall for a power input trick.  They had many   days to uncover 
anything of that nature.
  
 
  
Has anyone checked into the specifications of the instruments used by   them to 
see if this were even the least bit likely?
  
 
  
It would be great if some of these scientists would join the discussion   and 
set aside your concerns.
  
 
  
Dave
  
  
  
-Original   Message-
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l   
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
Subject: Re:   [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

  
  
  
It's been pointed out here in comments by Isaac Brown 
  
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas
  
that the input power measurement was done on the E-Cat side of   the supply 
box. You might think that this immediately eliminates   the "battery hoax" 
theory, but it turns out that the power measuring equipment   would be 
insensitive to anything other than 50-60Hz. Therefore DC power could   
certainly be snuck in there. There is also no barrier, as the commenter notes,  
 to using frequencies other than 50-60 Hz to convey unseen power to the   
device.
  
 
  
I think I've made a decision about this thing. I'm not going to believe   it 
(let alone speculate about what nuclear processes are involved) until it's   
demonstrated in a completely self-booted configuration. Zero power input, in a  
 metal box of independent design to foil "output hoaxing", and run for weeks on 
  end. There are simply too many ways to fool people, given the controls   
stipulated by Rossi et al over this experiment. I don't trust him.
  
 
  
Best, Andrew Palfreyman
  
 
  

- Original Message - 

From: Andrew 

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:52 PM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem




I think it's valuable to approach this topic as would a stage magician - 
just recall how far this sort of keen observational common sense got Randi; 
you don't need a whole lot of physics, but you do need a "jaundiced eye". 
Rossi is not renowned for his honesty, after all, and therefore one has to 
be prepared to fight fire with fire, but without devolving into some 
hopelessly crabby sceptic. I realise that discussing the mechanics of a scam
 may be distasteful to some purists, but hey, there's a lot of money involved   
  here, and we are all grown-ups.

 

Below we're discussing the input hoax. As for the output hoax, I've run 
across a second possibility (my first was infrared lasers). Those long 
"resistors" could serve double duty as RF receiving antennae. Same principle
 as the lasers, but just a different frequency.

 

And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further 
that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of 
all. Just ask Geller and Taylor.

 

Andrew

  
-   Original Message - 
  
From:   Andrew   
  
To:   vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent:   Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:07 PM
  
Subject:   Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
  


  
A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's   "small". 
  
 
  
A battery would need to supply (say, conservatively) 500 W for 116   hours, 
or 200 MJ. Lithium batteries are about 2 MJ/Kg, so that's 100 Kg of   
battery. I agree that's unlike

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Jed Rothwell]

Andrew  wrote:

**
> I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am),
>

Not at all.



> but irrelevant it is not. If the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz
> and the majority . . .
>

I suggest you read the paper and find out if it has enough information to
eliminate this possibility. If it does not, write a paper describing a
potential problem. Send it to the authors, and see if they checked for the
problem.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am), but irrelevant it is not. If 
the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz and the majority of the power is 
being pumped at 200 Hz (arbitrary numbers), and the probes are 40 dB down at 
200 Hz

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:25 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  Andrew  wrote:

Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the 
obvious question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at it.


  I do not think they were allowed to look at it, but it is irrelevant. They 
measured the power going into the power supplies and wave form generator. 
Output power far exceeded all input power into the entire system. It does not 
matter what the power supplies did.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Polariton lasers

[Axil Axil]

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-physicists-revolutionary-low-power-polariton-laser.html

*Physicists develop revolutionary low-power polariton laser*

LENR is like a polaritor laser turned in onto itself. Dark mode EMF is not
allowed to exit the lattice (nuclear active environment). The EMF just
builds and builds until the space and matter around it breaks apart. When
nuclear energy is released, the coherence is broken, and the EMF buildup
starts all over again, in an endless cycle


On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

>
> http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/350427/description/Low-energy_laser_makes_leap_toward_practicality
>
>
> *Low-energy laser makes leap toward practicality *
>
>
> Polariton lasers will be driven by electricity not light. This
> demonstrates that polaritons can at least produce coherent radiation at
> room temperature.
>
> Nanophotonics is moving ahead with great vigor.
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly coerced 
into producing something that's not a spot, you know. 

If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they 
were all blinded by the high power IR.  Give me a break.

  Dave
  -Original Message-
  From: Terry Blanton 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.

Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.

Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
create spot heating of the test device.

:-)

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Jed Rothwell]

Andrew  wrote:

**
> This is good to know. Can you specifically talk about the clamp-on ammeter
> probes and their frequency response?
>

No, I do not know enough about that to comment. I will leave that to others.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Jed Rothwell]

Andrew  wrote:


> Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the
> obvious question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at
> it.
>

I do not think they were allowed to look at it, but it is irrelevant. They
measured the power going into the power supplies and wave form generator.
Output power far exceeded all input power into the entire system. It does
not matter what the power supplies did.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

Dave,

That would be great if they joined in. It's not that I think there was foul 
play so much as, going by what's been written in the paper, there's nothing to 
suggest that they guarded against it. So, for example, there's no frequency 
spectrum published on the input power feed. The paper raises more questions 
than answers.

Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the obvious 
question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at it.

Best, Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:16 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  Andrew,

  I would be very surprised to find that these highly educated and qualified 
scientists would fall for a power input trick.  They had many days to uncover 
anything of that nature.

  Has anyone checked into the specifications of the instruments used by them to 
see if this were even the least bit likely?

  It would be great if some of these scientists would join the discussion and 
set aside your concerns.

  Dave
  -Original Message-
  From: Andrew 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  It's been pointed out here in comments by Isaac Brown 
  
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas
  that the input power measurement was done on the E-Cat side of the supply 
box. You might think that this immediately eliminates the "battery hoax" 
theory, but it turns out that the power measuring equipment would be 
insensitive to anything other than 50-60Hz. Therefore DC power could certainly 
be snuck in there. There is also no barrier, as the commenter notes, to using 
frequencies other than 50-60 Hz to convey unseen power to the device.

  I think I've made a decision about this thing. I'm not going to believe it 
(let alone speculate about what nuclear processes are involved) until it's 
demonstrated in a completely self-booted configuration. Zero power input, in a 
metal box of independent design to foil "output hoaxing", and run for weeks on 
end. There are simply too many ways to fool people, given the controls 
stipulated by Rossi et al over this experiment. I don't trust him.

  Best, Andrew Palfreyman

- Original Message - 
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


I think it's valuable to approach this topic as would a stage magician - 
just recall how far this sort of keen observational common sense got Randi; you 
don't need a whole lot of physics, but you do need a "jaundiced eye". Rossi is 
not renowned for his honesty, after all, and therefore one has to be prepared 
to fight fire with fire, but without devolving into some hopelessly crabby 
sceptic. I realise that discussing the mechanics of a scam may be distasteful 
to some purists, but hey, there's a lot of money involved here, and we are all 
grown-ups.

Below we're discussing the input hoax. As for the output hoax, I've run 
across a second possibility (my first was infrared lasers). Those long 
"resistors" could serve double duty as RF receiving antennae. Same principle as 
the lasers, but just a different frequency.

And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further 
that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of 
all. Just ask Geller and Taylor.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Andrew 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:07 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's "small". 

  A battery would need to supply (say, conservatively) 500 W for 116 hours, 
or 200 MJ. Lithium batteries are about 2 MJ/Kg, so that's 100 Kg of battery. I 
agree that's unlikely but don;t have enough information to make the call.

  Andrew


  - Original Message - 
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Andrew  wrote:



  You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind 
to any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with 
additional power.


What sort of internal power source?


A generator? That would noisy and obvious.


A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has 
developed such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own right.


A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500 to 
800 W. They would see it.


Do you have anything else in mind?


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[David Roberson]

And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they were 
all blinded by the high power IR.  Give me a break.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.

Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.

Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
create spot heating of the test device.

:-)


 

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[David Roberson]

Andrew,

I would be very surprised to find that these highly educated and qualified 
scientists would fall for a power input trick.  They had many days to uncover 
anything of that nature.

Has anyone checked into the specifications of the instruments used by them to 
see if this were even the least bit likely?

It would be great if some of these scientists would join the discussion and set 
aside your concerns.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem



It's been pointed out here in comments by Isaac Brown 
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas
that the input power measurement was done on the E-Cat side of the supply box. 
You might think that this immediately eliminates the "battery hoax" theory, but 
it turns out that the power measuring equipment would be insensitive to 
anything other than 50-60Hz. Therefore DC power could certainly be snuck in 
there. There is also no barrier, as the commenter notes, to using frequencies 
other than 50-60 Hz to convey unseen power to the device.
 
I think I've made a decision about this thing. I'm not going to believe it (let 
alone speculate about what nuclear processes are involved) until it's 
demonstrated in a completely self-booted configuration. Zero power input, in a 
metal box of independent design to foil "output hoaxing", and run for weeks on 
end. There are simply too many ways to fool people, given the controls 
stipulated by Rossi et al over this experiment. I don't trust him.
 
Best, Andrew Palfreyman
 
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   Andrew 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:52 PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a   gem
  


  
I think it's valuable to approach this topic as would a stage magician -   just 
recall how far this sort of keen observational common sense got Randi;   you 
don't need a whole lot of physics, but you do need a "jaundiced eye".   Rossi 
is not renowned for his honesty, after all, and therefore one has to be   
prepared to fight fire with fire, but without devolving into some hopelessly   
crabby sceptic. I realise that discussing the mechanics of a scam may be   
distasteful to some purists, but hey, there's a lot of money involved here,   
and we are all grown-ups.
  
 
  
Below we're discussing the input hoax. As for the output hoax, I've run   
across a second possibility (my first was infrared lasers). Those long   
"resistors" could serve double duty as RF receiving antennae. Same principle   
as the lasers, but just a different frequency.
  
 
  
And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further   
that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of   
all. Just ask Geller and Taylor.
  
 
  
Andrew
  

- Original Message - 

From: Andrew 

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:07 PM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem




A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's "small". 

 

A battery would need to supply (say, conservatively) 500 W for 116 hours, 
or 200 MJ. Lithium batteries are about 2 MJ/Kg, so that's 100 Kg of 
battery. I agree that's unlikely but don;t have enough information to make 
the call.

 

Andrew

 

 

- Original Message - 

  
From:   Jed   Rothwell 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:53   PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper   is a gem
  


Andrew  wrote:
  

  


You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind 
to any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the 
device with additional power.

  


  
What sort of internal power source?
  


  
A generator? That would noisy and obvious.
  


  
A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has   
developed such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own   right.
  


  
A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500   to 
800 W. They would see it.
  


  
Do you have anything else in mind?
  


  
- Jed
  

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

This is good to know. Can you specifically talk about the clamp-on ammeter 
probes and their frequency response? What is your understanding here? For 
example, if there exists a HF power component, could it be missed by using 
these clamp-on probes?

I have to ask these questions because the paper does not address them.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:31 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  Andrew  wrote:

And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further 
that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of 
all. Just ask Geller and Taylor.


  I have corresponded with Randi. He does not understand the first thing about 
cold fusion or experimental science. He has no idea how anyone could pull of a 
hoax of this nature, any more than Yugo does. This is not case of fooling 
people. You have to fool instruments and video cameras.


  I am sick of hearing about Geller. He fooled scientists when he did a sleight 
of hand trick. That was him doing his own business -- stage magic. Not an 
experiment, and not something that scientists would know anything about. They 
have no training in this. They did not use instruments.


