date:20130531

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:


 I'm not talking about initiating. I'm talking about sustaining. I have no
 problem using electricity to initiate the ecat. But if it's a source of
 energy, it should behave like one and be able to at least power itself.


 A match is needed to ignite a firecracker, but once ignited, the
 explosion sustains itself.


 A match is needed to start a campfire, but not to sustain it.


 In addition to the wood fuel, oxygen must be supplied.



  A battery is used to start a car engine, but not to sustain it.


 In addition to the gasoline fuel, oxygen must be supplied.

 If  the ecat must be self-sustaining to be considered a credible source of
 power, then a campfire or a car engine should not be accepted as
 credible sources of power because they don't make their own oxygen.



I would consider the firewood + oxygen or the car engine + oxygen as the
devices that are self-sustaining. One can certainly enclose oxygen with
an engine or with chemical fuel to make a self-contained thing that
self-sustains, if you have trouble with the abstract notion of a device
that includes gases present in the atmosphere as part of its definition.
Oxygen is not an energy source, so it does not represent energy input.


Including the ac mains as part of the ecat is different though because that
is an energy source by itself, and the goal of the ecat is to replace the
power source that provides the mains.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

  Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

  A match is needed to ignite a firecracker, but once ignited, the
 explosion sustains itself.


  A match is needed to start a campfire, but not to sustain it.


 Cold fusion is not fire. It does not work the same way.



Well, no. Nuclear reactions are different. I was just disputing the idea
that the concept of keeping cold fusion going with external heat is a
simple extrapolation from other sources of heat that require external heat
to keep them going. It's not.




 Evidently, Rossi's reactor requires external stimulation to keep the
 reaction under control.


Not evidently. Allegedly.


That's what he claims to give an excuse for attaching a source of power.
But the problem is, if it's heat, how does it know that it's external? Heat
just produces a temperature in the fuel. If the heat from the fuel can
maintain that temperature, how can adding heat stabilize it?


As I said, this is conceivable if the external heat is more concentrated
(at a higher temperature), but in the hot cat, it must be more diffuse, and
at a lower temperature.




 That's how it works. You cannot dictate to Mother Nature how things must
 work. If you unplug a Rossi cell and try to make it self-sustain without
 input, it will melt.


But just turning off the input power stops the reaction? How can it do both?

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 There seems to be a serious hangup over why a heat generating device needs
 some form of heating input to sustain itself.  The skeptics can not seem to
 get their arms around this issue so I will make another short attempt to
 explain why this is important.

 To achieve a high value of COP the ECAT operates within a region that is
 unstable.  This translates into a situation where the device if given the
 chance will attempt to increase its internal energy until it melts or
 ceases to operate due to other damage.  Control of the device is obtained
 by adding external heat via the power resistors allowing the core to heat
 up toward a critical point of no return.

 Just prior to that critical temperature the extra heating is rapidly
 halted.  The effect of this heating collapse is to force the device core
 heating to change direction and begin cooling off.



I do get the basic idea. The problem is I don't see how to make it work in
the latest experiments. The switching would have to be on a pretty slow
time scale, because of thermal mass. It would take on the order of minutes
for an appreciable change in the internal temperature to result from
shutting down the resistors, as is consistent with the rather slow change
in temperature in the March experiment.


But in the December experiment, there is no switching on this time scale.
The power is measured on the lines to the ecat, and they claim the power is
constant as recorded by the PCE830 on a 1 second time scale. Also they say
that the power output is almost constant on the same time scale. So, I fail
to see how that kind of a scheme could work there.


The input in that experiment is 360 W applied to the resistors, and that is
allegedly enough to trigger the reaction. The total output power is about 2
kW, so that would be 1.6 kW generated by the reactor *inside* the cylinder.
If 360 W from outside is enough to trigger the reaction, how can 1.6 kW not
be enough to keep it going? I picture someone holding a butane lighter to
glowing coals, and expecting them to extinguish when he takes the lighter
away.


Now, you might discount the December run, but then you'd impugn Levi's
integrity, and since he was clearly in charge in March, that makes the
whole thing kind of dodgy.


But even in the March run, things don't add up. They claim it takes about
800 W to the reactor from the resistors to trigger the reaction. From the
geometry, only a fraction of that power will actually be absorbed by the
reactor itself. (The rest will be absorbed by the ceramic and the end
caps.) The average output from the reactor is also about 800 W, but this is
generated inside the reactor, so again, it makes no sense that the reaction
would extinguish when you turn the external power off.


Furthermore, in all cases, it seems implausible that the output would be
that stable without any feedback from the reactor output. Even if the sort
of control you talk about were possible, it would require the exact duty
cycle to keep the temperature from drifting up or down. And even if Rossi
found the right duty cycle, it seems unlikely it would stay the same for 4
days at those temperatures. People are always excusing the absence of
progress by suggesting the reaction is so hard to control, but from both
these experiments, it appears to be rock stable. That would be the case if
the heating were all resistive. The behavior looks nothing like you would
expect a new reaction sensitive to temperature would look.



   Positive feedback can work in either direction; that is, the temperature
 can be either increasing or decreasing and the trick is to make it go in
 the desired direction.




Are you saying positive can be negative. What's the trick to making it
decrease when 1/5 the power makes it increase?


The closer to the critical point that Rossi is able to switch directions,
 the longer the temperature waveform will linger near that point before
 heading downward.  This is a delicate balance and most likely the reason
 Rossi has such a difficult fight on his hands to keep control.  High COP,
 such as 6, is about all that can be safely maintained.



Sorry, but it sounds like nonsensical speculation to me.



 The explanation above is based upon a spice model that I have developed
 and run many times.


To model the behavior, you need to propose a reaction rate (power out from
the reactor) as a function of temperature, and the temperature dependence
of the reactor on the power produced by the reactor and the external input.
What functional dependence do you use for these? I can't think of any that
would work.


Again, if 360 W  from the outside gets it going, why can't 1.6 kW on the
inside keep it going?


In the old ecats, with a resistor inside the reactor, one could possibly
conceive of a method if the resistor produced higher temperature
concentrated a single point, and the reaction were diffuse throughout the

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:


 If we are going to do analogies, a more useful one would be to compare the
 Rossi reactor to an internal combustion engine ICE. With an ICE you have to
 apply the spark periodically to small portions of the fuel to trigger the
 reaction.



Right, but the spark is produced from power generated by the engine itself.
It's entirely self-sustaining.



 Cude is demanding we find a way to ignite the entire tank of fuel with the
 spark plug once, and then have the car run normally after that. This does
 not work. The car goes up in flames, similar to the way Rossi's reactor
 melts.



What a terrible analogy. The ecat is not an engine, and I'm not proposing
any such thing. I just don't believe that if the reaction producing 1.6 kW
thermal is stabilized by an external input of 360 W thermal. I don't see
why turning the external off would quench the signal as Dave claims, or why
it would melt the ecat as you claim.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 As dave explains it makes sense if the energy input provides cooling power.



Exactly. The whole thing is nuts. If it really needed to be regulated, it
would make sense to regulate with temperature controlled cooling.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 I agree Dave, I have been providing this explanation for several years
 without any effect. I'm glad you are adding your voice. The critical point
 at which the temperature must be reduced depends on the degree of thermal
 contact between the source of energy (the Ni powder) and the sink (The
 outside world). The better the thermal contact between these two, the
 higher the stable temperature and the greater the COP. Rossi has not
 achieved a COP even close to what is possible.



You sound like you're just making shit up. It's wild speculation based on
nothing whatsoever.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Josh, what is common sense now becomes ancient history when the newest
 theories come out.


Yes, I know that happens sometimes. And sometimes things that are common
sense remain common sense.


But I think you misunderstood. I was not referring to new science theories
there. I was saying that it's common sense that if Rossi's claims were
being accepted by the majority, there would be huge excitement.



How do you think men learned to fly heavier than air crafts when it was
 common sense that this was not possible.


Like I said, you're arguing a different point, but what the hell.


It wasn't common sense that flight was impossible. Everyone saw birds fly,
and gliders were already common. And while there were some famous skeptics,
and there was some erroneous skepticism of the Wrights specifically, most
scientists regarded powered flight as inevitable. That's why the subject
was treated seriously by all the major journals, including Science and
Nature before the Wright's flight. That's a matter of record.


There are better examples to support your argument, but I don't know of a
case where a small scale phenomenon like cold fusion was rejected so
categorically for a quarter century that was later vindicated. I'm aware of
a couple that come close, but they occurred about 150 years ago.




 You need to realize that all knowledge does not reside within your
 understanding.


I do realize that. But I wonder if you realize that you are not in
possession of received wisdom.



 All of us should be open to learning new concepts and it is about time for
 you to give LENR a fair chance.



It is about time for you to give the bogosity of LENR a fair chance. All
your thinking starts from the assumption that it's real. You'll never make
progress that way.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:


 Bill Beaty has an excellent quote on this subject, here:

 http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html

 Every fact of science was once damned. Every invention was considered
 impossible. Every discovery was a nervous shock to some orthodoxy. Every
 artistic innovation was denounced as fraud and folly.


Even if that were true, and I don't believe it, I hope you're not arguing
that on that basis, any fact that is damned must be true, or any invention
considered impossible is possible, or that any claimed discovery that
causes nervous shock must be real, or that every innovation denounced as
fraud is true as the driven snow.


Because that would be silly.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 If someone is looking for an analogy they could look at the behavior of a
 power transistor mounted on a heat sink.  For this exercise assume that the
 collector is directly connected to a power source.  Apply enough base drive
 to obtain a relatively large collector current.



Really not the same. The base signal controls the collector signal, it does
not control the production of the energy. So I don't see how it informs the
problem at all.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:


 .  But my sense tells me that a significant number of scientists are
 starting to take genuine interest and that they will stay tuned for further
 details.


Read the cold fusion forums for the last 24 years. This has always been
someone's sense. And there are occasional blips like the one Rossi caused 2
years ago, which he revived now. But let's look at your sense in a year. My
prediction, cold fusion will be at the same place, but you'll have the same
sense based on some new claims that are all the rage then.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:


 Yes, and only in a diesel engine do you not need a battery to keep spark
 plugs going.  Demanding a self-sustaining device is like demanding a diesel
 engine.  ICEs were first developed in the 1860s, and the diesel engine was
 invented in 1893, several decades later.  I don't think that necessarily
 implies a similar period of development at this time, since we know so much
 about heat engines.  But I think the only reasonable assumption is that it
 would be nontrivial for Rossi get his device to be self-sustaining.



Seriously? Do you really not know how an internal combustion engine works?
Have you not used a lawn mower, or a kick-start motorcycle or a pull-start
outboard motor. Remember the cranks on model Ts?


The engine produces the electricity for the spark, and to charge the
battery. Even if the battery were involved in producing the spark (and in
some engines it is partially used), the engine charges the battery, so the
whole thing is still self-sustaining. I have no problem using a battery (or
any number of them) to power the ecat. And if the ecat can charge the
battery, I'll happily call it self-sustaining.


Man, this place is crawling with ignoramuses.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think this is more about who is the gatekeeper to the ideology and
 business of science rather than any exercise in ethics.

 The gatekeeper class resents this clique of  stiff necked maverick
 scientists who have the temerity to violate the status quo and defies the
 picking order in their profession.


 Nah. That's just a true believer fantasy necessary to rationalize the
nearly unanimous rejection of something they really really want to be true.


Cold fusion was introduced by two very conventional members of the
mainstream, and it was rejected anyway.

RE: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

Why expect 2-phase customisation for a relatively low-priority scientific
experiment? 3-phase design make sense in the context of the concurrent
high-priority finalisation, testing and shipping of a purported 1 MW device,
which at a claimed COP of 6 would need an electrical input of 167 KW.

 

Incidentally, these shipping photos supplied by Rossi appear to show Levi
and the test setup (and the presence of an armed security guard):
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/e-cat-shipping-pictures-posted-on-the-jonp
/

 

Charles

 

From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 30 May 2013 19:38
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat
test

 

 The 3-phase looks more like obfuscation to me.

Re: [Vo]:Comment by Anderson at Forbes

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 I’m a Professor Ameritus in Electrical Engineering ... Everything I read
 in the 29 page report, and following challenges as answered by the authors,
 seems extremely convincing. All objections, typically suggesting fraud, are
 not to me at all convincing. Tomorrow will tell!




Is it unfair to be suspicious if he can't spell his own title?

Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:



 OK -- in fig 6 (Dec) they show a blue-and-yellow CONTROL box and three
 triacs.

 They don't have a picture for March, so we don't know if it includes the
 functionality of the blue-and-yellow box or just replaces the triac.

 The control box is inside the boundary of Rossi's black box, so it's
 irrelevant.




They replaced the input box, so your claim that it was too much trouble to
replace the input box is nonsense.

Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:


 My guess is that he is designing for industrial applications.


It's not gonna be useful for industrial purposes with a COP of 3; remember
the electricity was made with an efficiency of 1/3. It's gonna have to be
self-sustaining. I hardly think he's looking at the final version of the
power supply when the ecat is still completely inadequate. You're grasping.

Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 There are advantages to using a three phase power input that have been
 pointed out.



For this application, the disadvantages are greater.



 Measurements of 3 phase systems are done every day so this is not
 important.



Of course they are. But everyday measurements do not need to consider the
possibility of deliberate deception. 3-phase is more complicated and
involves more wires. Increased complexity is a magician's friend.


It is so utterly unnecessary, and it has such clear benefits for deception.
Like forcing the use of a particular line, and increased opportunity for
hidden wires or power, and increased opportunity for more power if you want
to make something glow red.




 If Cude can show a real test that proves 3 phase measurements are not
 accurate, then someone will listen.


I see it differently. True believers insist on an explanation of how
deception might explain the alleged observations, but do not hold
themselves to the same standard to give an explanation for how NiH could
produce 100 times the power density of nuclear fission fuel without
melting, let alone explain what kind of a reaction would produce the
alleged heat.


It doesn't matter if you don't understand the trick in the cheese power
video. You are pretty sure it's a trick because the alternative is too
implausible. Likewise, some deception is far more likely and plausible in
Rossi's ecat than the alternative explanation just based on thermodynamics,
and far more so if you consider the nuclear physics.

RE: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

2013-05-31 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

Josh:

 

Eric's comment about not needing a battery to keep spark plugs going was
referring to a DIESEL engine, and diesels don't have spark plugs.  The
compression ratio is high enough to cause ignition of the diesel fuel when
the piston reaches TDC.  They do have 'glow' plugs for starting the engine,
but there are no spark plugs as used in a gasoline-powered engine.

 

Do yourself a favor and go play with MaryYugo and the other trolls over at
shutdownrossi.com.

 

-Mark 

 

From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 12:08 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

 

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 

Yes, and only in a diesel engine do you not need a battery to keep spark
plugs going.  Demanding a self-sustaining device is like demanding a diesel
engine.  ICEs were first developed in the 1860s, and the diesel engine was
invented in 1893, several decades later.  I don't think that necessarily
implies a similar period of development at this time, since we know so much
about heat engines.  But I think the only reasonable assumption is that it
would be nontrivial for Rossi get his device to be self-sustaining.

 

 

 

Seriously? Do you really not know how an internal combustion engine works?
Have you not used a lawn mower, or a kick-start motorcycle or a pull-start
outboard motor. Remember the cranks on model Ts?

 

The engine produces the electricity for the spark, and to charge the
battery. Even if the battery were involved in producing the spark (and in
some engines it is partially used), the engine charges the battery, so the
whole thing is still self-sustaining. I have no problem using a battery (or
any number of them) to power the ecat. And if the ecat can charge the
battery, I'll happily call it self-sustaining.

 

Man, this place is crawling with ignoramuses.

Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  I don't buy it. The reactor is a sealed faraday cage, so it's not going
 to
  care about ripple or dc vs ac. It's just a thermal interface.