  As I have said before, finding experimental errors is FAR more difficult than 
finding deliberate fraud. There is no method of fraud one-tenth as subtle as 
the problems Mother Nature throws at you in an experiment. These researchers 
have spent a lifetime teasing out experimental errors.


  The people who make power analyzers have dealt with every possible waveform 
and condition. They know what electricity can and cannot do. Rossi has not 
discovered some condition that the instrument manufacturers never seen in the 
last 140 years. Everything that can go wrong with electric power has gone 
wrong. The instruments are designed to find problems. That is what they are 
for. The professors do not have to think about this any more than they have to 
think about emissivity. They just fill in the data on the screen and confirm 
that the computed temperature matches the thermocouple reading.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Jed Rothwell]

Andrew  wrote:


> And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further
> that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of
> all. Just ask Geller and Taylor.
>

I have corresponded with Randi. He does not understand the first thing
about cold fusion or experimental science. He has no idea how anyone could
pull of a hoax of this nature, any more than Yugo does. This is not case of
fooling people. You have to fool instruments and video cameras.

I am sick of hearing about Geller. He fooled scientists when he did a
sleight of hand trick. That was him doing his own business -- stage magic.
Not an experiment, and not something that scientists would know anything
about. They have no training in this. They did not use instruments.

As I have said before, finding experimental errors is FAR more difficult
than finding deliberate fraud. There is no method of fraud one-tenth as
subtle as the problems Mother Nature throws at you in an experiment. These
researchers have spent a lifetime teasing out experimental errors.

The people who make power analyzers have dealt with every possible waveform
and condition. They know what electricity can and cannot do. Rossi has not
discovered some condition that the instrument manufacturers never seen in
the last 140 years. Everything that can go wrong with electric power has
gone wrong. The instruments are designed to find problems. That is what
they are for. The professors do not have to think about this any more than
they have to think about emissivity. They just fill in the data on the
screen and confirm that the computed temperature matches the thermocouple
reading.

- Jed

Fwd: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved

[Edmund Storms]

Vortex will not accept an attachment so you will have to find the  
paper elsewhere.


J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 11 (2013) 1–15
Research Article
Nature of Energetic Radiation Emitted from a Metal Exposed to H2
Edmund Storms∗ and Brian Scanlan

Begin forwarded message:


From: Edmund Storms 
Date: May 21, 2013 5:40:25 PM MDT
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved

Jones, I have a unified theory that explains helium, tritium and  
hopefully deuterium while using only one miracle. This miracle is  
required to explain anything involving CF, including transmutation.   
The phenomenon shows that a nuclear reaction, either fusion or  
transmutation must take place by a process that can dissipate the  
energy in an unconventional way.  This is the unique aspect of the  
discovery that needs to be acknowledged. This is not in any way like  
hot fusion. The phenomenon is unique, but requires only one miracle.  
Proposing transmutation as the nuclear reaction does not change this  
requirement. In fact, this process requires not one but several  
miracles. That is why I'm amused by all the attention applied to  
transmutation only because Rossi claims this is the source of  
energy, even though this reaction has huge conflicts with known  
behavior.


As for looking for the radiation, several people have done this and  
found radiation, including myself. This information has all been  
published and is summarized in the attached paper.  The low energy  
of the radiation cause most to be absorbed by the apparatus, with  
only a small fraction being available for detection.


Ed Storms
On May 21, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Jones Beene wrote:




From: Edmund Storms

Jones, there is no ash because no one has looked for deuterium.  
Everyone who might find enough deuterium to detect is focused on  
transmutation. If they now find deuterium, their favorite  
explanation will go up in smoke and the patents that claim to need  
nickel will be useless.  I'm trying to get someone to look for  
deuterium and report the results. So far, no luck. Until this test  
is made, no conclusion is worth accepting.


Hi Ed,

Almost everyone agrees that deuterium (and helium and tritium)  
should be looked for in the ash of this device, but that this  
probably will not happen soon. Your explanation of why Rossi  
doesn’t want to know this could be absolutely correct. He shoots  
himself in the foot. Someone else must do this, if it is to be done.


If the ratio of H to D in the gas was 6,500:1 when it was filled –  
and after a week of run-time the ratio was 5,000:1 then that  
finding would be meaningful. Hydrogen is unlikely to leak  
preferentially, so the large change in ratio would indicate fusion  
as the prima facie explanation.


However, if protium was fusing into deuterium, which is an  
extremely rare reaction to begin with, there should be gamma  
radiation. If you say there is no gamma radiation because this is a  
novel type of fusion reaction which shows none, then there is still  
a huge problem (aside from the extra miracle) – tritium. At a  
certain point, tritium is favored and its decay radiation will be  
obvious – even after shutdown… yet none shows up, when any  
decent monitor should see it.


You probably do not want to add a third miracle by suggesting that  
no tritium happens. Thus, the lack of tritium makes the search for  
extra deuterium of lower priority than it otherwise would be. In  
the end, if the H/D ratio is substantially different – we will  
have found something that indicates a novel form of hydrogen  
fusion, which Rossi’s patent does not cover.


However, another smart thing to do– if someone besides AR really  
wants to find out the modus operandi would be to first look for the  
lower energy photons – EUV. Rossi does not want to do that because  
of the huge portfolio of prior art from BLP. OTOH, Mills and  
company might want to do this kind of testing in a replica AR cell,  
as a way to get royalties from Rossi, in the event that he beats  
them to market.


Many theories suggest the gain could be coming from EUV photons -  
and it is easier to document them than deuterium, but I doubt we  
will know form Rossi. I hope that Mills looks at the Ni-62  
possibility, in the context of his theory.


This could pay off handsomely, Randy …


From: Bob Higgins

I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the  
reaction.  Are we now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus  
participates in the nuclear reaction that causes the heat


IMO this is a “Mills type” reaction (BLP), involving deep  
hydrogen redundancy - and the Ni does not transmute into another  
element.


This particular isotope is simply a much better catalyst for deep  
redundancy at the 300 eV level. This mechanism goes beyond Randell  
Mills theory into QM and wave function collapse, which Mills rejects.


Rossi and Focardi apparently believe that nickel t

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's 3rd party test - Review

[Jed Rothwell]

Bastiaan Bergman  wrote:


> Another reason to require a COP of more than 2.5 is an economical end
> technological reason. Because the E-Cat has a high-entropy input
> (electricity) and a low-entropy output . . .


This is not an issue. The COP can easily be improved.



> Measurement of output energy is where problems arise. An IR camera is
> used to measure the intensity of IR radiation emitted from the reactor
> geometry.


They used the "spots" (standard material) and checked the temperature
against a thermocouple. I do not think this is a problem.

If they had not checked with at thermocouple this *would be* a problem.



> No definite word on who was present
> during the blanco test.


This took 6 hours after the second test. I expect they were all there. If
not, I am pretty sure they used the camera so Rossi could not have
interfered. Everything was recorded on the video camera.



> It is unclear whether the same emissivity was used in the blanco and
> the real test and thus whether the blanco was analysed in exactly the
> same way.
>

I think it says that it was. They used the dots and thermocouple in both
cases.



> Convection calculation requires even more assumptions and a more
> careful experimental setup while the contribution of heat dissipation
> through convection is insignificant compared to the dissipation
> through radiation at the present temperatures.


The data tables show that convection is about the same as radiation. See
Table 8, for example.

I think we can trust conventional engineering textbooks on this. People
have studied convection in air carefully for a long time. It is a very
important subject, for things like radiators.



> None of the authors is truly independent. They all
> have a vested interest in at least rehabilitating their reputation as
> they have all come out in support of Andrea Rossi's claim of an
>

That is incorrect. Only one, Levi, endorsed Rossi. Essen, the former head
of the Skeptics Society, was neutral before. The other five are new to the
field. I had to add them to my author database.



> for example Andrea Rossi, plays a clever trick causing all observers
> of the test experiment to believe his claims. Possible schemes for
> such a fraud are: i) Line power is tampered with and extra power is
> feed to the E-Cat as e.g. DC.


People familiar with these meters tell me that is impossible.



> ii) Measurement equipment is tampered
> with to display wrong numbers


The authors brought the equipment. It is theirs. Rossi is not capable of
tampering with digital equipment quickly enough. No one is.



> iii) Power duty cycles are adjusted down
> when observers watch and up when they don't . . .


The digital camera recorded every minute of both tests. There was never a
time when "no one was watching."



> , while at the same time
> well-thought schemes are used to distract the observers.


You cannot distract a time lapse video camera.

I think fraud is extremely unlikely. So unlikely, I am not worried about
it. Certainly there is no chance everyone involved in every Rossi test is
part of conspiracy.

- Jed

[Vo]:The shadow knows ... mystery solved

[Alan Fletcher]

I was very puzzled how a thin resistor wire in a red-hot cavity could cast a 
broad shadow on the outside surface.

>  Figs. 1-2. Two images from the test performed on Nov. 20th 2012. Here, the 
> activation of the 
charge (distributed laterally in the reactor) is especially obvious. The darker 
lines in the 
photograph are actually the shadows of the resistor coils, which yield only a 
minimal part of 
the total thermal power. 

They don't --- see the Penon description of the first radiometry test (though 
that version had a hole in the middle)
http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf

On page 5 you can see that there's a ceramic holder between two concentric 
cylinders  : it looks like a long cog-wheel with the heater-resistor wires 
between the teeth.

When this holder is inserted into the cylinder then the teeth of the "cogs" 
make good thermal contact with the outside, which shows up as hotter, brighter 
bands down the length of the cylinder.

The gaps between the cogs do NOT make good contact, so they produce darker 
bands.

Not shadows after all 

Re: [Vo]:A few short comments about the test from Levi

[Jed Rothwell]

Wow! I am glad Levi is being so forthright and positive.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Andrew  wrote:
> The thing about a successful hoax, Terry, is that it is the investigating
> scientists who are fooled. Nobody is suggesting the sort of grand conspiracy

You might not be, but others are.  I understand your point about
fooling scientists; however, I would refrain from such speculation
without evidence.

Advice.  Take or leave it.

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:

[Andrew]

I am with Mark. Kevin needs to grow some ethics.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Mark Gibbs 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:28 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:


  Kevin,


  Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your 
work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking.


  [mg]


  On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

Mark:
Welcome to da internets.  I hope you don't 'loose' your reputation.  



On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:

  Kevin,


  Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under 
the concept of "Fair Use") but posting my article in full to a list (and a 
public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. I'd be less 
annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, this is the 
Internet ... you can cite a link as Alan Fletcher did so people can get 
directly to the original article (which, BTW, has been updated). Copying the 
entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits.


  William, please delete Kevin's post from the archive.


  Yours,
  Mark Gibbs.



  On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Kevin O'Malley  
wrote:

posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere...




On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

  Mark Gibbs has an article up :

  
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/

  (Shout-out and plot to ... guess who? )

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

The thing about a successful hoax, Terry, is that it is the investigating 
scientists who are fooled. Nobody is suggesting the sort of grand conspiracy 
you mention. Unfortunately, the door is left wide open for speculations of 
bamboozlement, because precautions against them are not discussed in the paper. 
It would have behoved the august scientists of Sweden and Italy to have closed 
the door on such possibilities, both in terms of convincing themselves, and 
proclaiming such explicitly in their paper. Perhaps good taste forbad them from 
appearing to be exercising "bad manners" towards their host and his apparatus. 
Or perhaps the possibility that they were being taken for a ride simply did not 
occur to them at a level of sophistication sufficient to warrant closer 
inspection. We cannot know unless we interview them personally. I note your 
temerity about this topic.

Andrew

- Original Message - 
From: "Terry Blanton" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


> Personally, I would avoid any implication that these scientists nor
> their institutions are implicit in a hoax.
> 
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>>> What do you think of my hoax theories?
>>
>> Well, when I look for a hoax, I also ask myself "Where is the benefit?"
>

RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Andrew,

This isn't about believe or disbelieve. black or white.  Any good scientist
uses a 'sliding scale', and as more data comes in, that scale is adjusted as
to whether a given phenomenon or claim has gained in credibility, or
diminished.  For me, this test has pushed that sliding scale a little
further to the credible scale. that's all. Time will sort this out, and I
don't think we'll have to wait too much longer.

 

RE: your comments about possible input power trickery.

I believe they determined that the power consumed by the Control Box was (on
pg 18):

"From this one derives that the power consumption of the control box was
approximately = 110-120  W."

 

This was done during the 'dummy' test.  In addition, they ran the control
box CONTINUOUSLY during the dummy test, not with the 65/35 (Off/ON) duty
cycle used in loaded reactor runs.  THUS, the power consumption of the
control box during those runs was likely 1/3 the above estimates.  In fact,
the 'conservative' estimates they used in the fueled reactor runs did NOT
subtract out the control box power, meaning they assumed ALL electrical
power measured at the wall plug went into the reactor, and none into the
control box.  That is the most conservative way to do the calcs as far as
the input power is concerned.

 

PS: I remember your last name from the days of sci.physics.fusion, and all
the activity on that forum starting with P&F's 1989 announcement. I think I
still have some printouts of some of the discussions.

 

-Mark

 

From: Andrew [mailto:andrew...@att.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

 

It's been pointed out here in comments by Isaac Brown
  

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-
verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas

that the input power measurement was done on the E-Cat side of the supply
box. You might think that this immediately eliminates the "battery hoax"
theory, but it turns out that the power measuring equipment would be
insensitive to anything other than 50-60Hz. Therefore DC power could
certainly be snuck in there. There is also no barrier, as the commenter
notes, to using frequencies other than 50-60 Hz to convey unseen power to
the device.

 

I think I've made a decision about this thing. I'm not going to believe it
(let alone speculate about what nuclear processes are involved) until it's
demonstrated in a completely self-booted configuration. Zero power input, in
a metal box of independent design to foil "output hoaxing", and run for
weeks on end. There are simply too many ways to fool people, given the
controls stipulated by Rossi et al over this experiment. I don't trust him.

 

Best, Andrew Palfreyman

 

- Original Message - 

From: Andrew   

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:52 PM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

 

I think it's valuable to approach this topic as would a stage magician -
just recall how far this sort of keen observational common sense got Randi;
you don't need a whole lot of physics, but you do need a "jaundiced eye".
Rossi is not renowned for his honesty, after all, and therefore one has to
be prepared to fight fire with fire, but without devolving into some
hopelessly crabby sceptic. I realise that discussing the mechanics of a scam
may be distasteful to some purists, but hey, there's a lot of money involved
here, and we are all grown-ups.

 

Below we're discussing the input hoax. As for the output hoax, I've run
across a second possibility (my first was infrared lasers). Those long
"resistors" could serve double duty as RF receiving antennae. Same principle
as the lasers, but just a different frequency.

 

And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further
that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of
all. Just ask Geller and Taylor.

 

Andrew

- Original Message - 

From: Andrew   

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:07 PM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

 

A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's "small". 

 

A battery would need to supply (say, conservatively) 500 W for 116 hours, or
200 MJ. Lithium batteries are about 2 MJ/Kg, so that's 100 Kg of battery. I
agree that's unlikely but don;t have enough information to make the call.

 

Andrew

 

 

- Original Message - 

From: Jed Rothwell   

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:53 PM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

 

Andrew  wrote:

 

You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to any
internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with
additiona

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:

[Mark Gibbs]

Kevin,

Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your
work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking.

[mg]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:

> Mark:
> Welcome to da internets.  I hope you don't 'loose' your reputation.
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:
>
>> Kevin,
>>
>> Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under
>> the concept of "Fair Use") but posting my article in full to a list (and a
>> public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. I'd be
>> less annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, this is
>> the Internet ... you can cite a link as Alan Fletcher did so people can get
>> directly to the original article (which, BTW, has been updated). Copying
>> the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits.
>>
>> William, please delete Kevin's post from the archive.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Mark Gibbs.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>>
>>> posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:
>>>
 Mark Gibbs has an article up :


 http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/

 (Shout-out and plot to ... guess who? )


>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Terry Blanton]

Personally, I would avoid any implication that these scientists nor
their institutions are implicit in a hoax.

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>> What do you think of my hoax theories?
>
> Well, when I look for a hoax, I also ask myself "Where is the benefit?"

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Terry Blanton]

> What do you think of my hoax theories?

Well, when I look for a hoax, I also ask myself "Where is the benefit?"

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

You probably mean me. Everything I say is my own private opinion and I do not 
represent any other persons or organisations or institutions, nor am I 
affiliated with such. I am an engineer with a physics degree and am currently 
unemployed. Were I acting per pro others, I would have made that clear.

What do you think of my hoax theories?

Andrew


- Original Message - 
From: "Terry Blanton" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


> Whew.  The paper which started this conversation indicates the
> scientists involved and their academic affiliation.  I would like to
> caution some people, you know who you are, that this particular list,
> Vortex-l is widely read.
> 
> Further caution, I have seen many statements which could be considered
> libelous.  If you wish to speculate, be sure to include the phrase "in
> my opinion".  While it will only provide a modicum of protection if
> these individuals and their institutions are incensed by these
> statements, it at least, does allow you to plead ignorance.
>

RE: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved

[Jones Beene]

 

From: Edmund Storms 

 

Jones, there is no ash because no one has looked for deuterium. Everyone who
might find enough deuterium to detect is focused on transmutation. If they
now find deuterium, their favorite explanation will go up in smoke and the
patents that claim to need nickel will be useless.  I'm trying to get
someone to look for deuterium and report the results. So far, no luck. Until
this test is made, no conclusion is worth accepting.

 

Hi Ed,

 

Almost everyone agrees that deuterium (and helium and tritium) should be
looked for in the ash of this device, but that this probably will not happen
soon. Your explanation of why Rossi doesn't want to know this could be
absolutely correct. He shoots himself in the foot. Someone else must do
this, if it is to be done.

 

If the ratio of H to D in the gas was 6,500:1 when it was filled - and after
a week of run-time the ratio was 5,000:1 then that finding would be
meaningful. Hydrogen is unlikely to leak preferentially, so the large change
in ratio would indicate fusion as the prima facie explanation.

 

However, if protium was fusing into deuterium, which is an extremely rare
reaction to begin with, there should be gamma radiation. If you say there is
no gamma radiation because this is a novel type of fusion reaction which
shows none, then there is still a huge problem (aside from the extra
miracle) - tritium. At a certain point, tritium is favored and its decay
radiation will be obvious - even after shutdown. yet none shows up, when any
decent monitor should see it.

 

You probably do not want to add a third miracle by suggesting that no
tritium happens. Thus, the lack of tritium makes the search for extra
deuterium of lower priority than it otherwise would be. In the end, if the
H/D ratio is substantially different - we will have found something that
indicates a novel form of hydrogen fusion, which Rossi's patent does not
cover. 

 

However, another smart thing to do- if someone besides AR really wants to
find out the modus operandi would be to first look for the lower energy
photons - EUV. Rossi does not want to do that because of the huge portfolio
of prior art from BLP. OTOH, Mills and company might want to do this kind of
testing in a replica AR cell, as a way to get royalties from Rossi, in the
event that he beats them to market.

 

Many theories suggest the gain could be coming from EUV photons - and it is
easier to document them than deuterium, but I doubt we will know form Rossi.
I hope that Mills looks at the Ni-62 possibility, in the context of his
theory. 

 

This could pay off handsomely, Randy .

 

 

From: Bob Higgins

 

I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the reaction.  Are we
now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus participates in the nuclear
reaction that causes the heat

 

IMO this is a "Mills type" reaction (BLP), involving deep hydrogen
redundancy - and the Ni does not transmute into another element.

 

This particular isotope is simply a much better catalyst for deep redundancy
at the 300 eV level. This mechanism goes beyond Randell Mills theory into QM
and wave function collapse, which Mills rejects.

 

Rossi and Focardi apparently believe that nickel transmutes to copper, but
the proof offered indicates otherwise. Others believe that protons fuse to
deuterium. There is no proof of that.

 

Many qualified observers, at this stage, have markedly different opinions.

 

However, it is worth repeating that if it is a nuclear reaction - there
should be gamma radiation and/or radioactive ash. There is none.

 

Jones

 

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Terry Blanton]

Whew.  The paper which started this conversation indicates the
scientists involved and their academic affiliation.  I would like to
caution some people, you know who you are, that this particular list,
Vortex-l is widely read.

Further caution, I have seen many statements which could be considered
libelous.  If you wish to speculate, be sure to include the phrase "in
my opinion".  While it will only provide a modicum of protection if
these individuals and their institutions are incensed by these
statements, it at least, does allow you to plead ignorance.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Terry Blanton]

Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.

Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.

Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
create spot heating of the test device.

:-)

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

It's been pointed out here in comments by Isaac Brown 
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas
that the input power measurement was done on the E-Cat side of the supply box. 
You might think that this immediately eliminates the "battery hoax" theory, but 
it turns out that the power measuring equipment would be insensitive to 
anything other than 50-60Hz. Therefore DC power could certainly be snuck in 
there. There is also no barrier, as the commenter notes, to using frequencies 
other than 50-60 Hz to convey unseen power to the device.

I think I've made a decision about this thing. I'm not going to believe it (let 
alone speculate about what nuclear processes are involved) until it's 
demonstrated in a completely self-booted configuration. Zero power input, in a 
metal box of independent design to foil "output hoaxing", and run for weeks on 
end. There are simply too many ways to fool people, given the controls 
stipulated by Rossi et al over this experiment. I don't trust him.

Best, Andrew Palfreyman

  - Original Message - 
  From: Andrew 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:52 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  I think it's valuable to approach this topic as would a stage magician - just 
recall how far this sort of keen observational common sense got Randi; you 
don't need a whole lot of physics, but you do need a "jaundiced eye". Rossi is 
not renowned for his honesty, after all, and therefore one has to be prepared 
to fight fire with fire, but without devolving into some hopelessly crabby 
sceptic. I realise that discussing the mechanics of a scam may be distasteful 
to some purists, but hey, there's a lot of money involved here, and we are all 
grown-ups.

  Below we're discussing the input hoax. As for the output hoax, I've run 
across a second possibility (my first was infrared lasers). Those long 
"resistors" could serve double duty as RF receiving antennae. Same principle as 
the lasers, but just a different frequency.

  And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further 
that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of 
all. Just ask Geller and Taylor.

  Andrew
- Original Message - 
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's "small". 