 The reactor might require or might be incompatible with low-frequency AC
 magnetic fields, which can go through 3 mm of steel, especially AISI 310
 steel which has very low magnetic permeability.  (Faraday cages bounce off
 electromagnetic signals (balanced E + B) but not necessarily penetrating
 magnetic signals.)


Good grief. The resistors are coils, presumably helical solenoids with the
axis parallel to the reactor cylinder. The magnetic field is near zero
outside a solenoid, except at the ends. Not the best way to get magnetic
fields in. Moreover, the Ni is above the Curie point at those temperatures,
and so is not ferro-magnetic. But it's a real reach anyway to think you
could even measure magnetic fields, let alone induce nuclear reactions with
them. And some say the skeptics are grasping.



 In addition we are told the instantaneous power was about 930 W.  If
 unfiltered,
 full-wave rectified AC was used then in 10 ms, that 930 W will supply or
 fail to
 supply about 10 J.  As this is metal here and not water the thermal masses
 are
 pretty low: for the steel casing which has a thermal mass of about .15 J/K
 this would mean a change of 1.5 degree, 100 times per second.  With a
 diffusivity of .36 m2/s this 100 Hz thermal signal would certainly
 reach the core.


What? No! What are you smoking?


Do you notice how tungsten light bulbs glow for a fraction of a second
after you turn them off? That's thermal mass. Photographers measure the
flicker of tungsten lights, and it's less than 10%. Now, the visible light
output is far from linear, with a threshold at near full power, so that
means there's probably even less variation in the thermal output over the
cycle. And that's a tiny filament. For the heating resistors, it would be
even less. And now imagine if the heating resistor varies its thermal
output by a per cent or less, and if only a fraction of the heat from the
resistor reaches the SS cylinder, which has a mass of 1.5 kg (probably a
thousand times that of a tungsten filament, and 4 times the heat capacity).
There is no way any temperature ripple would be observed in the steel, let
alone reach the core. You need to go back to that heat equation.





  But in any case, in the dummy run, they measured the power to the ecat
 so that
  suggests it's an ordinary ac signal. Anyway, a box powered by ordinary
 mains
  can produce any signal shape they want. They wouldn't go to 3-phase just
 to
  skimp on diodes and capacitors. The 3-phase looks more like obfuscation
 to me.

 Again, if they need to have precise PWM without a large 100 Hz ripple,
 they will
 have to produce high-power DC, and they will want it to be reliable.  It's
 not
 just a matter of skimping on capacitors.



They measured the power to the ecat on the lines going in to the ecat using
clamp on meters in the December run, and in the dummy run in March. So it's
ac at the line frequency; the meter has a narrow frequency range. And in
March it's single phase ac. There's no reason they need high power dc.




 As a side node, the use of tri-phase power seems to indicates that
 this is the real
 deal.  Why would indeed Rossi bother with that if he didn't have a true
 need to
 industrialize his product?



So, in the end you admit that it's not needed for this purpose, and that
it's a bother. Why bother? I explained that. It forces the use of a
specific mains line that will not be used for anything else. It increases
the complexity, which gives much opportunity for deception. And it makes
much higher power available, in case he wants to make it glow.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

2013-05-31 Thread Axil Axil

And then there is a class of non-paid sycophant apologists that make it
their business to curry favor with the gatekeepers. They divine what the
hierarchy wants and proceed to do their best to impress the powers that be.
They want to be like them; like a kid who wants to be “Babe Ruth so they
mimic all the moves and the attitudes that might reflect on their dreams of
glory and approval through doleful imitation. They lack any original ideas
and wallow in a quagmire of recrimination hoping to climb the ladder of
crony acknowledgment.

This pathetic ecosystem is the sad state  plaguing scientific politics;
This horror is what LENR must face.


On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:09 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think this is more about who is the gatekeeper to the ideology and
 business of science rather than any exercise in ethics.

 The gatekeeper class resents this clique of  stiff necked maverick
 scientists who have the temerity to violate the status quo and defies the
 picking order in their profession.


 Nah. That's just a true believer fantasy necessary to rationalize the
 nearly unanimous rejection of something they really really want to be true.


 Cold fusion was introduced by two very conventional members of the
 mainstream, and it was rejected anyway.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:32 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

 Josh:

 ** **

 Eric’s comment about not needing a battery to keep spark plugs going was
 referring to a DIESEL engine, and diesels don’t have spark plugs.


He said you need a battery for an internal combustion engine, and so that
means it's not self-sustaining. That was what I responded to.

Re: [Vo]:some more information about the december 2012 Ecat test

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:


 I do not understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that Rossi
 was present? Or that that he interfered with the experiment?

 I do not think that Levi or his co-authors has said that Rossi was absent.
 Only that he played no role in the testing, and he did not touch the
 equipment.



This is about the December test, where, according to the paper, the ecat
was running when the test began. That means Rossi or his delegate must have
started it up, and that he not only interfered, but essentially defined
everything about the test. And they did not change the testing  appreciably
for the March test.

Re: [Vo]:Comment by Anderson at Forbes

Yes it is unfair.  Quit sneering.  It is a violation of rule #2.  One of
the debunkers was recently removed due to sneering.


On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 I’m a Professor Ameritus in Electrical Engineering ... Everything I read
 in the 29 page report, and following challenges as answered by the authors,
 seems extremely convincing. All objections, typically suggesting fraud, are
 not to me at all convincing. Tomorrow will tell!




 Is it unfair to be suspicious if he can't spell his own title?

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 I thought that the DC issue was put to rest.


Only according to the credulous true believers. Essen said they excluded
it, but he didn't say how. If we're just going to accept what they say
without scrutiny, then why bother reading the paper at all? Just accept
their conclusions and rejoice.


Except that Essen said of the steam tests that the steam was dry based on a
visual inspection, and then based on a measurement with a relative humidity
probe. So, I'm not prepared to accept his claim at face value. And even if
his measurements do exclude dc in the exposed conductors, I'm not prepared
to accept that a concealed conductor was not there.


There's various ways to create illusions, and I don't necessarily know how
it might have been done. But I know there was a rat's nest of wires, and an
unnecessarily complex method of supplying power, and that deception on
Rossi's part is far more likely than the sort of power density they claim
without melting, let alone a nuclear reaction.


 It can be easily shown that there is not amount of diode trickery which
 can be put into the control box that will confuse the primary power
 measurement.



I don't agree. Just because you or I can't think of diode trickery doesn't
mean it's not possible. You or I can't think of any nuclear reactions to
explain the results either, but that doesn't seem to convince you that it's
not possible. You should keep an open mind to possibilities you have not
thought of.



 DC input has been eliminated so that is not an issue due to direct
 observation by one or more of the test personnel.



Except we don't know the observation, so it's not convincing.




 There is noting left to clarify as far as the input is concerned.


Manipulation of the mains line is a far smaller perturbation than used in
many similar scale scams. Concealed conductors can make the current look
like it's zero, or could carry dc or high frequency power.



 And you also agree that duty cycle operation is obvious by output waveform
 picture review.


No. I disagreed with that at least 3 times. Maybe you missed them.


I don't see your problem here. Yes, the modulation of the temperature is
consistent with the modulation of the input, but it says nothing about the
actual power level in the alleged off part of the cycle. The claim is that
the ecat is sustained in the off-cycle, so the decay curve is consistent
with the total power *not* going to zero. All the skeptics are claiming is
that you'd get the same thing if the input drops to the same level as the
level the ecat is claimed to be producing by itself during the off cycle.
And that could be done using the cheese power method with a voltage divider
or a variac or something.


I'm not saying that's how it was done. I'm saying that the unnecessarily
indirect output measurement, the unnecessarily complex input supply and the
inadequate input measurement, and the blank that was run under different
conditions, makes the entire operation suspicious and leaves possibilities
for deception. I just don't believe someone who actually had an energy
source with MJ+/g, that could produce hundreds of watts at a COP of 3,
would demonstrate in this way. It could be made so much better. And so I
remain skeptical. When nothing comes of this in a year, will you be a
little more skeptical?



 The viewed duty cycle matches that stated within the report.  Anyone that
 suggests a cheese power type scam is not looking at the evidence.



It matches the frequency. Anyone who suggests the evidence proves it goes
to zero in the off-cycle does not understand the evidence. Cheese power is
far more likely than nickel powder with a power density 100 times that of
uranium in a fission reactor, let alone than the possibility of nuclear
reactions in that context.




 Any RF power input would cause serious disruption of the test reading with
 any change of position of the probes.  If that is not seen, the scope would
 have detected it.



Essen said they did not use a scope, and I'm not convinced it would affect
meters that have a limited response in the 60 Hz range.



 It is time for the skeptics to leave this poor horse alone.



Many people suspected James Ernst Worrell Keely of fraud and deception, but
no one knew exactly how he did it, and his supporters dismissed the
skeptics. After his death, a most elaborate and complex series of hidden
devices were found below the floors and behind walls and so on.


There are many more recent examples as well such as Madison Priest and
Stoern and Papp and so on. This sort of thing is utterly common, but the
claimed scientific revolution is rare indeed.

And all of this is independent of how much you want it to be true.

Re: [Vo]:Removing nickel oxide layer

2013-05-31 Thread Teslaalset

I talked with Celani about the use of Zeolites but he's not very supporting
using zeolites when it comes to preventing sintering of the actual nickel
powder. Maybe I am a bit bypassed by Celani.

I have some Nickel sputtered carbon powder that I will use for first tests
the upcoming period.
I like to stick close to Rossi's approach. I know that patents won't reveal
every detail, but copper and Ni62 have my first attention where it comes to
additives and Ni powder processing. In particular using Nickel in a copper
pipe, as Rossi's claims describes, rises the question whether nickel powder
sinters with the copper pipe's surface first before the actual sintering of
mutual nickel grains.
Sintering of a single layer of Nickel grains with copper surface has some
resamblance with the use of Constantan than Celani is using because Ni/Cu
mixture has catalytic effect on splitting molucilar Hydrogen.


Op vrijdag 31 mei 2013 schreef DJ Cravens (djcrav...@hotmail.com) het
volgende:

 NRL has and others have done work with zeolites.

 The silica gel that Patterson used was not added to the powder but the Ni
 was reduced as it was contained in the material.

 With C, silica, zeolite,...  the idea is to grow the Ni within the pores
 of the material and thus limit it size.

 D2


 --
 From: eric.wal...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'eric.wal...@gmail.com');
 Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 19:02:55 -0700
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Removing nickel oxide layer
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'vortex-l@eskimo.com');

 On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 5:38 AM, Teslaalset 
 robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 
 'robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com');
  wrote:

 I wonder whether silica would do the job to prevent sintering of Ni
 (powder or layered on top)


 In a related connection, there are some very interesting experiments
 involving zeolite substrates (microporous aluminosilicate minerals), with
 palladium or possibly nickel embedded within them.  I think I remember
 finding some references on lenr-canr.org.  There was also a video by Ruby
 that was mentioned here a few months ago that covered the work of Iraj
 Parchamazad, who is looking at zeolites [1].

 Eric

 [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg71499.html

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:




 Seriously? Do you really not know how an internal combustion engine
 works?


 Man, this place is crawling with ignoramuses.



***Sneering.  Against the rules.

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 I thought that the DC issue was put to rest.


 Only according to the credulous true believers.




 you want it to be true.


***Sneering.  Against the rules.

Joshua, I'm gonna give you a big hint to realize just how stupid it is to
engage in this manner.

Put yourself in the shoes of those 7 scientists who have placed their
reputations on the line.  They have a 6 month test coming up.  They're
gonna need someone who's creative and committed to rooting out fraud and
magic tricks. Where do you think they'll look?  Well, the first place
they'll look is Vortex, to see who's been challenging the vorts with some
fire-branded  tested skepticism.  But they will quickly overlook someone
who seems dishonest enough to sabotage the results.

So, do yourself a favor and get rid of the sneering.   Honest skepticism is
welcome.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

2013-05-31 Thread Rob Dingemans


Hi,

On 31-5-2013 4:45, Eric Walker wrote:
Yes, and only in a diesel engine do you not need a battery to keep 
spark plugs going.


Call me a nitpicker, but I think it should probably read:
Yes, and only in a diesel engine do you not need ANYTHING to keep spark 
plugs going.


Of course, because a diesel engine works with GLOW PLUGS as it doesn't 
have any spark plugs.
But these glow plugs still require electricity generated by an 
alternator which is connected by a V-belt to the engine.


The battery or even better said the ACCU (many European languages use 
this word; and is shorthand for accumulator) is only needed to start the 
engine.


Kind regards,

Rob

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

2013-05-31 Thread Rob Dingemans


Hi,

On 30-5-2013 22:48, Edmund Storms wrote:
I agree Dave, I have been providing this explanation for several years 
without any effect. I'm glad you are adding your voice. The critical 
point at which the temperature must be reduced depends on the degree 
of thermal contact between the source of energy (the Ni powder) and 
the sink (The outside world). The better the thermal contact between 
these two, the higher the stable temperature and the greater the COP. 
Rossi has not achieved a COP even close to what is possible. 


Ok, suppose that it is extremely difficult (I don't want to say 
impossible, as nothing is impossible) to enhance the thermal contact 
between the source of energy and the sink, wouldn't it be wise then to 
put the whole system in a temperature controlled box (let's call it a  
refrigerator) with a constant temperature to obtain a stable environment 
for the E-cat?


To bring up another analogy it is my understanding that when you have a 
steam engine and you are turning at several handles and wheels at the 
same time it is extremely difficult to get the system stable with an 
optimum output.
It sounds to me that Andrea is having a similar problem with the E-cat, 
he should try to freeze the environment of the E-cat as much as 
possible and then work on ONE control to gain better COP.


Kind regards,

Rob

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:“The Lithium Problem”

2013-05-31 Thread Alain Sepeda

Interesting.
It seems that with the resonance hypothesis, like Einstein did with
Sternglass, they explore the evident possibility of collective behaviors.

I won't be surprised if some young theorist in closed room, consider some
ideas from LENR, but carefully don't cite that banned domain...
It may be good...

anyway possible it is an artifact...



2013/5/31 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com

 Big-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) theory, together with the precise WMAP
 cosmic baryon density, makes tight predictions for the abundances of the
 lightest elements.



 Deuterium and 4He measurements agree well with expectations, but 7Li
 observations lie a factor 3 - 4 below the BBN+WMAP prediction. This 4 - 5
 mismatch constitutes the cosmic lithium

 problem, with disparate solutions possible. (1) Astrophysical systematics
 in the observations could exist but are increasingly constrained. (2)
 Nuclear physics experiments provide a wealth of well-measured cross-section
 data, but 7Be destruction could be *enhanced by unknown or
 poorly-measured resonances, *



 Physics beyond the Standard Model can alter the 7Li abundance, though D
 and 4He must remain unperturbed; Physics is inventing outlandish theories
 for this puzzle including decaying Super symmetric particles and
 time-varying fundamental constants.



 Why don't they consider LENR???  Because they have a closed mind!



 http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt780307/PDF/2007MmSAI..78..476G.pdf



 The screening of lithium reactions are as high as 17.4 MeV.



 LENR is why there is a Lithium Problem

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

2013-05-31 Thread Robert Lynn

Kevin, that doesn't look like sneering to me, more like simply Joshua's
assessment of the motivations for positions that others are taking, without
invective or nastiness that I can see.

I am generally saddened to see the recent witch-hunt/culling of
dissent/heresy in the Vort.  The 'sneering' rule is being applied
asymmetrically, and frankly of late it is becoming more like a doctrinal
church.

Killing off opposing views like Abd, Andrew and others does not improve the
quality of the discourse.  I like that imagination, wild ideas and hope
have free rein here, but I also think it is essential to temper that with
dissenting views to get to the heart of problems.


On 31 May 2013 10:29, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 I thought that the DC issue was put to rest.


 Only according to the credulous true believers.




 you want it to be true.


 ***Sneering.  Against the rules.

 Joshua, I'm gonna give you a big hint to realize just how stupid it is to
 engage in this manner.

 Put yourself in the shoes of those 7 scientists who have placed their
 reputations on the line.  They have a 6 month test coming up.  They're
 gonna need someone who's creative and committed to rooting out fraud and
 magic tricks. Where do you think they'll look?  Well, the first place
 they'll look is Vortex, to see who's been challenging the vorts with some
 fire-branded  tested skepticism.  But they will quickly overlook someone
 who seems dishonest enough to sabotage the results.

 So, do yourself a favor and get rid of the sneering.   Honest skepticism
 is welcome.

[Vo]:Unidentified subject!

k0iwFQ32HjA@ma
il.gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
cadzc6n9pielm6_xd4qakmtt-lmozaq8xmplp3obk0iwfq32...@mail.gmail.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 12:50:32 +0200
Message-ID: 001601ce5dec$ac655470$052ffd50$@ch
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary==_NextPart_000_0017_01CE5DFD.6FEE2470
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac5dzFH0C2zgFH4hTTacSgyWh+5A8AAHTuag
Content-Language: en-gb

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--=_NextPart_000_0017_01CE5DFD.6FEE2470
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Assuming it's all bogus, how does one account for the various positive
reports of SPAWAR and Mitsubishi?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VymhJCcNBBc

 

http://www.slashdocs.com/pxiyk/transmutation-reactions-induced-by-deuterium-
permeation-through-nano-structured-pd-multilayer-thin-film.html

 

 

Charles

 

 

From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 31 May 2013 08:59
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question 

 

It is about time for you to give the bogosity of LENR a fair chance. All
your thinking starts from the assumption that it's real. You'll never make
progress that way.

 


--=_NextPart_000_0017_01CE5DFD.6FEE2470
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

html xmlns:v=3Durn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml =
xmlns:o=3Durn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office =
xmlns:w=3Durn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word =
xmlns:m=3Dhttp://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml; =
xmlns=3Dhttp://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40;headmeta =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3Dtext/html; =
charset=3Dus-asciimeta name=3DGenerator content=3DMicrosoft Word 12 =
(filtered medium)style!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria Math;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Times New Roman,serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Times New Roman,serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--/style!--[if gte mso 9]xml
o:shapedefaults v:ext=3Dedit spidmax=3D1026 /
/xml![endif]--!--[if gte mso 9]xml
o:shapelayout v:ext=3Dedit
o:idmap v:ext=3Dedit data=3D1 /
/o:shapelayout/xml![endif]--/headbody lang=3DEN-GB link=3Dblue =
vlink=3Dpurplediv class=3DWordSection1p class=3DMsoNormalspan =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:#1F497=
D'Assuming it#8217;s all bogus, how does one account for the various =
positive reports of SPAWAR and Mitsubishi?o:p/o:p/span/pp =
class=3DMsoNormalspan =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:#1F497=
D'o:pnbsp;/o:p/span/pp class=3DMsoNormalspan =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:#1F497=
D'a =
href=3Dhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DVymhJCcNBBc;http://www.youtube.=
com/watch?v=3DVymhJCcNBBc/ao:p/o:p/span/pp =
class=3DMsoNormalspan =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:#1F497=
D'o:pnbsp;/o:p/span/pp class=3DMsoNormalspan =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:#1F497=
D'a =
href=3Dhttp://www.slashdocs.com/pxiyk/transmutation-reactions-induced-by=
-deuterium-permeation-through-nano-structured-pd-multilayer-thin-film.htm=
lhttp://www.slashdocs.com/pxiyk/transmutation-reactions-induced-by-deut=
erium-permeation-through-nano-structured-pd-multilayer-thin-film.html/a=
o:p/o:p/span/pp class=3DMsoNormalspan =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:#1F497=
D'o:pnbsp;/o:p/span/pp class=3DMsoNormalspan =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:#1F497=
D'o:pnbsp;/o:p/span/pp class=3DMsoNormalspan =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:#1F497=
D'Charleso:p/o:p/span/pp class=3DMsoNormalspan =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:#1F497=
D'o:pnbsp;/o:p/span/pp class=3DMsoNormalspan =

Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

2013-05-31 Thread Berke Durak

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 Good grief. The resistors are coils, presumably helical solenoids with the
 axis parallel to the reactor cylinder.  The magnetic field is near zero
 outside a solenoid, except at the ends.

The magnetic field outside a solenoid is smaller than inside but not zero.
The flux lines have to be closed, and thus there is flux outside, and there is
no meaningful lower limit for macroscopic magnetic fields.

In addition to the magnetic field all around the solenoids, depending on how the
resistors are wired there will be transverse magnetic fields due to the greater
loops of current; the currents in this device will be on the order of a few
amperes in a relatively small device.

But the most important point is that we do not know the sensitivity of the
system to low-frequency magnetic or thermal signals.  It might be quite
sensitive.  We do know that the e-Cat is supposed to use a proprietary
waveform.

 Moreover, the Ni is above the Curie point at those temperatures, and so is not
 ferro-magnetic.

Beyond the Curie point mesoscopic domains won't exist but individual nuclei are
still affected by magnetic fields.  The Larmor frequencies of the nickel and the
hydrogen will be in the kilohertz range in Earth's field, so you cannot exclude
the involvement of weak low-frequency magnetic fields.  This is a proprietary
system with unknown physics and as far as we know you're not privy to some
secret information.

 What? No! What are you smoking?

 Do you notice how tungsten light bulbs glow for a fraction of a second after
 you turn them off? That's thermal mass. Photographers measure the flicker of
 tungsten lights, and it's less than 10%. Now, the visible light output is
 far from linear, with a threshold at near full power, so that means there's
 probably even less variation in the thermal output over the cycle. And
 that's a tiny filament. For the heating resistors, it would be even less.

 And now imagine if the heating resistor varies its thermal output by a per
 cent or less, and if only a fraction of the heat from the resistor reaches
 the SS cylinder, which has a mass of 1.5 kg (probably a thousand times that
 of a tungsten filament, and 4 times the heat capacity).

 There is no way any temperature ripple would be observed in the steel, let
 alone reach the core.

What do you mean there is no way it would be observed?  Thermal diffusion
equations are linear and time-invariant, therefore any AC component can
be observed.

And the large thermal mass of the whole isn't in the path from the resistor
coils to the perimeter of the cylinder where the reactions might be taking
place.

In any case, sufficiently precise instrumentation will allow the slow and stable
100 Hz signal to be picked up anywhere.  Noise due to e.g. the reaction itself
or convection the signal can be eliminated by temporal averaging.

Nuclei are capable of reacting to low-frequency, low-intensity magnetic fields
as shown in nuclear magnetic resonance.

The question is again the same.  We don't know the sensitivity of the LENR to
low-frequency thermal signals, so this might be irrelevant or this might be
part of the secret.

But in any case, if Rossi needs a specific waveform, and by waveform I'm talking
at the sub-second timescale, then it makes perfect sense from an electrical
engineering point of view to first obtain a clean DC source and then use that to
generate whatever waveform is needed.

And obtaining clean, high-powered DC with a thermally robust circuit is much
easier from three-phased power than single-phased power.

And this is only one valid reason for using triphase.

It seems that in your mind anything Rossi does can be construed as being part of
a trick or ploy.

 They measured the power to the ecat on the lines going in to the ecat using
 clamp on meters in the December run, and in the dummy run in March. So it's
 ac at the line frequency; the meter has a narrow frequency range.

That's not clear to me from the report.  Here is what it says:

 The instrument was connected directly to the E-Cat HT cables by means of three
 clamp ammeters, and three probes for voltage measurement.

Which cables are those?  If we read the part about the dummy test, we read:

 The electrical power to the dummy was handled by the same control box, but
 without the ON/OFF cycle of the resistor coils. Thus, the power applied to the
 dummy was continuous.

 In the final part of the test, the COMBINED POWER to the dummy + control box
 was around 910-920 W.

Therefore they placed their clamps before the supply.

 Resistor coil power consumption was measured by placing the instrument in
 single-phase DIRECTLY on the coil input cables, and was found to be, on
 average, about 810 W. From this one derives that the power consumption of the
 control box was approximately = 110-120 W.

To me this seems to mean that they measured power before the control box in both
tests, and during the

[Vo]:Unidentified subject!

k0iwFQ32HjA@ma
il.gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
cadzc6n9pielm6_xd4qakmtt-lmozaq8xmplp3obk0iwfq32...@mail.gmail.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 12:55:08 +0200
Message-ID: 002101ce5ded$511424b0$f33c6e10$@ch
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary==_NextPart_000_0022_01CE5DFE.149CF4B0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac5dzFH0C2zgFH4hTTacSgyWh+5A8AAILNhA
Content-Language: en-gb

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--=_NextPart_000_0022_01CE5DFE.149CF4B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

(Sorry my previous post was somehow corrupted, so I resend:)

 

 

Assuming it's all bogus, how does one account for the various positive
reports of SPAWAR and Mitsubishi?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VymhJCcNBBc

 

http://www.slashdocs.com/pxiyk/transmutation-reactions-induced-by-deuterium-
permeation-through-nano-structured-pd-multilayer-thin-film.html

 

 

Charles

 

 

 

From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 31 May 2013 08:59
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

 

 

It is about time for you to give the bogosity of LENR a fair chance. All
your thinking starts from the assumption that it's real. You'll never make
progress that way.

 


--=_NextPart_000_0022_01CE5DFE.149CF4B0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

html xmlns:v=3Durn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml =
xmlns:o=3Durn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office =
xmlns:w=3Durn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word =
xmlns:m=3Dhttp://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml; =
xmlns=3Dhttp://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40;headmeta =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3Dtext/html; =
charset=3Dus-asciimeta name=3DGenerator content=3DMicrosoft Word 12 =
(filtered medium)style!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria Math;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Times New Roman,serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:Plain Text Char;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.5pt;
font-family:Consolas;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Times New Roman,serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:Plain Text Char;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:Plain Text;
font-family:Consolas;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--/style!--[if gte mso 9]xml
o:shapedefaults v:ext=3Dedit spidmax=3D1026 /
/xml![endif]--!--[if gte mso 9]xml
o:shapelayout v:ext=3Dedit
o:idmap v:ext=3Dedit data=3D1 /
/o:shapelayout/xml![endif]--/headbody lang=3DEN-GB link=3Dblue =
vlink=3Dpurplediv class=3DWordSection1p class=3DMsoPlainText(Sorry =
my previous post was somehow corrupted, so I resend:)o:p/o:p/pp =
class=3DMsoPlainTexto:pnbsp;/o:p/pp =
class=3DMsoPlainTexto:pnbsp;/o:p/pp =
class=3DMsoPlainTextAssuming it's all bogus, how does one account for =
the various positive reports of SPAWAR and Mitsubishi?o:p/o:p/pp =
class=3DMsoPlainTexto:pnbsp;/o:p/pp class=3DMsoPlainTexta =
href=3Dhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DVymhJCcNBBc;http://www.youtube.=
com/watch?v=3DVymhJCcNBBc/ao:p/o:p/pp =
class=3DMsoPlainTexto:pnbsp;/o:p/pp class=3DMsoPlainText =
o:p/o:p/pp class=3DMsoPlainTexta =
href=3Dhttp://www.slashdocs.com/pxiyk/transmutation-reactions-induced-by=
-deuterium-permeation-through-nano-structured-pd-multilayer-thin-film.htm=
lhttp://www.slashdocs.com/pxiyk/transmutation-reactions-induced-by-deut=
erium-permeation-through-nano-structured-pd-multilayer-thin-film.html/a=
o:p/o:p/pp class=3DMsoPlainTexto:pnbsp;/o:p/pp =
class=3DMsoPlainTexto:pnbsp;/o:p/pp =
class=3DMsoPlainTextCharleso:p/o:p/pp =
class=3DMsoPlainTexto:pnbsp;/o:p/pp class=3DMsoNormalspan =

[Vo]:On deception

2013-05-31 Thread Berke Durak

To deceive an electronics guy, one may use a chemistry trick.
To deceive a chemist, one may use software tricks.
To deceive a computer scientist, one may use a physics trick.

But using an electricity trick to deceive a group of experts sent
by a power industry association is stupid.
-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

2013-05-31 Thread Rob Dingemans


Hi,

On 31-5-2013 12:44, Robert Lynn wrote:
I am generally saddened to see the recent witch-hunt/culling of 
dissent/heresy in the Vort.  The 'sneering' rule is being applied 
asymmetrically, and frankly of late it is becoming more like a 
doctrinal church.


Killing off opposing views like Abd, Andrew and others does not 
improve the quality of the discourse.  I like that imagination, wild 
ideas and hope have free rein here, but I also think it is essential 
to temper that with dissenting views to get to the heart of problems.


On 31 May 2013 10:29, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 
mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:




On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Joshua Cude
joshua.c...@gmail.com mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson
dlrober...@aol.com mailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

I thought that the DC issue was put to rest.


Only according to the credulous true believers.

you want it to be true.

***Sneering.  Against the rules.



Yes, I'm in favor of free speech with open and honest discussions, but I 
willingly try to avoid discussions (troll feeding) with certain people 
in this list who try to fight, obfuscate and flood any reasonable 
discussion!
And having said that, couldn't it be that  J.C. is an example of a false 
messenger who behaves in a similar way as what he is saying he is 
opposing?


Kind regards,

Rob

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

2013-05-31 Thread Jouni Valkonen

On May 31, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 There's various ways to create illusions, and I don't necessarily know how it 
 might have been done.

That is very healthy attitude. Many people often forget how easy it is to 
create illusions and how hard it is expose them if the illusionist is let to 
pull the strings. There is very often the situation, that not enough 
independent data available, but opinions must be based on a hunch. 

What is the best thing about this new demonstration that it excludes definitely 
steam based tricks from the possible repertoire. So from the beginning it was 
all about the feeding extra input power via hidden wires. Therefore most of the 
skeptics were just wrong, because they criticized Rossi's demos on a base of 
steam quality. This kind of self-assured but false debunking was very annoying.

―Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Crystals of Time

2013-05-31 Thread Roarty, Francis X

Robin, I would agree with your atoms as time crystals  assessment. IMHO or 
working man's model,  Time and gravity are related in a relativistic way. the 
nucleus opposes displacement along the time axis much more than it's orbitals 
such that the electrons swirl behind on their electrical tethers Never catching 
up.. when a group of atoms bond together you start to increase this resistance 
to time flow even if individually they have the same resistance, slowly 
building a macro gravity well around themselves that represents the difference 
between an empty vacuum and one with matter. The well grows because  matter 
accumulates in the well forming a leaky sail and bonding enough of these sails 
close together slowly increases pressure on a macro scale . Of course the 
purpose of the article was to support vacuum engineering beyond normal 
gravitational accumulation and I think they are promoting some sort of Puthoff 
vacuum engineering to segregate these pressures using other means.. 
Fran

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:32 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Crystals of Time

In reply to  Harry Veeder's message of Mon, 13 May 2013 14:23:14 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Viewpoint: Crystals of Time

Researchers propose how to realize time crystals, structures whose
lowest-energy states are periodic both in time and space.

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/116

quote Time crystals may sound dangerously close to a perpetual motion
machine, but it is worth emphasizing one key difference: while time
crystals would indeed move periodically in an eternal loop, rotation occurs
in the ground state, with no work being carried out nor any usable energy
being extracted from the system. 

They are called Hydrinos. ;)

(Perhaps more generally atoms).

Finding time crystals would not amount to
a violation of well-established principles of thermodynamics. If they can
be created, time crystals may have intriguing applications, from precise
timekeeping to the simulation of ground states in quantum computing
schemes. But they may be much more than advanced devices. Could the
postulated cyclic evolution of the Universe be seen as a manifestation of
spontaneous symmetry breaking akin to that of a time crystal? If so, who is
the observer inducing-by a measurement-the breaking of the symmetry of
time? end quote


Comment: If the time crystal continues to beat at the same rate despite
being measured then it  violates the second law of thermodynamics.


Harry
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...