A battery would need to supply (say, conservatively) 500 W for 116 hours, 
or 200 MJ. Lithium batteries are about 2 MJ/Kg, so that's 100 Kg of battery. I 
agree that's unlikely but don;t have enough information to make the call.

Andrew


- Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:53 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  Andrew  wrote:



You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind 
to any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with 
additional power.


  What sort of internal power source?


  A generator? That would noisy and obvious.


  A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has 
developed such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own right.


  A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500 to 
800 W. They would see it.


  Do you have anything else in mind?


  - Jed

[Vo]:A few short comments about the test from Levi

[Akira Shirakawa]

Hello group,

Today, international Business Times Italy featured an article about the 
recently released third party report about several E-Cat HT tests 
performed in Ferrara by Levi et al.:


http://it.ibtimes.com/articles/49127/20130521/fusione-fredda-e-cat-andrea-rossi.htm 
(in Italian)


Giuseppe Levi was contacted by the news writer and gave a few short 
related comments (semi-Google Translated below):


---

"As can be inferred, we are facing an unconventional energy source."
...
"We have been able to carry out our work in complete independence and 
freedom. From the very first moment, it was made clear that we could 
publish our results whatever they were."

...
"It's certainly not a reaction of chemical nature. The absence of 
radiationtells us that if it's a nuclear energy source, then it's new in 
nature than those known."

...
[Regarding the total energy production] "These data are in our work. In 
the most conservative case we have energy densities ten times greater 
than conventional ones. However this is certainly an extreme 
understatement. The report contains figures that are likely to be more 
realistic."


["Do you believe that the E-Cat can turn upside down the global energy 
market?"] "Yes, without a doubt"


---

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved

[Terry Blanton]

If Ni62 is not consumed, the cost is somewhat academic.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

Geller had collaborators. Did you ever hear about them? - I doubt it. Look, 
there's big money involved here. We are human. Do I really need to state the 
obvious? We are better served by eliminating possible hoaxes by deductive 
reasoning than we are by closing our eyes tight and wishing for Utopia. What's 
not right is to a priori refuse to discuss the possibility of a hoax. In my 
view that's simply infantile.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Mark Gibbs 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:20 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem




  On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Andrew  wrote:

There's another way to perpetrate the output hoax, and that's to secrete 
infrared lasers in the ceiling and heat the device up remotely.

  Lasers?! Don't you think that seems just a little farfetched? And it raises, 
once again, as do many of the proposed ways the tests could have been rigged, 
the question of why go to so much trouble? OK, let's say it's all a hoax ... 
how much longer can the hoax continue? 


  I'm still somewhat skeptical about the whole thing simply because there are 
too many unknowns but the arguments that it is just a hoax are getting harder 
to believe ... it would have to be the biggest, most elaborate hoax in science 
history and would require a lot of people to keep it going and they'd have to 
keep quiet. Given that you can't get four people to agree on how to split a 
lunch bill, a conspiracy seems unlikely and Rossi as the sole perpetrator seems 
just as improbable.


  [mg]

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Mark Gibbs]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Andrew  wrote:

> There's another way to perpetrate the output hoax, and that's to secrete
> infrared lasers in the ceiling and heat the device up remotely.


Lasers?! Don't you think that seems just a little farfetched? And it
raises, once again, as do many of the proposed ways the tests could have
been rigged, the question of why go to so much trouble? OK, let's say it's
all a hoax ... how much longer can the hoax continue?

I'm still somewhat skeptical about the whole thing simply because there are
too many unknowns but the arguments that it is just a hoax are getting
harder to believe ... it would have to be the biggest, most elaborate hoax
in science history and would require a lot of people to keep it going and
they'd have to keep quiet. Given that you can't get four people to agree on
how to split a lunch bill, a conspiracy seems unlikely and Rossi as the
sole perpetrator seems just as improbable.

[mg]

Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat report published -- Final Ragone Plot

[mixent]

In reply to  Alan Fletcher's message of Mon, 20 May 2013 20:30:59 -0700 (PDT):
Hi,

:)

>> From: mix...@bigpond.com
>> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 8:11:12 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat report published -- Final Ragone Plot
>> 
>> In reply to  Alan Fletcher's message of Mon, 20 May 2013 13:20:06
>
>> I think the impact of this would be even greater on a linear rather
>> than logarithmic plot. :)
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>
>
>http://xkcd.com/1162/   ?
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

I guess I should follow my own advice.

J

I had the steel and ceramic cylinders reversed; the SiN ceramic is the
*outermost* cylinder.

Still, why does he bring up the emissivity of nickel?  

Obviously he has not read the paper past the abstract or first page.

-mark

 

From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:07 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

 

"Motl is deleting my comment"

That doesn't surprise me.

 

I too posted a comment. we'll see if he deletes it as well.

Here is my post:



It is patently obvious that you have NOT read the paper, or only skimmed it
due to your *belief* that this is a scam.

 

1) you state, "Emissivity of nickel starts at 0.04 or 0.05 and even black
nickel has epsilon below 0.5." 

 

The emissivity of Nickel has nothing to do with it. The outer cylinder is
steel, not Nickel. So why even mention the emissivity of nickel here?  You
are either ignorant of the details of the test, or are intentionally
misleading people.

 

2) In addition, the steel cylinder is PAINTED, as was CLEARLY stated in the
paper on pg16: 

 

"Another critical issue of the December test that was dealt with in this
trial is the evaluation of the emissivity of the E-Cat HT2's coat of paint.
For this purpose, self-adhesive samples were used: white disks of
approximately 2 cm in diameter (henceforth: dots) having a known emissivity
of 0.95, provided by the same firm that manufactures the IR cameras..."

 

These disks are used as CONTROLS to help validate the emissivity values
used. 

I would think that a scientist would at least read the paper CAREFULLY
before attempting to criticize it.

--

 

I suppose I could have been a bit more 'diplomatic', but frankly, this
'physicist' doesn't deserve it.

He probably works at CERN.

-Mark Iverson

 

From: Giovanni Santostasi [mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:49 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

 

Motl is deleting my comment, lol. 

Funny

Giovanni

 

 

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
wrote:

My argument against what Motl claims (what I wrote on his post):

 

 I think Lumo you are wrong on this issue of epsilon. The camera doesn't
know about temperatures but can measure power. If you use a higher epsilon
(1 being the highest) than the real one you are actually underestimating the
temperature (derived from Stephan-Boltzman). The camera gives temperature as
a proxy for power. If you use the wrong epsilon in the setting of the
camera, let's say 1 instead of 0.1 you are underestimating the temperature
by a factor of 10, so 5000 K is reported as 500 K. Then when you use the
reading of 500 K to calculate the power using Stephan-Boltzman again (after
averaging over many areas) reintroducing the same value for epsilon=1 would
overestimate power but because the temperature was underestimated by the
same factor, everything is all right and the radiation power is estimated
correctly. It is still a lower limit of total power given that some power
would be in other forms (like convection).

 

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that the
power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was
measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power
analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments).
Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the
company licensing the technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have
defrauded the investigators by hidden camera, or other spy device, observing
when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency, overlaid on
the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the PCE-830. This
assertion about the PCE-830's limitations has not been validated as
plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority.

 

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people think
and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement coming
from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a single thing
I wish they had checked but did not.

 

In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any
chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for
output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even
though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in
every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase
output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they
know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees away
from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but rather
than try to take that into account

Re: [Vo]:Ni-62 patent application

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Tue, 21 May 2013 08:13:14 -0700:
Hi Jones,

You may be right. Time will tell.

>Original Message-
>From: mix...@bigpond.com   
>
>> If you go to
>https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP08873805&lng=en&tab=
>doclist
> I get the distinct impression that Ni-62 was made specific in order to
>distinguish this patent application from others, IOW in order to obtain a
>patent at all I get the impression that Rossi is trying to get a patent
>without disclosing his "secret sauce", and the patent office isn't happy
>about it.
>
>Robin,
>
>The motivation you ascribe to Rossi makes little legal sense (not that we
>can be assured that Rossi fits into the category of a rational person). 
>
>Nickel-62 is the secret-sauce, now fully disclosed.
>
>Given that his wife is a lawyer and understands patent law and the
>importance of enforceability, and that trade secrets cannot be kept anyway,
>there is no attempt to manipulate the system here. She apparently handles
>the business end of Rossi's endeavors - as evidenced by the sale of his
>other business ventures, which she handled. Even if Rossi does not get good
>outside advice on everything, we have to assume he is getting proper legal
>advice from his wife. 
>
>Having an unenforceable patent in the USA is almost worse than having none
>at all, since you have wasted so much money in the process that you present
>an aura of weakness to anyone who wishes to copy your product. Almost every
>major product will have novelty - so that salient details can be protected -
>but if you try to patent a non-existent feature, or over-extend your novelty
>- then you are essentially telling the court: "I have no novelty worth
>protecting". His wife has no doubt seen and studied the impressive BLP
>portfolio of Intellectual Property - and she knows that it makes no sense to
>challenge that prior art. This patent is very specific, and is probably
>fully enforceable about the use of one isotope.
>
>Yet - for some reason, even Rossi's supporters balk at this suggestion,
>despite its obviousness. They apparently resist the implications of a rare
>isotope, because of a preconceived notion about the larger field of LENR
>providing almost limitless and "free energy". 
>
>This segment of Rossi supporters is so idealistic about going beyond what is
>now becoming obvious in the public record that they can be called "isotope
>deniers". In terms of psychology (human nature) the answer must be that they
>(isotope deniers) want LENR to be not only proved, but also to be proved in
>a way that makes all their other notions about its low cost and ability to
>quash fossil fuel - true, as well.
>
>Nevertheless, the reality of the recent Levi paper in the context of the
>recent final Rossi patent disclosure, appears to be:
> 
>1) LENR is real and robust when an enriched isotope of nickel-62 is provided
>
>
>2) LENR in therefore partially dependent on the availability of a rare
>isotope, although the effect can be demonstrated less reliably without it
>(using plain nickel). The bottom line: who wants an unreliable system? No
>even BLP.
> 
>3) Even though the nickel isotope will be brought down in cost, eventually,
>in the same way that U235 was, LENR may not propel society as rapidly into
>the lofty realms that supporters had forecast... which is to immediately and
>drastically limit oil consumption. The advantage will be with LENR in the
>long run, but it will be less apparent.
>
>4) The Rossi-effect can still make a huge - massive - qualitative difference
>- 10 years down the road and beyond, but it will not be simple, nor will it
>be as cheap as it once seemed.
>
>Jones
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

[Vo]:Rossi's 3rd party test - Review

[Bastiaan Bergman]

Can we discuss the content of this report?

Let me start with thanking our Italian and Swedish colleagues for this
detailed and comprehensive report, its a great report that deserves
detailed analysis and critical review. My perspective on the issue of
cold fusion, LENR or "unknown energy source" is that no-body can proof
it's in-existence; not by failed experiments nor by theory. Failed
experiments are never performed correctly and all theory is, by
definition, based on known experiments. On the other hand,
practically, it is not so useful to believe in the existence of
anything that has not been proven. I think the current report by Levi
et. al. justifies more investigation.

The test report by Levi et. al. describes two tests of a Rossi device,
called E-Cat, one test performed in December with a limited number of
observers and one performed in March with a larger number of
observers. Each test lasted for about 4 days and comprised of
measuring the electric power going in and the thermal power going out.
An excess in power-out is than claimed to be anomalous.