On May 30, 2013, at 11:39 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:





On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Harry, imagine balls held in line by springs. If the end ball is  
pull away with a force and let go, a resonance wave will pass down  
the line. Each ball will alternately move away and then toward its  
neighbor. If outside energy is supplied, this resonance will  
continue. If not, it will damp out. At this stage, this is a purely  
mechanical action that is well understood.



In the case of the Hydroton, the outside energy is temperature. The  
temperature creates random vibration of atoms, which is focused  
along the length of the molecule. Again, this is normal and well  
understood behavior.


The strange behavior starts once the nuclei can get within a  
critical distance of each other as a result of the resonance. This  
distance is less than is possible in any other material because of  
the high concentration of negative charge that can exist in this  
structure and environment. The barrier is not eliminated. It is only  
reduced enough to allow the distance to become small enough so that  
the two nuclei can see and respond. The response is to emit a  
photon from each nuclei because this process lowers the energy of  
the system.



Ed,

With each cycle energy of the system is only lowered if the energy  
of the emitted photon is greater than the work done by the random  
vibration of atoms on the system.


NO Harry! There is no work done by the random vibrations. These are  
the result of normal temperature. The photon is emitted from the  
nucleus and carries with it the excess mass-energy of the nucleus.


The change is analogous to an exothermic chemical reaction which  
requires some activation energy to initiate but the reaction  
products are in a lower energy state. Because of the shape of the  
coulomb hill the hill can only be climbed if the energy emitted  
increases with each cycle.


No! The hill height is reduced by an intervening negative charge. As a  
result, the hill height is reduced so that it can be surmounted by the  
vibrations occuring in the Hydroton.  Normally, the hill is too high  
for such small vibrations to have any effect. The hill is reduced in  
height as a result of the Hydroton forming. As a result, it is the  
unique condition required to make CF work. All the theories use  
something similar, but without a clear description.


This is like a ball rolling between two hills. It rolls down the side  
of one hill, through the valley and up the other side. In the process,  
it picks up a little energy from the surroundings (temperature in this  
case) to reach the top, where it throws a switch and turns on a light  
for a brief time. Immediately, it starts to roll back down and returns  
to the first hill where it again reaches the top and turns on a light  
for a brief time. This back and forth continues until the battery  
powering the light is exhausted and the hills disappear.  The light  
has no relationship to the motion of the ball. The ball only throws  
the switch.


The Hydroton allows the Coulomb barrier to be reduced enough for the  
nuclei to respond and emit excess energy. Because the resonance  
immediately increases the distance, the ability or need to lose  
energy is lost before all the extra energy can be emitted. If the  
distance did not increased, hot fusion would result. The distance is  
again reduced, and another small burst of energy is emitted. This  
process continues until ALL energy is emitted and the intervening  
electron is sucked into the final product.



In your model, the coulomb barrier appears to be like a hill in a  
uniform gravitational field.


Yes, see above

It is possible to climb such a barrier in steps by emitting the same  
amount of energy with each cycle, but this barrier does not  
correspond with the actual barrier that exists between protons.  
Climbing a genuine coulomb barrier requires more energy with each  
cycle, so that requires more energy be emitted with each cycle. The  
extra energy emitted heats the lattice even more and produces more  
powerful vibrations of the lattice which can push the protons even  
closer together.


No, the Coulomb barrier is slowly reduced in height as mass-energy is  
lost, thereby allowing the nuclei to get closer each time the cycle  
repeats.  Finally, the Coulomb barrier disappears and the two nuclei  
fuse, but very little excess mass-energy is present when this happens.  
Consequently, when the electron is absorbed, the resulting neutrino  
has very little energy to carry away.




I might add, all theories require a similar process. All theories  
require a group of hydron be assembled, which requires emission of  
Gibbs energy. Once assembled, the fusion process must take place in  
stages to avoid the hot fusion result, as happens when the nuclei  
get close using a muon and without the ability to limit the process.

Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...

Mark, the word Hydroton is a word I applied to the structure required  
to cause fusion between hydrogen isotopes. It consists of a linear  
molecule of hydrogen, deuterium or tritium nuclei held together by 2p  
bonding of electrons. It can only form in a gap in a solid material  
having a critically small size, which I call the NAE for this  
process.  I suggest you read my papers and current e-mails  that  
describe the process.


Too bad marijuana got to the word first. Unfortunately, many words  
used in this field of study have several definitions.


Ed Storms
On May 31, 2013, at 12:10 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote:

What is a Hydroton? I googled the term and all I could find were  
references to a clay-based plant growing medium much prized by  
marijuana growers ...


[mg]

On Thursday, May 30, 2013, Harry Veeder wrote:



On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Harry, imagine balls held in line by springs. If the end ball is  
pull away with a force and let go, a resonance wave will pass down  
the line. Each ball will alternately move away and then toward its  
neighbor. If outside energy is supplied, this resonance will  
continue. If not, it will damp out. At this stage, this is a purely  
mechanical action that is well understood.



In the case of the Hydroton, the outside energy is temperature. The  
temperature creates random vibration of atoms, which is focused  
along the length of the molecule. Again, this is normal and well  
understood behavior.


The strange behavior starts once the nuclei can get within a  
critical distance of each other as a result of the resonance. This  
distance is less than is possible in any other material because of  
the high concentration of negative charge that can exist in this  
structure and environment. The barrier is not eliminated. It is only  
reduced enough to allow the distance to become small enough so that  
the two nuclei can see and respond. The response is to emit a  
photon from each nuclei because this process lowers the energy of  
the system.



Ed,

With each cycle energy of the system is only lowered if the energy  
of the emitted photon is greater than the work done by the random  
vibration of atoms on the system. The change is analogous to an  
exothermic chemical reaction which requires some activation energy  
to initiate but the reaction products are in a lower energy state.  
Because of the shape of the coulomb hill the hill can only be  
climbed if the energy emitted increases with each cycle.


The Hydroton allows the Coulomb barrier to be reduced enough for the  
nuclei to respond and emit excess energy. Because the resonance  
immediately increases the distance, the ability or need to lose  
energy is lost before all the extra energy can be emitted. If the  
distance did not increased, hot fusion would result. The distance is  
again reduced, and another small burst of energy is emitted. This  
process continues until ALL energy is emitted and the intervening  
electron is sucked into the final product.



In your model, the coulomb barrier appears to be like a hill in a  
uniform gravitational field. It is possible to climb such a barrier  
in steps by emitting the same amount of energy with each cycle, but  
this barrier does not correspond with the actual barrier that exists  
between protons. Climbing a genuine coulomb barrier requires more  
energy with each cycle, so that requires more energy be emitted with  
each cycle. The extra energy emitted heats the lattice even more and  
produces more powerful vibrations of the lattice which can push the  
protons even closer together.




I might add, all theories require a similar process. All theories  
require a group of hydron be assembled, which requires emission of  
Gibbs energy. Once assembled, the fusion process must take place in  
stages to avoid the hot fusion result, as happens when the nuclei  
get close using a muon and without the ability to limit the process.  
Unfortunately, the other theories ignore these requirements.


The proton has nothing to do with the work done at each step. This  
work comes from the temperature. The photon results because the  
assembly has too much mass-energy for the distance between the  
nuclei.  If the nuclei touched, the assembly would have 24 MeV of  
excess mass-energy if they were deuterons.  If they are close but  
not touching, the stable mass-energy would be less.  At a critical  
distance short of actually touching, the nuclei can know that they  
have too much mass energy. How they know this is the magic that CF  
has revealed.



Here is the magic: they share an electron and it is through this  
common ground that they know. If they don't share an electron they  
won't give up any excess mass-energy until they are touching at  
which point they give it up all at once which is what happens in hot  
fusion.


Harry

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

Josh, I am quite happy to see that you are finally willing to discuss the 
operation of a positive feedback system.  Every one of your points can be 
addressed and explained.  It would be easier to handle only a couple at a time 
since that would allow us to focus upon the particular issue until you 
understand why your ideas are in error.


With that in mind, please submit for discussion your main reason for 
discounting my explanation so that it can be properly addressed and everyone 
who is following this concept can draw their own conclusions.  It is my sincere 
wish that you will eventually understand the process and help to clarify it to 
other skeptics.


I await your concentrated post.  Give it your best!


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:48 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question



On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


There seems to be a serious hangup over why a heat generating device needs some 
form of heating input to sustain itself.  The skeptics can not seem to get 
their arms around this issue so I will make another short attempt to explain 
why this is important.
 
To achieve a high value of COP the ECAT operates within a region that is 
unstable.  This translates into a situation where the device if given the 
chance will attempt to increase its internal energy until it melts or ceases to 
operate due to other damage.  Control of the device is obtained by adding 
external heat via the power resistors allowing the core to heat up toward a 
critical point of no return.
 
Just prior to that critical temperature the extra heating is rapidly halted.  
The effect of this heating collapse is to force the device core heating to 
change direction and begin cooling off.






I do get the basic idea. The problem is I don't see how to make it work in the 
latest experiments. The switching would have to be on a pretty slow time scale, 
because of thermal mass. It would take on the order of minutes for an 
appreciable change in the internal temperature to result from shutting down the 
resistors, as is consistent with the rather slow change in temperature in the 
March experiment.


But in the December experiment, there is no switching on this time scale. The 
power is measured on the lines to the ecat, and they claim the power is 
constant as recorded by the PCE830 on a 1 second time scale. Also they say that 
the power output is almost constant on the same time scale. So, I fail to see 
how that kind of a scheme could work there.


The input in that experiment is 360 W applied to the resistors, and that is 
allegedly enough to trigger the reaction. The total output power is about 2 kW, 
so that would be 1.6 kW generated by the reactor *inside* the cylinder. If 360 
W from outside is enough to trigger the reaction, how can 1.6 kW not be enough 
to keep it going? I picture someone holding a butane lighter to glowing coals, 
and expecting them to extinguish when he takes the lighter away.


Now, you might discount the December run, but then you'd impugn Levi's 
integrity, and since he was clearly in charge in March, that makes the whole 
thing kind of dodgy.


But even in the March run, things don't add up. They claim it takes about 800 W 
to the reactor from the resistors to trigger the reaction. From the geometry, 
only a fraction of that power will actually be absorbed by the reactor itself. 
(The rest will be absorbed by the ceramic and the end caps.) The average output 
from the reactor is also about 800 W, but this is generated inside the reactor, 
so again, it makes no sense that the reaction would extinguish when you turn 
the external power off.


Furthermore, in all cases, it seems implausible that the output would be that 
stable without any feedback from the reactor output. Even if the sort of 
control you talk about were possible, it would require the exact duty cycle to 
keep the temperature from drifting up or down. And even if Rossi found the 
right duty cycle, it seems unlikely it would stay the same for 4 days at those 
temperatures. People are always excusing the absence of progress by suggesting 
the reaction is so hard to control, but from both these experiments, it appears 
to be rock stable. That would be the case if the heating were all resistive. 
The behavior looks nothing like you would expect a new reaction sensitive to 
temperature would look.



 


  Positive feedback can work in either direction; that is, the temperature can 
be either increasing or decreasing and the trick is to make it go in the 
desired direction.
 






Are you saying positive can be negative. What's the trick to making it decrease 
when 1/5 the power makes it increase?






The closer to the critical point that Rossi is able to switch directions, the 
longer the temperature waveform will linger near that point before heading

Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!


Harry Veeder wrote:

I suspect hand waving began as a derisive reference to occult 
activities since these might involve the waving of hands and/or a wand. .


That does sound like the word origin. Similar to hocus-pocus.

I think Gibbs meant something like papering over a problem or hiding 
the lack of a good supporting argument.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question



On May 31, 2013, at 4:40 AM, Rob Dingemans wrote:


Hi,

On 30-5-2013 22:48, Edmund Storms wrote:
I agree Dave, I have been providing this explanation for several  
years without any effect. I'm glad you are adding your voice. The  
critical point at which the temperature must be reduced depends on  
the degree of thermal contact between the source of energy (the Ni  
powder) and the sink (The outside world). The better the thermal  
contact between these two, the higher the stable temperature and  
the greater the COP. Rossi has not achieved a COP even close to  
what is possible.


Ok, suppose that it is extremely difficult (I don't want to say  
impossible, as nothing is impossible) to enhance the thermal contact  
between the source of energy and the sink, wouldn't it be wise then  
to put the whole system in a temperature controlled box (let's call  
it a  refrigerator) with a constant temperature to obtain a stable  
environment for the E-cat?


Rob, practical use requires two conditions. The heat source must be  
stable and the resulting temperature of the energy must be high. These  
two conditions are not directly related. Very good thermal contact  
with the sink can be achieved while the sink is at high temperature.   
Nevertheless, the sink temperature, although high, must be stable,  
which will create another control problem as this source of energy is  
applied to practical devices. I can predict that this problem will  
limit the use of CF power.  I can anticipate some serious and  
challenging engineering problems in the future that Rossi is just  
starting to deal with.


Ed Storms


To bring up another analogy it is my understanding that when you  
have a steam engine and you are turning at several handles and  
wheels at the same time it is extremely difficult to get the system  
stable with an optimum output.
It sounds to me that Andrea is having a similar problem with the E- 
cat, he should try to freeze the environment of the E-cat as much  
as possible and then work on ONE control to gain better COP.


Kind regards,

Rob

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

It is great to see that we are in such close agreement.  Let's handle the 
issues related to positive feedback as I requested and you will improve your 
understanding.  I promise to squawk if I see any attempts by Rossi to fake the 
process.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:58 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question



On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


Josh, what is common sense now becomes ancient history when the newest theories 
come out.  




Yes, I know that happens sometimes. And sometimes things that are common sense 
remain common sense.


But I think you misunderstood. I was not referring to new science theories 
there. I was saying that it's common sense that if Rossi's claims were being 
accepted by the majority, there would be huge excitement.






How do you think men learned to fly heavier than air crafts when it was common 
sense that this was not possible. 




Like I said, you're arguing a different point, but what the hell.


It wasn't common sense that flight was impossible. Everyone saw birds fly, and 
gliders were already common. And while there were some famous skeptics, and 
there was some erroneous skepticism of the Wrights specifically, most 
scientists regarded powered flight as inevitable. That's why the subject was 
treated seriously by all the major journals, including Science and Nature 
before the Wright's flight. That's a matter of record.


There are better examples to support your argument, but I don't know of a case 
where a small scale phenomenon like cold fusion was rejected so categorically 
for a quarter century that was later vindicated. I'm aware of a couple that 
come close, but they occurred about 150 years ago.



 



You need to realize that all knowledge does not reside within your 
understanding.  




I do realize that. But I wonder if you realize that you are not in possession 
of received wisdom.



 

All of us should be open to learning new concepts and it is about time for you 
to give LENR a fair chance.
 




It is about time for you to give the bogosity of LENR a fair chance. All your 
thinking starts from the assumption that it's real. You'll never make progress 
that way.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

Of course it is not the exact same.  Positive heat feedback is what we are 
mainly interested in.  You know that, so why bring up the obvious differences?  
Compare the similarities for an analogy.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 3:02 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question



On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


If someone is looking for an analogy they could look at the behavior of a power 
transistor mounted on a heat sink.  For this exercise assume that the collector 
is directly connected to a power source.  Apply enough base drive to obtain a 
relatively large collector current.






Really not the same. The base signal controls the collector signal, it does not 
control the production of the energy. So I don't see how it informs the problem 
at all.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

Josh, please refrain from insults.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 3:07 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

Yes, and only in a diesel engine do you not need a battery to keep spark plugs 
going.  Demanding a self-sustaining device is like demanding a diesel engine.  
ICEs were first developed in the 1860s, and the diesel engine was invented in 
1893, several decades later.  I don't think that necessarily implies a similar 
period of development at this time, since we know so much about heat engines.  
But I think the only reasonable assumption is that it would be nontrivial for 
Rossi get his device to be self-sustaining.

Seriously? Do you really not know how an internal combustion engine works? Have 
you not used a lawn mower, or a kick-start motorcycle or a pull-start outboard 
motor. Remember the cranks on model Ts?

The engine produces the electricity for the spark, and to charge the battery. 
Even if the battery were involved in producing the spark (and in some engines 
it is partially used), the engine charges the battery, so the whole thing is 
still self-sustaining. I have no problem using a battery (or any number of 
them) to power the ecat. And if the ecat can charge the battery, I'll happily 
call it self-sustaining.

Man, this place is crawling with ignoramuses.

Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

Josh, your entire theory will be shot if you acknowledge that the COP is 
greater than 1.  Are you now ready to accept this condition?


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 3:22 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test



On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:





My guess is that he is designing for industrial applications. 





It's not gonna be useful for industrial purposes with a COP of 3; remember the 
electricity was made with an efficiency of 1/3. It's gonna have to be 
self-sustaining. I hardly think he's looking at the final version of the power 
supply when the ecat is still completely inadequate. You're grasping.

Re: [Vo]:Comment by Anderson at Forbes


Cude wrote:


Is it unfair to be suspicious if he can't spell his own title?



On the contrary, this adds versimillitude to his posting. Based on my 
experience editing papers, I conclude that many American chemistry 
professors cannot spell. Neither can I, but I use voice input so I can 
easily spell words such as versimillitude. Or orthogonal. How do you 
like them apples?


Stan Pons and Melvin Miles are very good at spelling. Dennis Cravens and 
the late Julian Schwinger . . . not so much.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

Every one of the points you make are pure speculation.  There is absolutely no 
evidence that Rossi is using 3 phase power to conduct any scam.  How do you 
expect for anyone to believe your side of the discussion if there is never any 
proof of any one of your points?  You are basically shooting in the dark, 
hoping to hit a target that is not even there.


I can show additional evidence that the Rossi test does in fact show excess 
power.  Start with the measurements conducted by the team.  It is up to you to 
show why that is not accurate and you have not done so in any way.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 3:26 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test



On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


There are advantages to using a three phase power input that have been pointed 
out.  






For this application, the disadvantages are greater.



 

Measurements of 3 phase systems are done every day so this is not important.
 




Of course they are. But everyday measurements do not need to consider the 
possibility of deliberate deception. 3-phase is more complicated and involves 
more wires. Increased complexity is a magician's friend.


It is so utterly unnecessary, and it has such clear benefits for deception. 
Like forcing the use of a particular line, and increased opportunity for hidden 
wires or power, and increased opportunity for more power if you want to make 
something glow red.



 

If Cude can show a real test that proves 3 phase measurements are not accurate, 
then someone will listen. 




I see it differently. True believers insist on an explanation of how deception 
might explain the alleged observations, but do not hold themselves to the same 
standard to give an explanation for how NiH could produce 100 times the power 
density of nuclear fission fuel without melting, let alone explain what kind of 
a reaction would produce the alleged heat.


It doesn't matter if you don't understand the trick in the cheese power video. 
You are pretty sure it's a trick because the alternative is too implausible. 
Likewise, some deception is far more likely and plausible in Rossi's ecat than 
the alternative explanation just based on thermodynamics, and far more so if 
you consider the nuclear physics.

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.


Robert Lynn wrote:

Killing off opposing views like Abd, Andrew and others does not 
improve the quality of the discourse.


Bill Beaty told me he did not precipitously throw out Andrew. They 
discussed the rules, and concluded that this forum is not the best fit 
for Andrew at this time.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-05-31 Thread Alain Sepeda

you have a point.

a good idea for latter as someone said in a forum is:
- to invite students who will play the skeptics, with stupid ideas, most
stupid, some not so stupid... with naive, not far from the one of
incompetent or voluntarily stupid skeptics.
- to invite few stage magicians, that will look at evident place to put
smoke and mirror, and rule residual claims of fraud.

this is not science, nor industry, it is psychiatry.


2013/5/31 Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com

 To deceive an electronics guy, one may use a chemistry trick.
 To deceive a chemist, one may use software tricks.
 To deceive a computer scientist, one may use a physics trick.

 But using an electricity trick to deceive a group of experts sent
 by a power industry association is stupid.
 --
 Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

2013-05-31 Thread John Berry

If he does not know such a simple thing, I think he can be safely ignored
as plainly he is significantly ignorant of basic physics.

Only toroidal coils/cores have negligible external detectable field.
And actually it is present but cancelled, hence only detected inductively.

Very long solenoids have a strong external field near the poles but is
weaker near the middle.

John


On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 1:52 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 I suggest that you study the magnetic fields associated with solenoids
 Josh.  Obviously you must not realize that they have an external field much
 like a bar magnet.  This is simple for you to study and realize your
 mistake.

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 3:32 am
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat
 test

  On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  I don't buy it. The reactor is a sealed faraday cage, so it's not going
 to
  care about ripple or dc vs ac. It's just a thermal interface.

  The reactor might require or might be incompatible with low-frequency AC
 magnetic fields, which can go through 3 mm of steel, especially AISI 310
 steel which has very low magnetic permeability.  (Faraday cages bounce off
 electromagnetic signals (balanced E + B) but not necessarily penetrating
 magnetic signals.)


  Good grief. The resistors are coils, presumably helical solenoids with
 the axis parallel to the reactor cylinder. The magnetic field is near zero
 outside a solenoid, except at the ends. Not the best way to get magnetic
 fields in. Moreover, the Ni is above the Curie point at those temperatures,
 and so is not ferro-magnetic. But it's a real reach anyway to think you
 could even measure magnetic fields, let alone induce nuclear reactions with
 them. And some say the skeptics are grasping.



 In addition we are told the instantaneous power was about 930 W.  If
 unfiltered,
 full-wave rectified AC was used then in 10 ms, that 930 W will supply or
 fail to
 supply about 10 J.  As this is metal here and not water the thermal
 masses are
 pretty low: for the steel casing which has a thermal mass of about .15 J/K
 this would mean a change of 1.5 degree, 100 times per second.  With a
 diffusivity of .36 m2/s this 100 Hz thermal signal would certainly
 reach the core.


  What? No! What are you smoking?

  Do you notice how tungsten light bulbs glow for a fraction of a second
 after you turn them off? That's thermal mass. Photographers measure the
 flicker of tungsten lights, and it's less than 10%. Now, the visible light
 output is far from linear, with a threshold at near full power, so that
 means there's probably even less variation in the thermal output over the
 cycle. And that's a tiny filament. For the heating resistors, it would be
 even less. And now imagine if the heating resistor varies its thermal
 output by a per cent or less, and if only a fraction of the heat from the
 resistor reaches the SS cylinder, which has a mass of 1.5 kg (probably a
 thousand times that of a tungsten filament, and 4 times the heat capacity).
 There is no way any temperature ripple would be observed in the steel, let
 alone reach the core. You need to go back to that heat equation.




  But in any case, in the dummy run, they measured the power to the ecat
 so that
  suggests it's an ordinary ac signal. Anyway, a box powered by ordinary
 mains
  can produce any signal shape they want. They wouldn't go to 3-phase
 just to
  skimp on diodes and capacitors. The 3-phase looks more like obfuscation
 to me.

  Again, if they need to have precise PWM without a large 100 Hz ripple,
 they will
 have to produce high-power DC, and they will want it to be reliable.
  It's not
 just a matter of skimping on capacitors.



  They measured the power to the ecat on the lines going in to the ecat
 using clamp on meters in the December run, and in the dummy run in March.
 So it's ac at the line frequency; the meter has a narrow frequency range.
 And in March it's single phase ac. There's no reason they need high power
 dc.




 As a side node, the use of tri-phase power seems to indicates that
 this is the real
 deal.  Why would indeed Rossi bother with that if he didn't have a true
 need to
 industrialize his product?



  So, in the end you admit that it's not needed for this purpose, and that
 it's a bother. Why bother? I explained that. It forces the use of a
 specific mains line that will not be used for anything else. It increases
 the complexity, which gives much opportunity for deception. And it makes
 much higher power available, in case he wants to make it glow.

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

Bring on your proof that what I have pointed out is not true.   Take a few 
moments to show how DC flowing into the control box due to its internal 
rectification changes the power delivered to it.  You will fail miserably I 
assure you!  You love to make unsupported statements and then fail to do any of 
the simple tests required to clear up your misunderstanding.  I have waited a 
long time for you or Andrew or Duncan to make that spice model that will 
demonstrate that what I say is accurate.  I will be happy to help you set up a 
model that will take perhaps 15 minutes of your time to run.  If you do not 
know how to makes such a model then you should remove yourself from this 
discussion since that would demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic EE 
knowledge.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 4:19 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.



On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


I thought that the DC issue was put to rest. 




Only according to the credulous true believers. Essen said they excluded it, 
but he didn't say how. If we're just going to accept what they say without 
scrutiny, then why bother reading the paper at all? Just accept their 
conclusions and rejoice.


Except that Essen said of the steam tests that the steam was dry based on a 
visual inspection, and then based on a measurement with a relative humidity 
probe. So, I'm not prepared to accept his claim at face value. And even if his 
measurements do exclude dc in the exposed conductors, I'm not prepared to 
accept that a concealed conductor was not there.


There's various ways to create illusions, and I don't necessarily know how it 
might have been done. But I know there was a rat's nest of wires, and an 
unnecessarily complex method of supplying power, and that deception on Rossi's 
part is far more likely than the sort of power density they claim without 
melting, let alone a nuclear reaction.

 

 It can be easily shown that there is not amount of diode trickery which can be 
put into the control box that will confuse the primary power measurement. 






I don't agree. Just because you or I can't think of diode trickery doesn't mean 
it's not possible. You or I can't think of any nuclear reactions to explain the 
results either, but that doesn't seem to convince you that it's not possible. 
You should keep an open mind to possibilities you have not thought of.



 

 DC input has been eliminated so that is not an issue due to direct observation 
by one or more of the test personnel.






Except we don't know the observation, so it's not convincing.
 

 
There is noting left to clarify as far as the input is concerned.  




Manipulation of the mains line is a far smaller perturbation than used in many 
similar scale scams. Concealed conductors can make the current look like it's 
zero, or could carry dc or high frequency power. 



 

And you also agree that duty cycle operation is obvious by output waveform 
picture review. 




No. I disagreed with that at least 3 times. Maybe you missed them.


I don't see your problem here. Yes, the modulation of the temperature is 
consistent with the modulation of the input, but it says nothing about the 
actual power level in the alleged off part of the cycle. The claim is that the 
ecat is sustained in the off-cycle, so the decay curve is consistent with the 
total power *not* going to zero. All the skeptics are claiming is that you'd 
get the same thing if the input drops to the same level as the level the ecat 
is claimed to be producing by itself during the off cycle. And that could be 
done using the cheese power method with a voltage divider or a variac or 
something. 


I'm not saying that's how it was done. I'm saying that the unnecessarily 
indirect output measurement, the unnecessarily complex input supply and the 
inadequate input measurement, and the blank that was run under different 
conditions, makes the entire operation suspicious and leaves possibilities for 
deception. I just don't believe someone who actually had an energy source with 
MJ+/g, that could produce hundreds of watts at a COP of 3, would demonstrate in 
this way. It could be made so much better. And so I remain skeptical. When 
nothing comes of this in a year, will you be a little more skeptical?



 

 The viewed duty cycle matches that stated within the report.  Anyone that 
suggests a cheese power type scam is not looking at the evidence.
 




It matches the frequency. Anyone who suggests the evidence proves it goes to 
zero in the off-cycle does not understand the evidence. Cheese power is far 
more likely than nickel powder with a power density 100 times that of uranium 
in a fission reactor, let alone than the possibility of nuclear reactions in 
that context.



 

Any RF power input would cause serious disruption of the test reading with any

Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

I suggest that you study the magnetic fields associated with solenoids Josh.  
Obviously you must not realize that they have an external field much like a bar 
magnet.  This is simple for you to study and realize your mistake.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 3:32 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test



On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:


On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 I don't buy it. The reactor is a sealed faraday cage, so it's not going to
 care about ripple or dc vs ac. It's just a thermal interface.


The reactor might require or might be incompatible with low-frequency AC
magnetic fields, which can go through 3 mm of steel, especially AISI 310
steel which has very low magnetic permeability.  (Faraday cages bounce off
electromagnetic signals (balanced E + B) but not necessarily penetrating
magnetic signals.)





Good grief. The resistors are coils, presumably helical solenoids with the axis 
parallel to the reactor cylinder. The magnetic field is near zero outside a 
solenoid, except at the ends. Not the best way to get magnetic fields in. 
Moreover, the Ni is above the Curie point at those temperatures, and so is not 
ferro-magnetic. But it's a real reach anyway to think you could even measure 
magnetic fields, let alone induce nuclear reactions with them. And some say the 
skeptics are grasping.



 

In addition we are told the instantaneous power was about 930 W.  If unfiltered,
full-wave rectified AC was used then in 10 ms, that 930 W will supply or fail to
supply about 10 J.  As this is metal here and not water the thermal masses are
pretty low: for the steel casing which has a thermal mass of about .15 J/K
this would mean a change of 1.5 degree, 100 times per second.  With a
diffusivity of .36 m2/s this 100 Hz thermal signal would certainly
reach the core.





What? No! What are you smoking? 


Do you notice how tungsten light bulbs glow for a fraction of a second after 
you turn them off? That's thermal mass. Photographers measure the flicker of 
tungsten lights, and it's less than 10%. Now, the visible light output is far 
from linear, with a threshold at near full power, so that means there's 
probably even less variation in the thermal output over the cycle. And that's a 
tiny filament. For the heating resistors, it would be even less. And now 
imagine if the heating resistor varies its thermal output by a per cent or 
less, and if only a fraction of the heat from the resistor reaches the SS 
cylinder, which has a mass of 1.5 kg (probably a thousand times that of a 
tungsten filament, and 4 times the heat capacity). There is no way any 
temperature ripple would be observed in the steel, let alone reach the core. 
You need to go back to that heat equation.



 


 But in any case, in the dummy run, they measured the power to the ecat so that
 suggests it's an ordinary ac signal. Anyway, a box powered by ordinary mains
 can produce any signal shape they want. They wouldn't go to 3-phase just to
 skimp on diodes and capacitors. The 3-phase looks more like obfuscation to me.


Again, if they need to have precise PWM without a large 100 Hz ripple, they will
have to produce high-power DC, and they will want it to be reliable.  It's not
just a matter of skimping on capacitors.







They measured the power to the ecat on the lines going in to the ecat using 
clamp on meters in the December run, and in the dummy run in March. So it's ac 
at the line frequency; the meter has a narrow frequency range. And in March 
it's single phase ac. There's no reason they need high power dc.



 

As a side node, the use of tri-phase power seems to indicates that
this is the real
deal.  Why would indeed Rossi bother with that if he didn't have a true need to
industrialize his product?






So, in the end you admit that it's not needed for this purpose, and that it's a 
bother. Why bother? I explained that. It forces the use of a specific mains 
line that will not be used for anything else. It increases the complexity, 
which gives much opportunity for deception. And it makes much higher power 
available, in case he wants to make it glow.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

Rob, it would be an easier task if Rossi were able to restrict the environment 
within which his device operates.  If he were to pursue this too far, then the 
applications for which his ECAT can operate are quickly reduced.


Now is the time for him to optimize the control system and he appears to be 
doing just that.  The challenges he faces are difficult.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 6:40 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question


Hi,

On 30-5-2013 22:48, Edmund Storms wrote:
 I agree Dave, I have been providing this explanation for several years 
 without any effect. I'm glad you are adding your voice. The critical 
 point at which the temperature must be reduced depends on the degree 
 of thermal contact between the source of energy (the Ni powder) and 
 the sink (The outside world). The better the thermal contact between 
 these two, the higher the stable temperature and the greater the COP. 
 Rossi has not achieved a COP even close to what is possible. 

Ok, suppose that it is extremely difficult (I don't want to say 
impossible, as nothing is impossible) to enhance the thermal contact 
between the source of energy and the sink, wouldn't it be wise then to 
put the whole system in a temperature controlled box (let's call it a  
refrigerator) with a constant temperature to obtain a stable environment 
for the E-cat?