To be truly anomalous its generally assumed that one needs to prove
all of the following:
-1- There is excess energy
-2- This excess is more than could be stored within the reactor by
conventional fuels such as chemical or nuclear fission components
-3- The ratio of energy input over output, the COP, is more than a factor 2.5

Only 0.3 grams (or 1 gram including an error marge) of reactor
material is "unknown" and secret while the rest of the reactor was
inspected by all observers and deemed to be not a fuel. With the long
operation time of the tests this potential amount of conventional fuel
is insignificant, 0.003 kWh on a total of about 150 kWh. This means we
don't need to test for point 2, provided excess energy was established
well within the error bars of the measurement method.

Since the test setup is evaluating thermal output as the measure for
energy one needs to ensure this heat is not extracted from the
environment. It is often assumed that this can best be proven with an
excess energy of more than what is achievable with a Carnot cycle.
While a COP of more than 2.5 to 3 would proof that an ordinary
heat-pump scheme is not at play, it is not a necessary proof. Any
implementation of a Carnot cycle heat pump needs, by definition, a
"cold side" to extract heat from the environment. With the setup
described in this report there is no reason to suspect a hidden form
of heat extraction as a cold side would be obvious to any observer.
Therefore we don't need to check for point 3 of the above, provided,
again, that excess energy was established.

Another reason to require a COP of more than 2.5 is an economical end
technological reason. Because the E-Cat has a high-entropy input
(electricity) and a low-entropy output (heat), efficiency losses need
to be offset to make the E-Cat a truly economical and technological
advance. This is a purely technological and economical argument and
irrelevant in the determination of whether we have a truly anomalous
energy source. Moreover, while at this stage of scientific discovery
it is impossible to predict technological impact it is safe to say
that an anomalous energy source of the claimed proportions will be an
epic disruption.

Remains to proof the excess energy, output energy more than the input
energy and more than all potential measurement errors combined.

I see no potential problems with the measurement method of the input
energy. A simple and straightforward commercial apparatus is used, the
application is simple and well within the capabilities of the
instrument.

Measurement of output energy is where problems arise. An IR camera is
used to measure the intensity of IR radiation emitted from the reactor
geometry. The IR intensity is than related to temperature through
Planck's equation and than again related to power through Black-body
radiation. This is a highly inaccurate method, black body radiation
depends on temperature to the fourth power - A tiny error in the
determined temperature will cause a huge error in the obtained power.
Another error comes from the emissivity, no object is a truly "Black"
body and estimations need to be made. The report quotes to be
"conservative" with choosing a high emissivity of 1, which indeed
relates to the lowest possible temperature, but fails to explain how
such emissivity choice impacts the calculated radiation power. It is
further unclear how the IR camera works, whether it measures IR
intensity a a narrow bandwidth, at a wide bandwidth or whether it
measures the center wavelength. Fortunately a blanco or "dummy" test
was performed validating the method in exactly the power regime of
interest. Indeed a measured temperature of 300 C equaled a power input
and output of 800 Watt and indeed related, using the same assumptions,
to a calculated power of 750 Watt. Since the performed test with
"loaded" E-Cat's resulted in about the same temperature with only 1/3
o

Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved

[Axil Axil]

Nickel nano-particles are superparamagnetic. They interact with dipole
vibration. This may be the reason why nickel nanostructures are important
in the nanoplasmonic causation of LENR.

 *

Magnetic relaxation of a system of superparamagnetic particles weakly
coupled by dipole-dipole interactions

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4294.pdf
*


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:

> I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the reaction.  Are
> we now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus participates in the
> nuclear reaction that causes the heat?  Dr. Storms proposes that physical
> cracks in the lattice are the NAE and the money crop of the reaction does
> not have any Ni nuclei being consumed except as a possible side reaction.
>  If the NAE are cracks (plausible but far from certain), then would the
> 62Ni create a more desirable crack than a 60Ni or a 64Ni?  How would the
> isotope affect the crack as an NAE?  Wouldn't only valence/conduction band
> electron effects show up in the crack?  If so, how could an isotope in the
> lattice have any effect on what happens in the crack?
>
> At William and Mary's ILENR-12, Dr. Peter Hagelstein told me that
> transmutation of Ni is endothermic.
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:
>
>> Ni 62 has zero spin but the others have a nuclear spin component.  So
>> I should be relatively easy to come up with a way to separate them.
>>
>> D2
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Do you guys agree with my analysis of the use of epsilon? Basically it is
irrelevant what value you use if you use it twice
in determining temperature first and estimating power from temperature
later. The contribution of epsilon would be cancelled out.

Giovanni



On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:07 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

> “Motl is deleting my comment”
>
> That doesn’t surprise me…
>
> ** **
>
> I too posted a comment… we’ll see if he deletes it as well.
>
> Here is my post:
>
> 
>
> It is patently obvious that you have NOT read the paper, or only skimmed
> it due to your *belief* that this is a scam.
>
> ** **
>
> 1) you state, "Emissivity of nickel starts at 0.04 or 0.05 and even black
> nickel has epsilon below 0.5." 
>
> ** **
>
> The emissivity of Nickel has nothing to do with it. The outer cylinder is
> steel, not Nickel. So why even mention the emissivity of nickel here?  You
> are either ignorant of the details of the test, or are intentionally
> misleading people.
>
> ** **
>
> 2) In addition, the steel cylinder is PAINTED, as was CLEARLY stated in
> the paper on pg16: 
>
> ** **
>
> "Another critical issue of the December test that was dealt with in this
> trial is the evaluation of the emissivity of the E-Cat HT2’s *coat of
> paint*. For this purpose, self-adhesive samples were used: white disks of
> approximately 2 cm in diameter (henceforth: dots) having a known emissivity
> of 0.95, provided by the same firm that manufactures the IR cameras..."***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> These disks are used as CONTROLS to help validate the emissivity values
> used. 
>
> I would think that a scientist would at least read the paper CAREFULLY
> before attempting to criticize it.
>
> --
>
> ** **
>
> I suppose I could have been a bit more ‘diplomatic’, but frankly, this
> ‘physicist’ doesn’t deserve it.
>
> He probably works at CERN…
>
> -Mark Iverson
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Giovanni Santostasi [mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:49 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
> ** **
>
> Motl is deleting my comment, lol. 
>
> Funny
>
> Giovanni
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My argument against what Motl claims (what I wrote on his post):
>
> ** **
>
>  I think Lumo you are wrong on this issue of epsilon. The camera doesn't
> know about temperatures but can measure power. If you use a higher epsilon
> (1 being the highest) than the real one you are actually underestimating
> the temperature (derived from Stephan-Boltzman). The camera gives
> temperature as a proxy for power. If you use the wrong epsilon in the
> setting of the camera, let's say 1 instead of 0.1 you are underestimating
> the temperature by a factor of 10, so 5000 K is reported as 500 K. Then
> when you use the reading of 500 K to calculate the power using
> Stephan-Boltzman again (after averaging over many areas) reintroducing the
> same value for epsilon=1 would overestimate power but because the
> temperature was underestimated by the same factor, everything is all right
> and the radiation power is estimated correctly. It is still a lower limit
> of total power given that some power would be in other forms (like
> convection).
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM, James Bowery  wrote:*
> ***
>
> The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that
> the power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was
> measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power
> analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments).
> Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the
> company licensing the technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have
> defrauded the investigators by hidden camera, or other spy device,
> observing when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency,
> overlaid on the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the
> PCE-830. This assertion about the PCE-830's limitations has not been
> validated as plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority.
>
> ** **
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
> I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people
> think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement
> coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a
> single thing I wish they had checked but did not.
>
> ** **
>
> In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any
> chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for
> output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even
> though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in
> every poss

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Andrew I thought about the same thing about a way to send power via RF to
the device. The only issue with that is we are talking about a lot of power
and a power source would have to emit it in every direction. So much RF
power should interfere easily with the electronics and it should be
indirectly detectable. If there is a trick it is most likely in the
modulation of the input power.

Giovanni



On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
wrote:

> Does even teach or do research in any public institution anymore?
> Giovanni
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Andrew  wrote:
>
>> **
>> I could have predicted that, Giovanni, which is why I, having raised the
>> issue here, chose not to do that. He is an egomaniac, and you attempted to
>> beard the lion in its own den. The man has little integrity, quite frankly.
>> However, he is IMHO a quite talented physicist.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Giovanni Santostasi 
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:48 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>>
>> Motl is deleting my comment, lol.
>> Funny
>> Giovanni
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
>> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> My argument against what Motl claims (what I wrote on his post):
>>>
>>>  I think Lumo you are wrong on this issue of epsilon. The camera doesn't
>>> know about temperatures but can measure power. If you use a higher epsilon
>>> (1 being the highest) than the real one you are actually underestimating
>>> the temperature (derived from Stephan-Boltzman). The camera gives
>>> temperature as a proxy for power. If you use the wrong epsilon in the
>>> setting of the camera, let's say 1 instead of 0.1 you are underestimating
>>> the temperature by a factor of 10, so 5000 K is reported as 500 K. Then
>>> when you use the reading of 500 K to calculate the power using
>>> Stephan-Boltzman again (after averaging over many areas) reintroducing the
>>> same value for epsilon=1 would overestimate power but because the
>>> temperature was underestimated by the same factor, everything is all right
>>> and the radiation power is estimated correctly. It is still a lower limit
>>> of total power given that some power would be in other forms (like
>>> convection).
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
 The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is
 that the power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it
 was measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power
 analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments).
 Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the
 company licensing the technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have
 defrauded the investigators by hidden camera, or other spy device,
 observing when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency,
 overlaid on the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the
 PCE-830. This assertion about the PCE-830's limitations has not been
 validated as plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority.


 On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people
> think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a 
> complement
> coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a
> single thing I wish they had checked but did not.
>
> In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is
> any chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible 
> value
> for output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1
> even though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The 
> add
> in every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase
> output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they
> know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees
> away from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but
> rather than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if
> all surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first
> set of tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly,
> casting a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than 
> into
> account.
>
> Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics
> and others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the
> nature of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no
> adjustments for it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an
> electrically heated cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It
> is hands-off 

RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

"Motl is deleting my comment"

That doesn't surprise me.

 

I too posted a comment. we'll see if he deletes it as well.

Here is my post:



It is patently obvious that you have NOT read the paper, or only skimmed it
due to your *belief* that this is a scam.

 

1) you state, "Emissivity of nickel starts at 0.04 or 0.05 and even black
nickel has epsilon below 0.5." 

 

The emissivity of Nickel has nothing to do with it. The outer cylinder is
steel, not Nickel. So why even mention the emissivity of nickel here?  You
are either ignorant of the details of the test, or are intentionally
misleading people.

 

2) In addition, the steel cylinder is PAINTED, as was CLEARLY stated in the
paper on pg16: 

 

"Another critical issue of the December test that was dealt with in this
trial is the evaluation of the emissivity of the E-Cat HT2's coat of paint.
For this purpose, self-adhesive samples were used: white disks of
approximately 2 cm in diameter (henceforth: dots) having a known emissivity
of 0.95, provided by the same firm that manufactures the IR cameras..."

 

These disks are used as CONTROLS to help validate the emissivity values
used. 

I would think that a scientist would at least read the paper CAREFULLY
before attempting to criticize it.

--

 

I suppose I could have been a bit more 'diplomatic', but frankly, this
'physicist' doesn't deserve it.

He probably works at CERN.

-Mark Iverson

 

From: Giovanni Santostasi [mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:49 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

 

Motl is deleting my comment, lol. 

Funny

Giovanni

 

 

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
wrote:

My argument against what Motl claims (what I wrote on his post):

 

 I think Lumo you are wrong on this issue of epsilon. The camera doesn't
know about temperatures but can measure power. If you use a higher epsilon
(1 being the highest) than the real one you are actually underestimating the
temperature (derived from Stephan-Boltzman). The camera gives temperature as
a proxy for power. If you use the wrong epsilon in the setting of the
camera, let's say 1 instead of 0.1 you are underestimating the temperature
by a factor of 10, so 5000 K is reported as 500 K. Then when you use the
reading of 500 K to calculate the power using Stephan-Boltzman again (after
averaging over many areas) reintroducing the same value for epsilon=1 would
overestimate power but because the temperature was underestimated by the
same factor, everything is all right and the radiation power is estimated
correctly. It is still a lower limit of total power given that some power
would be in other forms (like convection).

 

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that the
power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was
measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power
analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments).
Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the
company licensing the technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have
defrauded the investigators by hidden camera, or other spy device, observing
when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency, overlaid on
the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the PCE-830. This
assertion about the PCE-830's limitations has not been validated as
plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority.

 

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people think
and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement coming
from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a single thing
I wish they had checked but did not.

 

In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any
chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for
output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even
though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in
every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase
output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they
know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees away
from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but rather
than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if all
surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first set of
tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly, casting
a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than into account.

 

Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics and
others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the nature
of the reaction or t

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Does even teach or do research in any public institution anymore?
Giovanni



On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Andrew  wrote:

> **
> I could have predicted that, Giovanni, which is why I, having raised the
> issue here, chose not to do that. He is an egomaniac, and you attempted to
> beard the lion in its own den. The man has little integrity, quite frankly.
> However, he is IMHO a quite talented physicist.
>
> Andrew
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Giovanni Santostasi 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:48 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
> Motl is deleting my comment, lol.
> Funny
> Giovanni
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My argument against what Motl claims (what I wrote on his post):
>>
>>  I think Lumo you are wrong on this issue of epsilon. The camera doesn't
>> know about temperatures but can measure power. If you use a higher epsilon
>> (1 being the highest) than the real one you are actually underestimating
>> the temperature (derived from Stephan-Boltzman). The camera gives
>> temperature as a proxy for power. If you use the wrong epsilon in the
>> setting of the camera, let's say 1 instead of 0.1 you are underestimating
>> the temperature by a factor of 10, so 5000 K is reported as 500 K. Then
>> when you use the reading of 500 K to calculate the power using
>> Stephan-Boltzman again (after averaging over many areas) reintroducing the
>> same value for epsilon=1 would overestimate power but because the
>> temperature was underestimated by the same factor, everything is all right
>> and the radiation power is estimated correctly. It is still a lower limit
>> of total power given that some power would be in other forms (like
>> convection).
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that
>>> the power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was
>>> measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power
>>> analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments).
>>> Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the
>>> company licensing the technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have
>>> defrauded the investigators by hidden camera, or other spy device,
>>> observing when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency,
>>> overlaid on the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the
>>> PCE-830. This assertion about the PCE-830's limitations has not been
>>> validated as plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>>
 I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people
 think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement
 coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a
 single thing I wish they had checked but did not.

 In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is
 any chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value
 for output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1
 even though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add
 in every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase
 output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they
 know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees
 away from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but
 rather than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if
 all surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first
 set of tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly,
 casting a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than into
 account.

 Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics
 and others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the
 nature of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no
 adjustments for it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an
 electrically heated cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It
 is hands-off in the literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching the
 cell, and the rest at a distance, including the clamp on ammeter which
 placed below the power supply. You do not have to know anything about the
 reaction to be sure these measurements are right. There is nothing Rossi
 could possibly do to fool these instruments, which the authors brought with
 them. They left a video camera on the instruments at all times to ensure
 there was no hanky-panky. They wrote:

 "The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to
 en

Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved

[Edmund Storms]

Yes, Harry this is one of the several reasons why transmutation cannot  
be the source  of energy. Four more remain.


Ed Storms
On May 21, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:

In an environment populated with Ni nuclei and H nuclei, the  
spontaneous fusion of a H nucleus with another H nucleus is favoured  
over spontaneous fusion with a Ni nucleus because the electrostatic  
force of repulsion is smaller between two H nucleus than it is  
between an H nucleus and an Ni nucleus.


Harry


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:54 PM, DJ Cravens   
wrote:
yes, I have doubts about Ni + p or Ni + 2p reactions.   most of  
these seem endothermic to me.
I would be more inclined to think there some kind of p+p   like  
event.  (OK Ed... p e p )



Dennis


CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com
From: stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:48:13 -0600

Good point, Bob.  Simple arguments can show that the amount of  
energy claimed by Rossi can not result from the Ni+p=Cu reaction  
regardless of the isotope. Ironically, people will accept Rossi's  
claim that transmutation is the source of energy while questioning  
whether he makes any energy at all. Amazing!


Ed Storms
On May 21, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:

I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the  
reaction.  Are we now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus  
participates in the nuclear reaction that causes the heat?  Dr.  
Storms proposes that physical cracks in the lattice are the NAE and  
the money crop of the reaction does not have any Ni nuclei being  
consumed except as a possible side reaction.  If the NAE are cracks  
(plausible but far from certain), then would the 62Ni create a more  
desirable crack than a 60Ni or a 64Ni?  How would the isotope affect  
the crack as an NAE?  Wouldn't only valence/conduction band electron  
effects show up in the crack?  If so, how could an isotope in the  
lattice have any effect on what happens in the crack?


At William and Mary's ILENR-12, Dr. Peter Hagelstein told me that  
transmutation of Ni is endothermic.



On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM, DJ Cravens   
wrote:
Ni 62 has zero spin but the others have a nuclear spin component.   
So I should be relatively easy to come up with a way to separate them.


D2

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

I could have predicted that, Giovanni, which is why I, having raised the issue 
here, chose not to do that. He is an egomaniac, and you attempted to beard the 
lion in its own den. The man has little integrity, quite frankly. However, he 
is IMHO a quite talented physicist.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Giovanni Santostasi 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:48 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  Motl is deleting my comment, lol. 
  Funny
  Giovanni





  On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Giovanni Santostasi  
wrote:

My argument against what Motl claims (what I wrote on his post):


 I think Lumo you are wrong on this issue of epsilon. The camera doesn't 
know about temperatures but can measure power. If you use a higher epsilon (1 
being the highest) than the real one you are actually underestimating the 
temperature (derived from Stephan-Boltzman). The camera gives temperature as a 
proxy for power. If you use the wrong epsilon in the setting of the camera, 
let's say 1 instead of 0.1 you are underestimating the temperature by a factor 
of 10, so 5000 K is reported as 500 K. Then when you use the reading of 500 K 
to calculate the power using Stephan-Boltzman again (after averaging over many 
areas) reintroducing the same value for epsilon=1 would overestimate power but 
because the temperature was underestimated by the same factor, everything is 
all right and the radiation power is estimated correctly. It is still a lower 
limit of total power given that some power would be in other forms (like 
convection).




On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

  The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that 
the power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was 
measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power analyzer 
(PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments). Detractors assert 
that as the test was conducted on the premises of the company licensing the 
technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have defrauded the investigators by 
hidden camera, or other spy device, observing when to apply a hidden AC power 
source of such high frequency, overlaid on the normal power, that it would have 
been undetectable by the PCE-830. This assertion about the PCE-830's 
limitations has not been validated as plausible by PCE Instruments or any other 
authority.




  On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell  
wrote:

I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people 
think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement 
coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a single 
thing I wish they had checked but did not.


In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is 
any chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for 
output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even 
though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in every 
possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase output but 
which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they know that 
emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees away from the 
camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but rather than try to 
take that into account, they do the calculation as if all surfaces are at 0 
degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first set of tests they know that 
the support frame blocks the IR camera partly, casting a shadow and reducing 
output, but they do not try to take than into account.



Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics 
and others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the nature 
of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no adjustments for 
it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an electrically heated 
cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It is hands-off in the 
literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching the cell, and the rest at a 
distance, including the clamp on ammeter which placed below the power supply. 
You do not have to know anything about the reaction to be sure these 
measurements are right. There is nothing Rossi could possibly do to fool these 
instruments, which the authors brought with them. They left a video camera on 
the instruments at all times to ensure there was no hanky-panky. They wrote:

"The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to 
ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a 
nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements themselves."



They estimate the extent to which the heat exceeds the limits of 
chemistry by both the mass of the cell and the volume of the cell. In the first 
test, they use the entire weig

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

I think it's valuable to approach this topic as would a stage magician - just 
recall how far this sort of keen observational common sense got Randi; you 
don't need a whole lot of physics, but you do need a "jaundiced eye". Rossi is 
not renowned for his honesty, after all, and therefore one has to be prepared 
to fight fire with fire, but without devolving into some hopelessly crabby 
sceptic. I realise that discussing the mechanics of a scam may be distasteful 
to some purists, but hey, there's a lot of money involved here, and we are all 
grown-ups.

Below we're discussing the input hoax. As for the output hoax, I've run across 
a second possibility (my first was infrared lasers). Those long "resistors" 
could serve double duty as RF receiving antennae. Same principle as the lasers, 
but just a different frequency.

And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further that, 
according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of all. Just 
ask Geller and Taylor.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Andrew 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:07 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's "small". 

  A battery would need to supply (say, conservatively) 500 W for 116 hours, or 
200 MJ. Lithium batteries are about 2 MJ/Kg, so that's 100 Kg of battery. I 
agree that's unlikely but don;t have enough information to make the call.

  Andrew


  - Original Message - 
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Andrew  wrote:



  You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to 
any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with 
additional power.


What sort of internal power source?


A generator? That would noisy and obvious.


A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has 
developed such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own right.


A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500 to 800 
W. They would see it.


Do you have anything else in mind?


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved

[Edmund Storms]

Jones, there is no ash because no one has looked for deuterium.  
Everyone who might find enough deuterium to detect is focused on  
transmutation. If they now find deuterium, their favorite explanation  
will go up in smoke and the patents that claim to need nickel will be  
useless.  I'm trying to get someone to look for deuterium and report  
the results. So far, no luck. Until this test is made, no conclusion  
is worth accepting.


Ed Storms
On May 21, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Jones Beene wrote:




From: Bob Higgins

I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the  
reaction.  Are we now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus  
participates in the nuclear reaction that causes the heat


IMO this is a “Mills type” reaction (BLP), involving deep hydrogen  
redundancy - and the Ni does not transmute into another element.


This particular isotope is simply a much better catalyst for deep  
redundancy at the 300 eV level. This mechanism goes beyond Randell  
Mills theory into QM and wave function collapse, which Mills rejects.


Rossi and Focardi apparently believe that nickel transmutes to  
copper, but the proof offered indicates otherwise. Others believe  
that protons fuse to deuterium. There is no proof of that.


Many qualified observers, at this stage, have markedly different  
opinions.