To bring up another analogy it is my understanding that when you have a 
steam engine and you are turning at several handles and wheels at the 
same time it is extremely difficult to get the system stable with an 
optimum output.
It sounds to me that Andrea is having a similar problem with the E-cat, 
he should try to freeze the environment of the E-cat as much as 
possible and then work on ONE control to gain better COP.

Kind regards,

Rob

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-05-31 Thread Yamali Yamali

a group of experts sent by a power industry

Are you suggesting the power industry association had a hand in picking these 
experts and the group they eventually came up with included Giuseppe Levi and 
Hanno Essen based on their expertise? 


 Von: Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 13:02 Freitag, 31.Mai 2013
Betreff: [Vo]:On deception
 

To deceive an electronics guy, one may use a chemistry trick.
To deceive a chemist, one may use software tricks.
To deceive a computer scientist, one may use a physics trick.

But using an electricity trick to deceive a group of experts sent
by a power industry association is stupid.
-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:On deception

Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:

But using an electricity trick to deceive a group of experts sent
by a power industry association is stupid.

Well said! The whole notion is hilarious.

Even if it were shown that these people are not experts, you can be sure
someone at Elforsk read that report carefully before issuing the statement
here:

http://www.elforsk.se/Aktuellt/Svenska-forskare-har-testat-Rossis-energikatalysator--E-cat/

Organizations such as this one do not casually post such statements on
their web site. This statement says, in effect, that we are looking at
revolutionary technology. It is similar to EPRI's understated but
unequivocal conclusion:

EPRI PERSPECTIVE This work confirms the claims of Fleischmann, Pons, and
Hawkins of the production of excess heat in deuterium-loaded palladium
cathodes at levels too large for chemical transformation.

Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de wrote:

a group of experts sent by a power industry

Are you suggesting the power industry association had a hand in picking
these experts and the group they eventually came up with included Giuseppe
Levi and Hanno Essen based on their expertise?

No, I expect Levi went to the Swedes, and they -- in turn -- went to the
Elforsk. Essen is a V.I.P. academic who would have no difficulty getting
this level of funding.

Whether these people are experts or not I'm sure the Association reviewed
their work carefully before issuing a statement. I do not think it takes
long for an electrical engineer to conclude that there is no possibility of
fraud in these tests.

Even the people here such as Cude cannot come up with anything. They are
scraping the bottom of the barrel when they say that three-phase
electricity is difficult to measure or there might be a hidden wire under
the insulation, forgetting that the researchers have to strip off the
insulation to measure voltage. Since those of the best arguments they can
come up with, they are finished. Cude came dangerously close to admitting
the COP might be over 1. Admitting that would the end for him. He can never
say that any test of cold fusion anywhere ever produced evidence of heat
over unity.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...

2013-05-31 Thread Roarty, Francis X

Ed,
I still think this strange behavior you mention is in violation 
of our present definition of COE.. the resonance should dampen out before doing 
any useful work if powered by temperature - random motion of atoms.. if you are 
saying the tight confinement of the cavity is allowing this random motion to be 
focused along the linear molecule then you are positing an HUP trap..  Even 
the energy sink would be considered a zero point source if it somehow changed 
attraction levels after photon emission because it is a quantum effect of the 
geometry. I don't disagree with your results but I think you are denying the 
underlying cause. I would also posit your photon emission is due to 
re-association where the Hydroton atoms briefly disassociate, fall further into 
the sink and then immediately reform your molecule emitting a spectrum shifted 
photon... similar to Mills hydrino or Jones fractional hydrogen.  It is 
plausible that these emissions could lower the columb barrier to the point of 
fusion but I have to consider photon emission as useful work and don't see the 
COE to account for it.
Fran

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 9:11 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...


On May 30, 2013, at 11:39 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:




On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Edmund Storms 
stor...@ix.netcom.commailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Harry, imagine balls held in line by springs. If the end ball is pull away with 
a force and let go, a resonance wave will pass down the line. Each ball will 
alternately move away and then toward its neighbor. If outside energy is 
supplied, this resonance will continue. If not, it will damp out. At this 
stage, this is a purely mechanical action that is well understood.


In the case of the Hydroton, the outside energy is temperature. The temperature 
creates random vibration of atoms, which is focused along the length of the 
molecule. Again, this is normal and well understood behavior.

The strange behavior starts once the nuclei can get within a critical distance 
of each other as a result of the resonance. This distance is less than is 
possible in any other material because of the high concentration of negative 
charge that can exist in this structure and environment. The barrier is not 
eliminated. It is only reduced enough to allow the distance to become small 
enough so that the two nuclei can see and respond. The response is to emit a 
photon from each nuclei because this process lowers the energy of the system.


Ed,

With each cycle energy of the system is only lowered if the energy of the 
emitted photon is greater than the work done by the random vibration of atoms 
on the system.

NO Harry! There is no work done by the random vibrations. These are the result 
of normal temperature. The photon is emitted from the nucleus and carries with 
it the excess mass-energy of the nucleus.


The change is analogous to an exothermic chemical reaction which requires some 
activation energy to initiate but the reaction products are in a lower energy 
state. Because of the shape of the coulomb hill the hill can only be climbed 
if the energy emitted increases with each cycle.

No! The hill height is reduced by an intervening negative charge. As a result, 
the hill height is reduced so that it can be surmounted by the vibrations 
occuring in the Hydroton.  Normally, the hill is too high for such small 
vibrations to have any effect. The hill is reduced in height as a result of the 
Hydroton forming. As a result, it is the unique condition required to make CF 
work. All the theories use something similar, but without a clear description.

This is like a ball rolling between two hills. It rolls down the side of one 
hill, through the valley and up the other side. In the process, it picks up a 
little energy from the surroundings (temperature in this case) to reach the 
top, where it throws a switch and turns on a light for a brief time. 
Immediately, it starts to roll back down and returns to the first hill where it 
again reaches the top and turns on a light for a brief time. This back and 
forth continues until the battery powering the light is exhausted and the hills 
disappear.  The light has no relationship to the motion of the ball. The ball 
only throws the switch.


The Hydroton allows the Coulomb barrier to be reduced enough for the nuclei to 
respond and emit excess energy. Because the resonance immediately increases the 
distance, the ability or need to lose energy is lost before all the extra 
energy can be emitted. If the distance did not increased, hot fusion would 
result. The distance is again reduced, and another small burst of energy is 
emitted. This process continues until ALL energy is emitted and the intervening 
electron is sucked into the final product.


In your model, the coulomb barrier appears to be like a hill in a uniform

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-05-31 Thread Yamali Yamali


Jed wrote: I do not think it takes
long for an electrical engineer to conclude that there is no possibility of
fraud in these tests.

I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who would sign 
such a statement.

Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...

Fran, I don't know how to explain this process any more clearly. The  
resonance is not using energy or emitting energy. It simply occurs as  
a result of the ambient energy, i.e. temperature. All chemical  
structures vibrate and resonate. This behavior is not visible unless  
something happens that can be detected.


The detected photons in this case come from the nucleus, not from the  
resonance. They get their energy from the mass-energy of the nucleus.  
The resonance ONLlY allows the two nuclei to get close enough to  
create a condition that requires release of mass-energy for a brief  
time.  You keep making the process more complicated than it is. This  
is a VERY SIMPLE effect. The only unique aspect is how the nuclei get  
information needed to cause the release of photons in order to reduce  
their mass energy.


If you want to propose your own theory, that is ok, but please do not  
make it part of what I'm proposing. Please try to understand EXACTLY  
what I'm proposing before proposing your own ideas.


As this mass-energy is reduced, the Coulomb barrier is lowered  
further, permitting the two nuclei to get closer at each cycle. Once  
the nuclei fuse, the Hydroton ceases to exist and instead nuclei of D  
are present if the original nuclei in the Hydroton were H, the final  
nuclei is He if D made the Hydroton, and the final nuclei is tritium  
if H+D were in the Hydroton.  The He diffuses away while the tritium  
and D can enter other Hydrotons that continuously form. This is a  
contineous process limited ONLY by how fast the hydrogen isotopes can  
get into the gap.


There is no such thing as a Hydroton atom. The Hydroton is a MOLECULE  
made up of atoms. Please read what I write carefully so that I do not  
have to keep explaining.


Ed Storms


On May 31, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:


Ed,
I still think this strange behavior you mention is  
in violation of our present definition of COE.. the resonance should  
dampen out before doing any useful work if powered by temperature -  
random motion of atoms.. if you are saying the tight confinement of  
the cavity is allowing this random motion to be “focused” along the  
linear molecule then you are positing an HUP trap..  Even the energy  
sink would be considered a zero point source if it somehow changed  
attraction levels after photon emission because it is a quantum  
effect of the geometry. I don’t disagree with your results but I  
think you are denying the underlying cause. I would also posit your  
photon emission is due to re-association where the Hydroton atoms  
briefly disassociate, fall further into the sink and then  
immediately reform your molecule emitting a spectrum shifted photon…  
similar to Mills hydrino or Jones fractional hydrogen.  It is  
plausible that these emissions could lower the columb barrier to the  
point of fusion but I have to consider photon emission as useful  
work and don’t see the COE to account for it.

Fran

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 9:11 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...


On May 30, 2013, at 11:39 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:





On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Harry, imagine balls held in line by springs. If the end ball is  
pull away with a force and let go, a resonance wave will pass down  
the line. Each ball will alternately move away and then toward its  
neighbor. If outside energy is supplied, this resonance will  
continue. If not, it will damp out. At this stage, this is a purely  
mechanical action that is well understood.



In the case of the Hydroton, the outside energy is temperature. The  
temperature creates random vibration of atoms, which is focused  
along the length of the molecule. Again, this is normal and well  
understood behavior.


The strange behavior starts once the nuclei can get within a  
critical distance of each other as a result of the resonance. This  
distance is less than is possible in any other material because of  
the high concentration of negative charge that can exist in this  
structure and environment. The barrier is not eliminated. It is only  
reduced enough to allow the distance to become small enough so that  
the two nuclei can see and respond. The response is to emit a  
photon from each nuclei because this process lowers the energy of  
the system.



Ed,

With each cycle energy of the system is only lowered if the energy  
of the emitted photon is greater than the work done by the random  
vibration of atoms on the system.


NO Harry! There is no work done by the random vibrations. These are  
the result of normal temperature. The photon is emitted from the  
nucleus and carries with it the excess mass-energy of the nucleus.



The change is analogous to an exothermic chemical reaction which  
requires some activation energy to initiate but the

Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...


I do not see a direct violation of the COE with Ed's theory.  It is somewhat 
kin to what happens when an electron and proton are far removed from each 
other.  The electron comes into a tighter orbital as energy is released.

If you make a classical model with two protons separated by an electron 
between, it can be shown that the group of particles would be attracted to each 
other.  The repulsive field from the remote proton generates a force that must 
be less than the attractive force associated with the closer electron between 
them.  As these components begin a dance that periodically closes the total 
gaps, it is entirely possible that radiation is emitted during this process.

I see the difficult trick in how to handle the electron once the spacing become 
very tiny.  Ed proposes that it gets sucked into one of the protons as far as I 
understand his theory and that will force some of the energy which would be 
released by fusion into converting the proton-electron pair into a neutron and 
neutrino.  This is an interesting concept.  The net energy released can 
certainly be shown positive.

Dave




-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 10:50 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...



Ed,
I still think this strange behavior you mention is in violation 
of our present definition of COE.. the resonance should dampen out before doing 
any useful work if powered by temperature - random motion of atoms.. if you are 
saying the tight confinement of the cavity is allowing this random motion to be 
“focused” along the linear molecule then you are positing an HUP trap..  Even 
the energy sink would be considered a zero point source if it somehow changed 
attraction levels after photon emission because it is a quantum effect of the 
geometry. I don’t disagree with your results but I think you are denying the 
underlying cause. I would also posit your photon emission is due to 
re-association where the Hydroton atoms briefly disassociate, fall further into 
the sink and then immediately reform your molecule emitting a spectrum shifted 
photon… similar to Mills hydrino or Jones fractional hydrogen.  It is plausible 
that these emissions could lower the columb barrier to the point of fusion but 
I have to consider photon emission as useful work and don’t see the COE to 
account for it.
Fran
 

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 9:11 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...

 
 

On May 30, 2013, at 11:39 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:





 

 

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

Harry, imagine balls held in line by springs. If the end ball is pull away with 
a force and let go, a resonance wave will pass down the line. Each ball will 
alternately move away and then toward its neighbor. If outside energy is 
supplied, this resonance will continue. If not, it will damp out. At this 
stage, this is a purely mechanical action that is well understood. 

 


 


In the case of the Hydroton, the outside energy is temperature. The temperature 
creates random vibration of atoms, which is focused along the length of the 
molecule. Again, this is normal and well understood behavior.

 

The strange behavior starts once the nuclei can get within a critical distance 
of each other as a result of the resonance. This distance is less than is 
possible in any other material because of the high concentration of negative 
charge that can exist in this structure and environment. The barrier is not 
eliminated. It is only reduced enough to allow the distance to become small 
enough so that the two nuclei can see and respond. The response is to emit a 
photon from each nuclei because this process lowers the energy of the system.  

 


 

Ed,

 

With each cycle energy of the system is only lowered if the energy of the 
emitted photon is greater than the work done by the random vibration of atoms 
on the system. 



 

NO Harry! There is no work done by the random vibrations. These are the result 
of normal temperature. The photon is emitted from the nucleus and carries with 
it the excess mass-energy of the nucleus. 






The change is analogous to an exothermic chemical reaction which requires some 
activation energy to initiate but the reaction products are in a lower energy 
state. Because of the shape of the coulomb hill the hill can only be climbed 
if the energy emitted increases with each cycle. 



 

No! The hill height is reduced by an intervening negative charge. As a result, 
the hill height is reduced so that it can be surmounted by the vibrations 
occuring in the Hydroton.  Normally, the hill is too high for such small 
vibrations to have any effect. The hill is reduced in height as a result of the 
Hydroton forming. As a result, it is the unique condition

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

2013-05-31 Thread Terry Blanton

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:23 AM, Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com wrote:
 Of course, because a diesel engine works with GLOW PLUGS as it doesn't have
 any spark plugs.
 But these glow plugs still require electricity generated by an alternator
 which is connected by a V-belt to the engine.

Glow plugs are for starting in cold weather.  Before glow plugs, we
used ether to start diesels in cold weather.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-05-31 Thread Terry Blanton

Well, I graduated from Georgia Tech in 1977 with an EE, am a
registered professional engineer and manage a group of mostly EE
consulting engineers and I agree with Jed.

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de wrote:

 Jed wrote: I do not think it takes long for an electrical engineer to
 conclude that there is no possibility of fraud in these tests.

 I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who would
 sign such a statement.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-05-31 Thread Alain Sepeda

With corp experience, I can confirm, but the question is only if the boss
agree with my opinion, I can give it... and if it is unsure I protect my
private parts safe.

so a positive report mean that the bos was ok, that the engineer was ok or
menaces to be fired.
that the boss was ok mean that either he have interest in saying yes
(funding, politics) which is unthinkable for LENR, or that he have been
absolutely convinced it works after torturing 3 engineers with 380V
tri-phase confirming it works, and he hope to be a hero when it succeed and
feel absolutely no risk of error...

so it is an evidence stronger than the engineer are sure. this mean that
the engineers under torture confirm their report, and the boss see no risk
of being wrong.

maybe I exaggerate a little, because torturing at 50V monophase is enough
for corporate engineer...


2013/5/31 Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de


 Jed wrote: I do not think it takes long for an electrical engineer to
 conclude that there is no possibility of fraud in these tests.

 I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who would
 sign such a statement.

Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE

2013-05-31 Thread David L Babcock


I join Terry and Jed on this.  EE, 1962.
I might hesitate, in view of the subversion of some holy pronouncements 
of the physics establishment, but sign I would.