However, it is worth repeating that if it is a nuclear reaction –  
there should be gamma radiation and/or radioactive ash. There is none.


Jones

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Motl is deleting my comment, lol.
Funny
Giovanni



On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
wrote:

> My argument against what Motl claims (what I wrote on his post):
>
>  I think Lumo you are wrong on this issue of epsilon. The camera doesn't
> know about temperatures but can measure power. If you use a higher epsilon
> (1 being the highest) than the real one you are actually underestimating
> the temperature (derived from Stephan-Boltzman). The camera gives
> temperature as a proxy for power. If you use the wrong epsilon in the
> setting of the camera, let's say 1 instead of 0.1 you are underestimating
> the temperature by a factor of 10, so 5000 K is reported as 500 K. Then
> when you use the reading of 500 K to calculate the power using
> Stephan-Boltzman again (after averaging over many areas) reintroducing the
> same value for epsilon=1 would overestimate power but because the
> temperature was underestimated by the same factor, everything is all right
> and the radiation power is estimated correctly. It is still a lower limit
> of total power given that some power would be in other forms (like
> convection).
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that
>> the power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was
>> measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power
>> analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments).
>> Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the
>> company licensing the technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have
>> defrauded the investigators by hidden camera, or other spy device,
>> observing when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency,
>> overlaid on the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the
>> PCE-830. This assertion about the PCE-830's limitations has not been
>> validated as plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>>> I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people
>>> think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement
>>> coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a
>>> single thing I wish they had checked but did not.
>>>
>>> In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any
>>> chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for
>>> output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even
>>> though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in
>>> every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase
>>> output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they
>>> know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees
>>> away from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but
>>> rather than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if
>>> all surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first
>>> set of tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly,
>>> casting a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than into
>>> account.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics
>>> and others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the
>>> nature of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no
>>> adjustments for it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an
>>> electrically heated cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It
>>> is hands-off in the literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching the
>>> cell, and the rest at a distance, including the clamp on ammeter which
>>> placed below the power supply. You do not have to know anything about the
>>> reaction to be sure these measurements are right. There is nothing Rossi
>>> could possibly do to fool these instruments, which the authors brought with
>>> them. They left a video camera on the instruments at all times to ensure
>>> there was no hanky-panky. They wrote:
>>>
>>> "The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to
>>> ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a
>>> nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements
>>> themselves."
>>>
>>> They estimate the extent to which the heat exceeds the limits of
>>> chemistry by both the mass of the cell and the volume of the cell. In the
>>> first test, they use the entire weight of the inside cell as the starting
>>> point, rather than just the powder, as if stainless steel might be the
>>> reactant. In the second test they determine that the powder weighs ~0.3 g
>>> but they round that up to 1 g.
>>>
>>> They use Martin Fleischmann's favorite method of looking at the heat
>>> decay curves when the power cycles off. Plot 5 clearly sh

RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Arnaud Kodeck]

Did the testing team check the electrical power provided by Rossi’s team?

Is ground the ground?

Are all 3 phases, the 3 phases at 120° each? (Are all that 3 phases
effectively measured by the PCE-830 ?)

Is the neutral the neutral?

What are the voltages? (Between phases, between phase and neutral, neutral
and ground)

Is the frequency at 50 Hz?

 

They don’t say anything about that in the report. A highly qualified team in
a full week should have had a look at that.

  _  

From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: mardi 21 mai 2013 23:19
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

 

The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that the
power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was
measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power
analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments).
Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the
company licensing the technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have
defrauded the investigators by hidden camera, or other spy device, observing
when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency, overlaid on
the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the PCE-830. This
assertion about the PCE-830's limitations has not been validated as
plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority.

 

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people think
and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement coming
from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a single thing
I wish they had checked but did not.

 

In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any
chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for
output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even
though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in
every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase
output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they
know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees away
from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but rather
than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if all
surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first set of
tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly, casting
a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than into account.

 

Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics and
others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the nature
of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no adjustments for
it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an electrically
heated cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It is hands-off in
the literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching the cell, and the
rest at a distance, including the clamp on ammeter which placed below the
power supply. You do not have to know anything about the reaction to be sure
these measurements are right. There is nothing Rossi could possibly do to
fool these instruments, which the authors brought with them. They left a
video camera on the instruments at all times to ensure there was no
hanky-panky. They wrote:


"The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to ensure
the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a
nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements
themselves."

 

They estimate the extent to which the heat exceeds the limits of chemistry
by both the mass of the cell and the volume of the cell. In the first test,
they use the entire weight of the inside cell as the starting point, rather
than just the powder, as if stainless steel might be the reactant. In the
second test they determine that the powder weighs ~0.3 g but they round that
up to 1 g.

 

They use Martin Fleischmann's favorite method of looking at the heat decay
curves when the power cycles off. Plot 5 clearly shows that the heat does
not decay according to Newton's law of cooling. There must be a heat
producing reaction in addition to the electric heater.

 

I like it!

 

- Jed

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved

[Harry Veeder]

In an environment populated with Ni nuclei and H nuclei, the spontaneous
fusion of a H nucleus with another H nucleus is favoured over spontaneous
fusion with a Ni nucleus because the electrostatic force of repulsion is
smaller between two H nucleus than it is between an H nucleus and an Ni
nucleus.

Harry


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:54 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:

> yes, I have doubts about Ni + p or Ni + 2p reactions.   most of these seem
> endothermic to me.
> I would be more inclined to think there some kind of p+p   like event.
> (OK Ed... p e p )
>
>
> Dennis
>
>
> --
> CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com
> From: stor...@ix.netcom.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
> Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:48:13 -0600
>
> Good point, Bob.  Simple arguments can show that the amount of energy
> claimed by Rossi can not result from the Ni+p=Cu reaction regardless of the
> isotope. Ironically, people will accept Rossi's claim that transmutation is
> the source of energy while questioning whether he makes any energy at all.
> Amazing!
>
> Ed Storms
> On May 21, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>
> I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the reaction.  Are
> we now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus participates in the
> nuclear reaction that causes the heat?  Dr. Storms proposes that physical
> cracks in the lattice are the NAE and the money crop of the reaction does
> not have any Ni nuclei being consumed except as a possible side reaction.
>  If the NAE are cracks (plausible but far from certain), then would the
> 62Ni create a more desirable crack than a 60Ni or a 64Ni?  How would the
> isotope affect the crack as an NAE?  Wouldn't only valence/conduction band
> electron effects show up in the crack?  If so, how could an isotope in the
> lattice have any effect on what happens in the crack?
>
> At William and Mary's ILENR-12, Dr. Peter Hagelstein told me that
> transmutation of Ni is endothermic.
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:
>
> Ni 62 has zero spin but the others have a nuclear spin component.  So
> I should be relatively easy to come up with a way to separate them.
>
> D2
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Lubos motll,and Physicists

[Giovanni Santostasi]

After all this is Physics so he should be able to speak in a competent
manner about it. But everybody can make a logical mistake, the problem with
Motl is that he is too sure about himself and too arrogant, almost in an
aggressive way.
Giovanni



On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Randy Wuller  wrote:

> **
> Until today I had never heard of Lubos Motl, however, having followed
> LENR/Cold Fusion since last January his attitude doesn't surprise me.
> Pardon the generalization but it just seems that Physicists have the notion
> they are experts on everything.  Until this last year I had thought that
> arrogance was reserved for Lawyers.  The difference though is that while
> lawyers think they can be experts on all things Human, including physics,
> generally they do recognize how little they actually know about anything
> (In other words Human's are still savages in the universe and we most
> likely know nothing if measured by all knowledge).  Lobus's silly comments
> clearly indicate he hasn't learned that lesson.
>
> And again I speak only in generalizations and I don't mean to offend
> either Physicists or lawyers who have learned some humility.
>
> Ransom
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Alain Sepeda 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Monday, February 13, 2012 9:28 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Lubos motll, physicis talk of CERN CF conference, and
> bash it...
>
> I don't feel that "“respected” skeptics are retiring from the field in the
> face of the growing evidence"... you should read Judith Curry... in fact it
> seems that, fair or not, the history is tumbling... first rats start to
> flee the drowning boat...
>
> anyway, about LM, I've always been shocked by his lack of moderation in
> any opinion, his rough "US Republican Coffee party" vision of economy, and
> nearly faint on some things not to say (sorry here it is  a crime, and a
> proven stupidity; also a family insult in every large family)...
>
> anyway, his opinion and vulgarization on QM is great and cutting edge.
>
> an example why one should avoid "ad hominem" critics.
>
>
>
> 2012/2/13 Roarty, Francis X 
>
>>  His career will suffer for poor timing, while other “respected”
>> skeptics are retiring from the field in the face of the growing evidence,
>> they are letting the young blood charge forward to take their place under
>> the oncoming bus.  Although there was once good reason to be skeptical
>> those reasons continue to erode and that rate has been increasing rapidly
>> of late. The longer  Lubos keeps his head buried the more he shortens his
>> own career.  
>>
>> 
>>
>> Was Daniel suggesting Lubos has made both sexist and racist remarks?
>> [snip] He was banned(sort of) from Harvard due his strong opinions  on
>> women and  black people. He's been unemployed for around 5 years because of
>> that.[/snip]. I would hate to think we are giving any consideration to this
>> man if so.
>>
>> 
>>
>> Fran
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Giovanni Santostasi]

My argument against what Motl claims (what I wrote on his post):

 I think Lumo you are wrong on this issue of epsilon. The camera doesn't
know about temperatures but can measure power. If you use a higher epsilon
(1 being the highest) than the real one you are actually underestimating
the temperature (derived from Stephan-Boltzman). The camera gives
temperature as a proxy for power. If you use the wrong epsilon in the
setting of the camera, let's say 1 instead of 0.1 you are underestimating
the temperature by a factor of 10, so 5000 K is reported as 500 K. Then
when you use the reading of 500 K to calculate the power using
Stephan-Boltzman again (after averaging over many areas) reintroducing the
same value for epsilon=1 would overestimate power but because the
temperature was underestimated by the same factor, everything is all right
and the radiation power is estimated correctly. It is still a lower limit
of total power given that some power would be in other forms (like
convection).


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that
> the power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was
> measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power
> analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments).
> Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the
> company licensing the technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have
> defrauded the investigators by hidden camera, or other spy device,
> observing when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency,
> overlaid on the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the
> PCE-830. This assertion about the PCE-830's limitations has not been
> validated as plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority.
>
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people
>> think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement
>> coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a
>> single thing I wish they had checked but did not.
>>
>> In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any
>> chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for
>> output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even
>> though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in
>> every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase
>> output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they
>> know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees
>> away from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but
>> rather than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if
>> all surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first
>> set of tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly,
>> casting a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than into
>> account.
>>
>> Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics and
>> others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the nature
>> of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no adjustments
>> for it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an electrically
>> heated cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It is hands-off
>> in the literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching the cell, and
>> the rest at a distance, including the clamp on ammeter which placed below
>> the power supply. You do not have to know anything about the reaction to be
>> sure these measurements are right. There is nothing Rossi could possibly do
>> to fool these instruments, which the authors brought with them. They left a
>> video camera on the instruments at all times to ensure there was no
>> hanky-panky. They wrote:
>>
>> "The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to
>> ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a
>> nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements
>> themselves."
>>
>> They estimate the extent to which the heat exceeds the limits of
>> chemistry by both the mass of the cell and the volume of the cell. In the
>> first test, they use the entire weight of the inside cell as the starting
>> point, rather than just the powder, as if stainless steel might be the
>> reactant. In the second test they determine that the powder weighs ~0.3 g
>> but they round that up to 1 g.
>>
>> They use Martin Fleischmann's favorite method of looking at the heat
>> decay curves when the power cycles off. Plot 5 clearly shows that the heat
>> does not decay according to Newton's law of cooling. There must be a heat
>> producing reaction in addition to the electric heater.
>>
>> I like it!
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved

[Jones Beene]

 

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the reaction.  Are we
now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus participates in the nuclear
reaction that causes the heat

 

IMO this is a "Mills type" reaction (BLP), involving deep hydrogen
redundancy - and the Ni does not transmute into another element. 