Ol' Bab



On 5/31/2013 12:46 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

Well, I graduated from Georgia Tech in 1977 with an EE, am a
registered professional engineer and manage a group of mostly EE
consulting engineers and I agree with Jed.

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de wrote:

Jed wrote: I do not think it takes long for an electrical engineer to
conclude that there is no possibility of fraud in these tests.

I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who would
sign such a statement.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-05-31 Thread ChemE Stewart

Terry,

I won't hold that degree against you, I have hired a bunch of GA Tech
Engineers... I agree with Jed also.  Sometimes I wonder if physicists ought
to be required to have an undergrad degree in engineering.  Lots of
electromagnetic and thermodynamic stuff going on when you are dealing with
the vacuuum.

Stewart
Darkmattersalot.com

On Friday, May 31, 2013, Terry Blanton wrote:

 Well, I graduated from Georgia Tech in 1977 with an EE, am a
 registered professional engineer and manage a group of mostly EE
 consulting engineers and I agree with Jed.

 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Yamali Yamali 
 yamaliyam...@yahoo.dejavascript:;
 wrote:
 
  Jed wrote: I do not think it takes long for an electrical engineer to
  conclude that there is no possibility of fraud in these tests.
 
  I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who would
  sign such a statement.

[Vo]:Partners: Zawodny or Rosssi and Boeing

2013-05-31 Thread Ron Kita

Greetings Vortex-L.

A wild guess on my part:

A google search of: Boeing LENR Sugar for
Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research shows
that Boeing is commited to Green Aircraft.

LENR is forseeable in Boeing s future and obvious
links can be found on google.

Zawodny of NASA has a  LENR or Ni Energy Patent and
with his NASA connections will probably get his patent in the very near
future.

IF I were Boeing..I would get a Rossi LENR license...since IF
AirBus/EADS would get a license- it could be disasterous -if a
heat engine or LENR Elelctric aircraft Engine could be developed.

Mere speculations...
..does Boeing watch Rossi..I would bet the FARM.

Ad Astra,
Ron Kita, Chiralex
Doylestown PA

RE: [Vo]:On deception

A weakness regarding the recent Ecat paper by Levi et al. is the apparent
absence of an EE. In a future test they would ideally include a power
engineer along with thermal image and data logging specialists.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 31 May 2013 18:46
To: Yamali Yamali
Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:On deception

Well, I graduated from Georgia Tech in 1977 with an EE, am a registered
professional engineer and manage a group of mostly EE consulting engineers
and I agree with Jed.

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de
wrote:

 Jed wrote: I do not think it takes long for an electrical engineer to 
 conclude that there is no possibility of fraud in these tests.

 I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who 
 would sign such a statement.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:40 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Of course it is not the exact same.  Positive heat feedback is what we are
 mainly interested in.  You know that, so why bring up the obvious
 differences?


Because it's not positive heat feedback.

Re: [Vo]:Crystals of Time

2013-05-31 Thread Ron Kita

Time Crystals search: Kozyrev ( Russian Astrophysicist) Time and Turpentine
..a  Levo-Chiral
natural molecule.

Ron Kita, Chiralex
as they say: turpentine is cheap.


On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Roarty, Francis X 
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:

 Robin, I would agree with your atoms as time crystals  assessment. IMHO
 or working man's model,  Time and gravity are related in a relativistic
 way. the nucleus opposes displacement along the time axis much more than
 it's orbitals such that the electrons swirl behind on their electrical
 tethers Never catching up.. when a group of atoms bond together you start
 to increase this resistance to time flow even if individually they have the
 same resistance, slowly building a macro gravity well around themselves
 that represents the difference between an empty vacuum and one with matter.
 The well grows because  matter accumulates in the well forming a leaky sail
 and bonding enough of these sails close together slowly increases pressure
 on a macro scale . Of course the purpose of the article was to support
 vacuum engineering beyond normal gravitational accumulation and I think
 they are promoting some sort of Puthoff vacuum engineering to segregate
 these pressures using other means..
 Fran

 -Original Message-
 From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:32 PM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Crystals of Time

 In reply to  Harry Veeder's message of Mon, 13 May 2013 14:23:14 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 Viewpoint: Crystals of Time
 
 Researchers propose how to realize time crystals, structures whose
 lowest-energy states are periodic both in time and space.
 
 http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/116
 
 quote Time crystals may sound dangerously close to a perpetual motion
 machine, but it is worth emphasizing one key difference: while time
 crystals would indeed move periodically in an eternal loop, rotation
 occurs
 in the ground state, with no work being carried out nor any usable energy
 being extracted from the system.

 They are called Hydrinos. ;)

 (Perhaps more generally atoms).

 Finding time crystals would not amount to
 a violation of well-established principles of thermodynamics. If they can
 be created, time crystals may have intriguing applications, from precise
 timekeeping to the simulation of ground states in quantum computing
 schemes. But they may be much more than advanced devices. Could the
 postulated cyclic evolution of the Universe be seen as a manifestation of
 spontaneous symmetry breaking akin to that of a time crystal? If so, who
 is
 the observer inducing-by a measurement-the breaking of the symmetry of
 time? end quote
 
 
 Comment: If the time crystal continues to beat at the same rate despite
 being measured then it  violates the second law of thermodynamics.
 
 
 Harry
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:37 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 It is great to see that we are in such close agreement.  Let's handle the
 issues related to positive feedback as I requested and you will improve
 your understanding.


I thought you were keeping an open mind, not a patronizing one that is
certain it is in possession of received wisdom.


By the way, a long time ago you promised I'd see the truth about the
validity of the old steam cats real soon now. How is it that they never got
validated and now are abandoned?

If 2 more years pass, and this hot cat configuration is abandoned, what
will you say then. I'll be here to check up.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:41 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Josh, please refrain from insults.



Please refrain from telling me what to refrain from.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:32 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


  With that in mind, please submit for discussion your main reason for
 discounting my explanation so that it can be properly addressed and
 everyone who is following this concept can draw their own conclusions.  It
 is my sincere wish that you will eventually understand the process and help
 to clarify it to other skeptics.




In other words, you got nothin'.


I made my case. Feel free to explain whatever part of it you disagree with.
And if you have a chance, can you specify the functional dependence of
reaction rate on temperature, and temperature on total power produced that
would give the observed behavior and still quench when the external power
is shut off (as you say), or melt down (as Jed says).

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

Cude, please admit to the obvious. The LENR effect has positive  
feedback. Increased temperature causes increased power generation.  
This is an established fact.  Of course, if as you believe, CF is not  
real, than this statement is irrelevant to you and any discussion is a  
waste of time.


Ed Storms
On May 31, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:40 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com  
wrote:
Of course it is not the exact same.  Positive heat feedback is what  
we are mainly interested in.  You know that, so why bring up the  
obvious differences?


Because it's not positive heat feedback.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

2013-05-31 Thread Yamali Yamali

For the record: Jed wrote: 


Whether these people are experts or not I'm sure the Association reviewed
their work carefully before issuing a statement. I do not think it takes
long for an electrical engineer to conclude that there is no possibility of
fraud in these tests.

You've read their report, Terry, and you are an EE. And you would, based on 
what you read in the report and what Hartman and Essen said in interviews 
afterwards, sign a statement to the effect that there is no possibility of 
fraud in these tests??? Why would you do that? We know practically nothing 
about the input measurement apart from the fact that they used a PCE830 and 
that Hartman claims he lifted the controller from the table and couldn't see 
any extra cables. Is that enough for you?




 Von: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
An: Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de 
CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 18:46 Freitag, 31.Mai 2013
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:On deception
 

Well, I graduated from Georgia Tech in 1977 with an EE, am a
registered professional engineer and manage a group of mostly EE
consulting engineers and I agree with Jed.

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de wrote:

 Jed wrote: I do not think it takes long for an electrical engineer to
 conclude that there is no possibility of fraud in these tests.

 I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who would
 sign such a statement.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

Storms, please read the exchange. I was saying the transistor was not a
good analagy because it's not positive thermal feedback.

The claim that cold fusion is positive thermal feedback, is the basis of my
argument that it should easily self-sustain if there were a COP of 3.



On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 Cude, please admit to the obvious. The LENR effect has positive feedback.
 Increased temperature causes increased power generation. This is an
 established fact.  Of course, if as you believe, CF is not real, than this
 statement is irrelevant to you and any discussion is a waste of time.

 Ed Storms

 On May 31, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:

 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:40 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 Of course it is not the exact same.  Positive heat feedback is what we
 are mainly interested in.  You know that, so why bring up the obvious
 differences?


 Because it's not positive heat feedback.

Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE

I'd like to throw in as the 4th EE, graduated from University of California
Santa Barbara 1998.  I would sign.  But if I were there and had the
wherewithal, I would have insisted on bringing in our own generator to
provide the input power.


On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:16 AM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.comwrote:

 I join Terry and Jed on this.  EE, 1962.
 I might hesitate, in view of the subversion of some holy pronouncements of
 the physics establishment, but sign I would.


 Ol' Bab



 On 5/31/2013 12:46 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

 Well, I graduated from Georgia Tech in 1977 with an EE, am a
 registered professional engineer and manage a group of mostly EE
 consulting engineers and I agree with Jed.

 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de
 wrote:

 Jed wrote: I do not think it takes long for an electrical engineer to
 conclude that there is no possibility of fraud in these tests.

 I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who would
 sign such a statement.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:



 Even the people here such as Cude cannot come up with anything. They are
 scraping the bottom of the barrel when they say that three-phase
 electricity is difficult to measure or there might be a hidden wire under
 the insulation, forgetting that the researchers have to strip off the
 insulation to measure voltage.




No one knew how Keely did his tricks either, until he died and they ripped
up his workshop.


And I'm not convinced those guys stripped any wires. It's far from clear it
wasn't Rossi or his delegate who didn't do all the setup. He certainly did
it in the December run. And to hear Essen, the Swedes were pretty much
hands off. All Hartman did was look around and take pictures.



  Cude came dangerously close to admitting the COP might be over 1.


You just miss the point. I was disputing the idea that it was ready for
commercialization even if the claim were true, and so the idea that his
power supply is for industrial purposes is nonsense.

[Vo]: Interesting Information Contained in Output Temperature Curve Shape


There is a wealth of information contained within the shape of the output 
temperature curve associated with operation of the ECAT.  My spice model also 
demonstrates this behavior and the testers eluded to some of the important 
issues.  It is apparent to anyone reviewing the output temperature curve that 
the ECAT does not behave like an ordinary resistor.

The time frame over which the ECAT operates is determined to a major extent by 
the thermal mass of the device and that is why the earlier CATs operated for 
variable periods within the SSM(Self Sustaining Mode).  For some reason the 
skeptics do not understand this issue and make a big deal out of the relatively 
rapid cycle period of the latest test unit.  You can expect this parameter to 
change repeatedly as the design is modified into the future.

I want to point out an important feature revealed by the output power curve.  
This curve can be found in the released paper on page 27 as plot 8.  When 
positive feedback is active, the resulting temperature curve has a well defined 
characteristic.  Most of the runs that I have done with my model are when the 
COP of the ECAT is usefully high.  Of course COP of 6 falls into the category, 
while the lower COP of 3 does not hold as much interest.

If you look at the falling edge of the waveform you will see an inflexion 
point.  High temperatures above that location are generated as a result of 
positive feedback with a the loop gain of greater than 1.  This causes a bowed 
shape where the temperature wants to stay elevated.  At the inflexion point the 
gain becomes less than 1 and stable operation ensues.

The driven portion of the waveform behaves in a similar manner.  This is a bit 
less evident due to the masking from the input power.  Initially the loop gain 
is less than 1 with a very low COP if held at the operation point.  But, to get 
the good performance, drive is continued at a level that leads to the unstable 
state which is when the loop gain is 1 or more.  An inflection point shows up 
when instability is reached.

Enough for now,

Dave

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:




 Put yourself in the shoes of those 7 scientists who have placed their
 reputations on the line.






I don't think it's a big risk. They can plausibly claim ignorance. In fact
their ignorance is the most plausible explanation.

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:



 What is the best thing about this new demonstration that it excludes
 definitely steam based tricks from the possible repertoire. So from the
 beginning it was all about the feeding extra input power via hidden wires.
 Therefore most of the skeptics were just wrong, because they criticized
 Rossi's demos on a base of steam quality.


Why should Rossi be restricted to one kind of deception? Change-up is the
best way to avoid detection.


Those steam cons had higher COP and higher power than this latest demo, and
the steam was almost certainly very very wet. And note the input was
simpler in those experiments.


And it would have been trivially easy to eliminate the steam issue, by --
you know -- not making steam, like Levi did in the 18 your test. Ever
wonder why that wasn't done under scrutiny?

Re: [Vo]:On deception

Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de wrote:


 You've read their report, Terry, and you are an EE. And you would, based
 on what you read in the report and what Hartman and Essen said in
 interviews afterwards, sign a statement to the effect that there is no
 possibility of fraud in these tests???


If this were something like a court case and an EE was asked to testify, I
think it would be reasonable for him to say:

Based on what I have seen here I cannot think of any way in which fraud
could be committed. The methods of deception that have been suggested by
others would not work in my opinion.

That's not to say fraud or error are absolutely ruled out under any
circumstances. In real life you can never say that. As I said, in principle
there could be an error in Ohm law or the laws of thermodynamics. Also,
testimony of this nature is always to the best of my knowledge, which is
an escape clause.

It may be that an EE would want to clarify some details with the authors
before testifying to that effect. That would be reasonable.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Bring on your proof that what I have pointed out is not true.   Take a few
 moments to show how DC flowing into the control box due to its internal
 rectification changes the power delivered to it.


You're just repeating your arguments and ignoring the responses I've
already given to them. Obviously I have no proof. How could I? True
believers insist on an explanation of how deception might explain the
alleged observations, but do not hold themselves to the same standard to
give an explanation for how nuclear reactions could be initiated in those
circumstances, or how they could produce that much heat without radiation,
or how NiH could produce 100 times the power density of nuclear fuel
without melting, regardless of what produces the energy. That doesn't stop
you from believing it happens though.


There's various ways to create illusions, and I don't necessarily know how
it might have been done. But I know there was a rat's nest of wires, and an
unnecessarily complex method of supplying power, and that deception on
Rossi's part is far more likely than cold fusion.


Most people looking at the cheese power video could not prove there was a
trick from the video alone, and especially not from a paper written to
describe the experiment, by people who actually believed in cheese power.
But that doesn't mean they would not be nearly certain there is one.


And it would be easy for anyone with elementary knowledge of electricity to
set up an experiment to demonstrate cheese-power unequivocally, if it were
real. Likewise, the same could be done for the ecat. But when they use
3-phase, when single would do, when the wiring is in place ahead of time,
when close associates choose the instruments which are completely
inadequate, when the blank run uses different conditions, when the input
timing is determined from a video tape, when the COP just happens to equal
the reciprocal of the duty cycle, when the power supply box is off-limits,
and the power measurements are restricted, and when the claim is as
unlikely as cheese-power, it is ok to be suspicious.








  You will fail miserably I assure you!  You love to make unsupported
 statements and then fail to do any of the simple tests required to clear up
 your misunderstanding.  I have waited a long time for you or Andrew or
 Duncan to make that spice model that will demonstrate that what I say is
 accurate.  I will be happy to help you set up a model that will take
 perhaps 15 minutes of your time to run.  If you do not know how to makes
 such a model then you should remove yourself from this discussion since
 that would demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic EE knowledge.

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 4:19 am
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

  On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 I thought that the DC issue was put to rest.


   Only according to the credulous true believers. Essen said they
 excluded it, but he didn't say how. If we're just going to accept what they
 say without scrutiny, then why bother reading the paper at all? Just accept
 their conclusions and rejoice.

  Except that Essen said of the steam tests that the steam was dry based
 on a visual inspection, and then based on a measurement with a relative
 humidity probe. So, I'm not prepared to accept his claim at face value. And
 even if his measurements do exclude dc in the exposed conductors, I'm not
 prepared to accept that a concealed conductor was not there.