 

This particular isotope is simply a much better catalyst for deep redundancy
at the 300 eV level. This mechanism goes beyond Randell Mills theory into QM
and wave function collapse, which Mills rejects.

 

Rossi and Focardi apparently believe that nickel transmutes to copper, but
the proof offered indicates otherwise. Others believe that protons fuse to
deuterium. There is no proof of that.

 

Many qualified observers, at this stage, have markedly different opinions. 

 

However, it is worth repeating that if it is a nuclear reaction - there
should be gamma radiation and/or radioactive ash. There is none.

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[James Bowery]

The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that
the power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was
measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power
analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments).
Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the
company licensing the technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have
defrauded the investigators by hidden camera, or other spy device,
observing when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency,
overlaid on the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the
PCE-830. This assertion about the PCE-830's limitations has not been
validated as plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority.


On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people
> think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement
> coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a
> single thing I wish they had checked but did not.
>
> In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any
> chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for
> output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even
> though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in
> every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase
> output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they
> know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees
> away from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but
> rather than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if
> all surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first
> set of tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly,
> casting a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than into
> account.
>
> Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics and
> others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the nature
> of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no adjustments
> for it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an electrically
> heated cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It is hands-off
> in the literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching the cell, and
> the rest at a distance, including the clamp on ammeter which placed below
> the power supply. You do not have to know anything about the reaction to be
> sure these measurements are right. There is nothing Rossi could possibly do
> to fool these instruments, which the authors brought with them. They left a
> video camera on the instruments at all times to ensure there was no
> hanky-panky. They wrote:
>
> "The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to ensure
> the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a
> nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements
> themselves."
>
> They estimate the extent to which the heat exceeds the limits of chemistry
> by both the mass of the cell and the volume of the cell. In the first test,
> they use the entire weight of the inside cell as the starting point, rather
> than just the powder, as if stainless steel might be the reactant. In the
> second test they determine that the powder weighs ~0.3 g but they round
> that up to 1 g.
>
> They use Martin Fleischmann's favorite method of looking at the heat decay
> curves when the power cycles off. Plot 5 clearly shows that the heat does
> not decay according to Newton's law of cooling. There must be a heat
> producing reaction in addition to the electric heater.
>
> I like it!
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat general observations

[Axil Axil]

Just the opposite. Water is a moderator/ Only slow neutrons (thermalized)
produce the fission reaction.


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Arnaud Kodeck wrote:

> **
>
> The temperature limitation of fission nuclear plant is due to temperature
> of vaporization of water. The reactor must always be filled with 
> *liquid*water. At the pressure inside a fission reactor, the limiting 
> temperature
> is just a little above 300°C. The water is slowing the neutron. Without
> water, a reactor has a meltdown.
>
> ** **
>   --
>
> *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* mardi 21 mai 2013 21:15
> *To:* **vortex-l@eskimo.com**
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:E-Cat general observations
>
> ** **
>
> Alan Fletcher  wrote:
>
>  
>
> That was the motivation behind the hot-cat : the current operating
> temperature of around 300C is likely a good fit with the Siemens turbine
> they are purportedly experimenting with.
>
>  ** **
>
> The pressurized water in a conventional fission reactor is about 320°C I
> believe. The reactors could be designed to run at higher temperatures but
> they deliberately made them low with poor Carnot efficiency because this
> reduces wear and tear on the turbines, pipes and so on. In a system where
> the heat costs you little or nothing, it makes sense to trade off Carnot
> efficiency for lower equipment costs.
>
> ** **
>
> - Jed
>
> ** **
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's "small". 

A battery would need to supply (say, conservatively) 500 W for 116 hours, or 
200 MJ. Lithium batteries are about 2 MJ/Kg, so that's 100 Kg of battery. I 
agree that's unlikely but don;t have enough information to make the call.

Andrew


- Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:53 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  Andrew  wrote:



You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to 
any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with 
additional power.


  What sort of internal power source?


  A generator? That would noisy and obvious.


  A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has 
developed such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own right.


  A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500 to 800 
W. They would see it.


  Do you have anything else in mind?


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat in the press

[Axil Axil]

*The Energy Catalyzer has been tested, successfully, yet again. However,
the report has created more questions about the enigmatic technology, such
as how can the E-Cat melt ceramic -- with a melting point of 2000 degrees C
-- when the fuel of the E-Cat, nickel, has a much lower melting point?*

This is possible because any element will react in LENR since it is not
sensitive to material. It is a geometric based reaction driven by Nano and
micro particles over a wide size  range.



On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Andrew  wrote:

> **
> http://pesn.com/2013/05/21/9602321_E-Cat_Validation_Creates_More_Questions/
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Andrew 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:41 PM
> *Subject:* [Vo]:E-Cat in the press
>
>
> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas
>
> Andrew
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[DJ Cravens]

If you want to go the hoax path  perhaps a "ground loop" with some current 
going through the metal supports, or through the gas connects.
 
I doubt it.
 
And 96 hours is fairly long.  Not as long as I would wish, but still longer 
than any chemistry I can think of.
 
That glow in the picture is fairly convensing.  I have only had one thing glow 
like that before and it did not last but 2 hours.   
 
Oh would I love to know what is in that cylinder and what kind of frequencies, 
etc were used.
 
Dennis
 

 
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 16:53:20 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Andrew  wrote:









You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to 
any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with 
additional power.
What sort of internal power source?
A generator? That would noisy and obvious.
A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has developed 
such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own right.

A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500 to 800 W. 
They would see it.
Do you have anything else in mind?
- Jed

  

Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved

[Axil Axil]

If you have studied the ash from the Ni/H reactors you must conclude that:

Any elements having an even number of nucleons with spin zero will react in
LENR.

LENR has a far greater energy density than U235 because cascades of LENR
reaction products will fission from a very high atomic weight to a low
weight.

LENR reclaims the energy that a supernova used to produce the heavy
reactive isotope and will reduce that isotope down to its original light
atomic number configuration.

Fusion is a secondary low probability reaction channel.





On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:

> I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the reaction.  Are
> we now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus participates in the
> nuclear reaction that causes the heat?  Dr. Storms proposes that physical
> cracks in the lattice are the NAE and the money crop of the reaction does
> not have any Ni nuclei being consumed except as a possible side reaction.
>  If the NAE are cracks (plausible but far from certain), then would the
> 62Ni create a more desirable crack than a 60Ni or a 64Ni?  How would the
> isotope affect the crack as an NAE?  Wouldn't only valence/conduction band
> electron effects show up in the crack?  If so, how could an isotope in the
> lattice have any effect on what happens in the crack?
>
> At William and Mary's ILENR-12, Dr. Peter Hagelstein told me that
> transmutation of Ni is endothermic.
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:
>
>> Ni 62 has zero spin but the others have a nuclear spin component.  So
>> I should be relatively easy to come up with a way to separate them.
>>
>> D2
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat in the press

[Andrew]

http://pesn.com/2013/05/21/9602321_E-Cat_Validation_Creates_More_Questions/
  - Original Message - 
  From: Andrew 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:41 PM
  Subject: [Vo]:E-Cat in the press


  
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas

  Andrew

RE: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved

[DJ Cravens]

yes, I have doubts about Ni + p or Ni + 2p reactions.   most of these seem 
endothermic to me.
I would be more inclined to think there some kind of p+p   like event.  (OK 
Ed... p e p )
 
 
Dennis

 
CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com
From: stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:48:13 -0600

Good point, Bob.  Simple arguments can show that the amount of energy claimed 
by Rossi can not result from the Ni+p=Cu reaction regardless of the isotope. 
Ironically, people will accept Rossi's claim that transmutation is the source 
of energy while questioning whether he makes any energy at all. Amazing!
Ed Storms
On May 21, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:I don't understand why 62Ni 
would make a difference in the reaction.  Are we now seriously considering that 
the Ni nucleus participates in the nuclear reaction that causes the heat?  Dr. 
Storms proposes that physical cracks in the lattice are the NAE and the money 
crop of the reaction does not have any Ni nuclei being consumed except as a 
possible side reaction.  If the NAE are cracks (plausible but far from 
certain), then would the 62Ni create a more desirable crack than a 60Ni or a 
64Ni?  How would the isotope affect the crack as an NAE?  Wouldn't only 
valence/conduction band electron effects show up in the crack?  If so, how 
could an isotope in the lattice have any effect on what happens in the crack? 
At William and Mary's ILENR-12, Dr. Peter Hagelstein told me that transmutation 
of Ni is endothermic.

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:
  Ni 62 has zero spin but the others have a nuclear spin component.  So I 
should be relatively easy to come up with a way to separate them.
 
D2

 
  

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Jed Rothwell]

Andrew  wrote:

**
> You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to
> any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with
> additional power.
>

What sort of internal power source?

A generator? That would noisy and obvious.

A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has
developed such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own right.

A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500 to 800
W. They would see it.

Do you have anything else in mind?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to any 
internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with 
additional power.

There's another way to perpetrate the output hoax, and that's to secrete 
infrared lasers in the ceiling and heat the device up remotely.

It's alleged by Mary Yugo that "the rest of the measurement instruments were 
assembled by his close associate and personal friend, G. Levi. " I have no way 
of assessing the veracity of that statement; how does she know that?

See comments here
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas

Andrew


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:32 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  Andrew  wrote:

   
Since the supply powering the E-cat is off-limits, they measure only wall 
power. That means that one could secrete a discrete power source inside the 
supply box, and its power output would evade measurement. That's the "input 
hoax".


  Mary Yugu suggested this, at Forbes. Unless she or some other skeptic can 
describe a method of fooling a modern, high quality power meter I think she has 
no case.



The "output hoax" might consist of secreting a nuclear power source, 
appropriately shielded, inside the other inaccessible part of the apparatus; 
the E-cat itself.


  Bianchini's meters would have detected this. Even a Pu-238 reactor will 
trigger his sensors. Pu-238 costs fantastic sums of money and civilians such as 
Rossi are not allowed to buy it.


  It would take about 1.4 kg of Pu-238 to produce this much heat. The U.S. DoE 
is spending $1.5 billion to produce 150 kg of the stuff. That's $10 million per 
kg, so this would cost Rossi $14 million if he bought it on the black market. I 
guess he could steal it himself from highly secure DoE bomb factories that hold 
50,000 drum cans of toxic radioactive waste. I doubt he is capable of that.


  I think we should rule out this kind of thing.


  - Jed