  There's various ways to create illusions, and I don't necessarily know
 how it might have been done. But I know there was a rat's nest of wires,
 and an unnecessarily complex method of supplying power, and that deception
 on Rossi's part is far more likely than the sort of power density they
 claim without melting, let alone a nuclear reaction.


  It can be easily shown that there is not amount of diode trickery which
 can be put into the control box that will confuse the primary power
 measurement.



  I don't agree. Just because you or I can't think of diode trickery
 doesn't mean it's not possible. You or I can't think of any nuclear
 reactions to explain the results either, but that doesn't seem to convince
 you that it's not possible. You should keep an open mind to possibilities
 you have not thought of.



  DC input has been eliminated so that is not an issue due to direct
 observation by one or more of the test personnel.



  Except we don't know the observation, so it's not convincing.



 There is noting left to clarify as far as the input is concerned.


  Manipulation of the mains line is a far smaller perturbation than used
 in many similar scale scams. Concealed conductors can make the current look
 like it's zero, or could carry dc or high frequency power.



  And you

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

What is not positive heat feedback?

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 1:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:40 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Of course it is not the exact same.  Positive heat feedback is what we are 
mainly interested in.  You know that, so why bring up the obvious differences?  

Because it's not positive heat feedback.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

And I'm not convinced those guys stripped any wires.


How does one measure voltage without stripping wires?



 It's far from clear it wasn't Rossi or his delegate who didn't do all the
 setup.


Okay, so you are saying they attached the voltage probe to the bare wire
without looking at the wire. With their eyes closed, perhaps?

I myself am afraid of electricity. So I would never attach a probe to a
wire with my eyes closed. I think electricians and EEs would all agree with
me on this. You want to look at what you are doing in these situations.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:On deception

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 And I'm not convinced those guys stripped any wires.


 How does one measure voltage without stripping wires?



Watch the cheese video. The ends of the wires that the magician wants you
to measure are already exposed. Clever, huh.







  It's far from clear it wasn't Rossi or his delegate who didn't do all
 the setup.


 Okay, so you are saying they attached the voltage probe to the bare wire
 without looking at the wire. With their eyes closed, perhaps?


No, they measured the voltage at the connection points on the 830, or some
other previously prepared monitoring points.

Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...

2013-05-31 Thread Bob Higgins

Dear Dr. Storms,

Yours is a fascinating theory, but I don't understand the mechanism you
propose of slowly reducing the Coulomb barrier by photon emissions from
the nucleus.

The Coulomb barrier, as I understand it, is the proton-proton electric
field repulsion between the hydron elements of the Hydroton molecule.  Each
proton has a unit quantized positive charge, so I presume the coulomb
barrier reduction is not coming from reduction in the charge of the proton
(you are not proposing fractionating the unit charge, or are you?).  I
gather the electron orbitals in the Hydroton are screening the charge on
the neighboring protons.  If the Coulomb barrier is being reduced, I can
imagine screening of the charge of the protons by a change in electron
orbitals.  This is now sounding a little like Mills-ian fractional Rydberg
change in the orbital, allowing the electron wave function to shrink closer
to the proton which provides a screening until protons are closer together.
 Perhaps the electron orbital becomes squashed like a disk where it orbits
very closely along the hydroton axis around the proton and extends way out
into the walls of the NAE crack.  However, if this were the case, then the
photons corresponding to the Coulomb barrier reduction would be coming from
orbital transitions of the electron and not from the nucleus.

Are you instead suggesting some kind of proton valence quark oscillation
that would make the proton appear like a neutron for some fraction of the
time? (A naive guess on my part I am sure.)

Can you provide additional insight into your proposition?

Regards,
Bob Higgins

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:


 As this mass-energy is reduced, the Coulomb barrier is lowered further,
 permitting the two nuclei to get closer at each cycle. Once the nuclei
 fuse, the Hydroton ceases to exist and instead nuclei of D are present if
 the original nuclei in the Hydroton were H, the final nuclei is He if D
 made the Hydroton, and the final nuclei is tritium if H+D were in the
 Hydroton.  The He diffuses away while the tritium and D can enter other
 Hydrotons that continuously form. This is a contineous process limited ONLY
 by how fast the hydrogen isotopes can get into the gap.

 No, the Coulomb barrier is slowly reduced in height as mass-energy is
 lost, thereby allowing the nuclei to get closer each time the cycle
 repeats.  Finally, the Coulomb barrier disappears and the two nuclei fuse,
 but very little excess mass-energy is present when this happens.
 Consequently, when the electron is absorbed, the resulting neutrino has
 very little energy to carry away.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question


No problem, I will meet you here in a couple of years and we can compare notes. 
 Sorry if it came out patronizing, perhaps I was getting a little out of hand 
due to being inundated with so many unsupported claims.  I assure you that I 
can speak to any of the objections that you have provided they are not totally 
out of reality.

Lets start with one of your choice regarding the many heat generation issues.  
How about how a small amount of heat can control a much larger amount?  Are you 
interesting in an explanation or do you want to keep stating things that can be 
shown wrong?

Or, how about my favorite recent issue about how DC flowing due to 
rectification in the load makes the input power measurement inaccurate since it 
leaves out the RMS value of the DC current?  This one is easy to prove wrong.  
Lets start there, OK?  And if you now realize that what I have being saying 
about the DC is true then at least admit it even though your friends might not 
like what you are saying.  Lets at least put this one issue to bed and off the 
table.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 1:43 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question



On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:37 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

It is great to see that we are in such close agreement.  Let's handle the 
issues related to positive feedback as I requested and you will improve your 
understanding. 


I thought you were keeping an open mind, not a patronizing one that is certain 
it is in possession of received wisdom.




By the way, a long time ago you promised I'd see the truth about the validity 
of the old steam cats real soon now. How is it that they never got validated 
and now are abandoned?


If 2 more years pass, and this hot cat configuration is abandoned, what will 
you say then. I'll be here to check up.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question


I am attempting to keep you form getting banned since I want to use you to 
clear up a number of issues.  It is hoped that you will go back to the other 
skeptics and then set them straight.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 1:44 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question



On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:41 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Josh, please refrain from insults.







Please refrain from telling me what to refrain from.

Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  Good grief. The resistors are coils, presumably helical solenoids with
 the
  axis parallel to the reactor cylinder.  The magnetic field is near zero
  outside a solenoid, except at the ends.

 The magnetic field outside a solenoid is smaller than inside but not
 zero.


Which is why I said *near* zero. It's orders of magnitude smaller.



 The flux lines have to be closed, and thus there is flux outside, and
 there is
 no meaningful lower limit for macroscopic magnetic fields.



Obviously, but all the lines close over huge space compared to the confined
space inside the solenoid (at the ends). Surely you're not arguing that
fields weaker than that of the earth's are going to have an influence here.




 And the large thermal mass of the whole isn't in the path from the resistor
 coils to the perimeter of the cylinder where the reactions might be taking
 place.


The thermal mass of the resistors themselves will largely smooth out the
power variation, so your claim of 10 J variation on a 10 ms time scale is
nonsense. And only a fraction of that reaches the cylinder. And they claim
the reaction is in the Ni-H. You can claim it's going on in mustache if you
want, but it has no bearing on reality.



 In any case, sufficiently precise instrumentation will allow the slow and
 stable
 100 Hz signal to be picked up anywhere.



You have a lot of faith in precise instrumentation, or you have not done a
simple order of magnitude estimate.


You can get some idea of the rate of temperature change by looking at the
temperature on the outside when the power is cycled in the March run. Now
the outside has more thermal mass than the cylinder, but it will also
absorb more of the heat from the resistors because of geometry and because
it's at a lower temperature, so within an order of magnitude, it's probably
a wash. According to the temperature plots in the paper, when the resistors
do turn off completely, the temperature of the outside drops by about 25K
in 4 minutes.  That means that for a complete turn off the temperature in
the cylinder might change by 25/(60*4*100) = 1 mK in 10 ms. That's for a
complete turn-off. But we know from considerations of visual ripple in
tungsten bulbs, that the power will decrease by maybe 1% during a 100 Hz
cycle because of the resistor's thermal mass. So, now we're down to .01 mK
variation. Please let me know of a device that will detect that on a 500K
background.




 Nuclei are capable of reacting to low-frequency, low-intensity magnetic
 fields
 as shown in nuclear magnetic resonance.


NMR is done *inside* the solenoid (usually superconducting) with fields in
the range of teslas. And while nuclei react to the fields, it is a strictly
electromagnetic and not nuclear reaction, in the sense that nuclear forces
are not involved.



 The question is again the same.  We don't know the sensitivity of the LENR
 to
 low-frequency thermal signals, so this might be irrelevant or this might be
 part of the secret.

 But in any case, if Rossi needs a specific waveform, and by waveform I'm
 talking
 at the sub-second timescale, then it makes perfect sense from an electrical
 engineering point of view to first obtain a clean DC source and then use
 that to
 generate whatever waveform is needed.

 And obtaining clean, high-powered DC with a thermally robust circuit is
 much
 easier from three-phased power than single-phased power.

 And this is only one valid reason for using triphase.


You mean speculative reason.


But how does that fit with the fact that the steam ecats used single phase,
and they used in some cases more than 1kW input, and claimed in some cases,
10 times higher output power than this last run, with a COP of more than 10.


And how does it fit with Rossi's claim that he can run the ecats using gas
to provide the external power?


And how does that fit with the claims of 4 hours of self-sustained
operation without any magic waveform, or in this case 4 minutes?


I don't think anyone seriously believes he needed, or even benefitted by
the use of 3-phase power as a legitimate power source for a legitimate
ecat. By far the most plausible reason is to make it easier to pull a fast
one. I'm sure it's not essential for all possible trickery, and if he ever
switches back to single-phase, he may have something else up his sleeve, as
he did with the steam in the previous incarnation. Change is as good as
proof to true believers it seems.




 It seems that in your mind anything Rossi does can be construed as being
 part of
 a trick or ploy.

  They measured the power to the ecat on the lines going in to the ecat
 using
  clamp on meters in the December run, and in the dummy run in March. So
 it's
  ac at the line frequency; the meter has a narrow frequency range.

 That's not clear to me from the report.  Here is what it says:

  The

Re: [Vo]:On deception

Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

Watch the cheese video. The ends of the wires that the magician wants you
 to measure are already exposed. Clever, huh.


Too clever by half. This would not begin to fool any scientist, electrician
or EE on God's Green Earth. There has not been an electrician since Edison
who would not check all the wires, and who might fall for this.


No, they measured the voltage at the connection points on the 830, or some
 other previously prepared monitoring points.


Quoting from the report:

As in the previous test, the LCD display of the electrical power meter
(PCE-830) was
continually filmed by a video camera. 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.

As noted, they made a video showing every minute of both tests. Rossi could
not have touched the equipment or the instruments.

This is proof that the people doing the tests are not naive idiots who
trust Rossi, and that they took reasonable precautions against obvious
tricks such as hidden wires. Additional messages from the authors confirm
that they looked for things like a DC component in the electricity and they
checked the equipment stand to sure it was not charged with electricity.

There is not the slightest chance Rossi could have done anything so easy to
discover as the hidden wire under the insulation trick. If that is best
you can come up with, you have scrapped the bottom of the barrel and come
up with nothing.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:44 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Josh, your entire theory will be shot if you acknowledge that the COP is
 greater than 1.  Are you now ready to accept this condition?



No. The only thing you seem to be able to do is miss the point.


The claimed COP is 3. That means that even if the claim is right, it's far
from ready for industrialization, given that electricity is produced with
1/3 efficiency.


So, as I said, I hardly think he's looking at the final version of the
power supply when the ecat is still completely inadequate. And so this
excuse for using 3-phase is as much nonsense as all the other excuses with
sub-gauss and sub mK magnetic field and temperature oscillations.

Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:48 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Every one of the points you make are pure speculation.  There is
 absolutely no evidence that Rossi is using 3 phase power to conduct any
 scam.


Right but all the excuses for why he might need them are pure speculation,
and far far less plausible, given that the steam cats ran on single phase
with higher power in and out, that Rossi claims gas heating works, and the
claims that is can self-sustain.



  How do you expect for anyone to believe your side of the discussion if
 there is never any proof of any one of your points?



Because the alternative explanations, for which proof is also lacking, are
ridiculous.

Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:52 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 I suggest that you study the magnetic fields associated with solenoids
 Josh.  Obviously you must not realize that they have an external field much
 like a bar magnet.  This is simple for you to study and realize your
 mistake.


OK. I studied it. Didn't find a mistake though. The field of a long
solenoid is near zero between the poles and outside. Or as wikipedia puts
it, the field outside must go to zero as the solenoid gets longer. Yea,
there's some leakage between the turms (although that drops off very fast
too), but for 33 cm solenoids with a diameter of probably less than a cm,
it'll be orders of magnitude below the field at the poles, which is already
pretty weak. And I said near zero.


It's why you can walk around near a 12 Tesla ICR magnet and not get your
keys pulled outta your pocket.


This is supremely silly though. Does anyone really believe that magnetic
fields at this level have something to do with he alleged reaction? Even if
you accept it, that configuration would be the last way one would exploit
it. Fraud from a guy with a history of fraud is far more plausible.

Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 If he does not know such a simple thing, I think he can be safely ignored



No one's holding a gun to your head.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question


This is a good start Josh.  I think I can explain that to you since you seem to 
be a pretty sharp guy.  Just keep an open mind.

The ECAT operates as a device with a positive temperature coefficient with 
respect to heat.  At low temperatures there is little if any extra heat being 
internally produced by the core.  When the drive electronics heats the 
resistors they conduct heat to the core of the device which rises in 
temperature as a result.  There is a functional relationship between the core 
temperature and the heat it produces.  I have tried numerous functions and they 
all behave in a somewhat related fashion.  The exact one in play by Rossi's 
device is hidden at this point so don't try to muddy the water by asking for 
that knowledge since you like to avoid the main issues.

The ECAT core finds itself driving a thermal resistance that depends upon the 
system design.  The functional relationship of core heat released versus 
temperature can be differentiated throughout it operating range.  Now, if you 
take the product of the thermal resistance and the above derivative you will 
find a temperature above which this result is greater than 1.  This is the 
first temperature which I call critical and is where the positive feedback gain 
is greater than 1.  If the ECAT is left in this region, it can go either higher 
in temperature with an ever increasing rate toward destruction, or cool off and 
return back to room temperature.

This is the point that it is important for you to acknowledge.  Do you accept 
that this is possible so that we can continue further into the details?  If you 
state that it is not possible for any heat to be generated by the core, then 
the rest of the discussion is not worth pursuing.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 1:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question



On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:32 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:




With that in mind, please submit for discussion your main reason for 
discounting my explanation so that it can be properly addressed and everyone 
who is following this concept can draw their own conclusions.  It is my sincere 
wish that you will eventually understand the process and help to clarify it to 
other skeptics.









In other words, you got nothin'.


I made my case. Feel free to explain whatever part of it you disagree with. And 
if you have a chance, can you specify the functional dependence of reaction 
rate on temperature, and temperature on total power produced that would give 
the observed behavior and still quench when the external power is shut off (as 
you say), or melt down (as Jed says).

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:11 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


 Lets start with one of your choice regarding the many heat generation
 issues.  How about how a small amount of heat can control a much larger
 amount?


I agree this is possible under certain circumstances. But I don't see it in
the hot cat. I made the case for why I think it wouldn't work. What part of
that case do you disagree with?



 Or, how about my favorite recent issue about how DC


I made no specific claims about dc. I simply said there's enough complexity
on the input for one to be suspicious that a deception could work, The
cheese video is an example.

I'd much rather you explain how a power density 100 times that of uranium
in a fission reactor works without melting the nickel, and how a nuclear
reaction is triggered by heat, and how nuclear reactions can produce that
much heat but no radiation. I know it involves secrets, but them secrets
are the basis of tricks too.

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.