Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[Harry Veeder]

Jones,

Did he make the background measure and the active run  measure with the
detector in the same place and same orientation?
If he did, then the dip recorded during the active run would mean an
_active_ ecat can reduce background radiation.

Harry




On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 12:08 AM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sat, 1 Jun 2013 19:59:52 -0700:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Let me add that in the appendix to the Penon report, David Bianchini finds
> >not only "no significant radiation" over background, but actually the peak
> >radiation counts are slightly less during the experiment than background,
> >indicating the apparatus shields the detector from cosmic rays slightly.
>
> That wouldn't surprise me if contained a couple of cm of lead shielding.
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

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

[Harry Veeder]

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

>
> On May 30, 2013, at 11:39 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Edmund Storms 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!
>

Ed, I am trying to help you understand your model. I am not trying to tear
it down.


> 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.
>
>
Let us return to your ball and spring model of the hydroton and assume an
ideal spring which doesn't dissipate energy by getting warm during
compressions.  If heat energy is the vibration of atoms in the lattice,
then the spring is compressed by atoms from the lattice pushing on the
spring. As the spring is compressed work is done on the spring, however,
the spring will eventually bounce back to its original length so no net
work is done on the spring in the course of one oscillation. The
oscillations will repeat indefinitely with the same amplitude as long as
the temperature remains constant. However, in your model the spring does
not return to its original length. Now for sake argument assume no photon
is emitted. This means some work has been performed on the spring, which
means the spring has effectively turned a little thermal energy into
potential energy and thereby slightly cooled the lattice. Now assume a
photon is emitted. The subsequent temperature of the lattice will depend on
the energy of this emitted photon. If the energy of the photon is less than
the work done (W) then the temperature of the lattice will not return to
the initial the temperature. The cycle can repeat until the protons fuse
but the temperature will gradually decline and the end result can aptly be
described as cold fusion! On the other hand if the energy of the photon is
greater than W then the temperature of the lattice will be greater after
fusion.




> 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.
>
>
The barrier is reduced  by the electron but I think the net effect only
reduces the force of repulsion by 1/2.
However, this is not a problem since you have theoretically enlarged
the total energy of a p-e-p association (or molecule as you call
it) to include all the excess mass-energy as well as the electrostatic
energy of the association. Therefore the p-e-p association can shrink in
size by entering a lower energy through the conversion of mass into a
photon.




> 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

[Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

[Axil Axil]

LENR could be a gateway into the theory of everything.

The central dilemma at the very heart of LENR is what causes nuclear
reactions at low energy levels.



But are the energies generated in LENR low, or are they potentially
gigantic beyond the reach of any possible supercollider.



Grand unification energy is something less than around 10^^16 GeV, Could
LENR produce such high energies.



Well at least the unification of the electroweak forces and the strong
force might someday be possible.



This force unification might be a possibility in view of some kinds of
violent nuclear rearrangement seen in some LENR systems experiments.



To start off with, what causes the nuclei of most elements to fall apart
and reassemble their subatomic parts in new ways?



Two new papers dealing with the nature and workings of the vacuum lend
insight into the LENR question.



http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.6165.pdf



*The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light*



http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.3923v1.pdf



*A sum rule for charged elementary particles*



These papers suggest that the nature of the vacuum is defined by
electromagnetic mechanisms revolving around the action of the constant
creation and destruction of virtual dipoles.



The nature of radioactive decay is also driven off the action of the
virtual particle life cycle and its electromagnetic consequences.



These papers also suggest that the nature of space/time can be changed and
controlled by augmentation of this virtual dipole mechanism.



It is generally recognized that the Fine Structure constant (FSC) is not
really constant at all and can vary.


If this FSC can be changed by as little as 4% either more or less, the
delicate balance between the strong force and the electromagnetic force
will fatally disrupt the forces inside the nucleus.



A successful LENR system will setup a positive feedback loop that produces
enhanced dipole production caused by enhanced electron tunneling.



If the proper dipole production topology is created, dipole production
begets enhanced electron tunneling and vice versa. In this way, an extreme
dipole EMF field can be concentrated is a localized volume of space.



The extreme dipole EMF fields thus produced gets so strong that the fabric
of the vacuum within this nanoscopic localized volume is distorted to the
point that the nuclei of atoms in that volume become unbalanced. The
greatly enhanced and increased dipole EMF counteracts the actions of the
strong force and the nuclei inside the localized volume bereft of the
strong force will fall apart. The control of this strong force negation
process is possible. Through the control of the dipole production topology,
the amount of nuclear disruption is proportional to the strength of the
dipole field, and this could be adjusted from slight to extreme.



The next consideration to consider is how the dipole force can grow to such
high levels that the resultant EMF can disrupt the internal mechanisms
inside the nucleus.



Each individual dipole is a member of a global mirrored Bose-Einstein
condensate of polaritons and holes in which all the combined dipole EMF is
available to each member of the global dipole ensemble in linear
superposition as a quantum mechanical potential. This EMF is carried by
virtual photons that can be in quantum mechanical linear superposition.



When any given nucleus succumbs to the combined power of the global
entangled dipole force, the superposition of the EMF photons is resolved
and energy of the nuclear breakup is transferred coherently in micro
quantities to the other members of the dipole ensemble.



The BEC is immediately reestablished over the disrupted nucleus within the
local volume of dipole EMF influence and the superpositions of potential
nuclear disintegrations are restored globally throughout the system.



Reference:



http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1



*Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate*



Any nuclear reaction that produces a gamma that occurs in a BEC will
undergo frequency reduction based on the super-atom formula



Gamma frequency = Square root (Number of BEC atoms)(Thermalized frequency)



The frequency of the gamma will be shared by N BEC member atoms.



To conclude this discussion with an example, the BEC of positive mirrored
ions in the dipole ensemble can be considered a huge positive particle
effectively a billion times larger than a proton. But this super-positive
particle is only a few nanomenters away from a give nucleus. This short
distance exposes the localized linear volume to the full force of the EMF.
That unfortunate nucleus would experience powerful disruptive EMF charge
amplification which would make the space/time in the local nano-volume that
the nucleus lived in a killing field for the nuclear forces that hold the
nucleus together.



If the BEC is scalable, how powerful can a Entangled Dipole EMF become? I
can’t wait to find out.



Reference:



http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.01

Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[mixent]

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Sun, 2 Jun 2013 00:41:42 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
>
>Robin, how would Rossi prevent the lead from melting at the elevated 
>temperatures?  Do you suspect that he has it confined within a closed shell of 
>some kind?  I do not recall seeing any place for it to hide.
>
>Dave

You are correct. :) I was confused with the earlier versions that used lead
shielding. However any solid will provide *some* shielding.



>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: mixent 
>To: vortex-l 
>Sent: Sun, Jun 2, 2013 12:08 am
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
>
>
>In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sat, 1 Jun 2013 19:59:52 -0700:
>Hi,
>[snip]
>>Let me add that in the appendix to the Penon report, David Bianchini finds
>>not only "no significant radiation" over background, but actually the peak
>>radiation counts are slightly less during the experiment than background,
>>indicating the apparatus shields the detector from cosmic rays slightly. 
>
>That wouldn't surprise me if contained a couple of cm of lead shielding.
>Regards,
>
>Robin van Spaandonk
>
>http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>
> 
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:35 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> It is apparent that Mr. Cude does not have a valid case and is not willing
> to discuss the issues.  We can show that every one of his positions is
> nothing more than speculation with absolutely no substantiation.
>
> He refuses to acknowledge errors that he continues to present as fact when
> he knows that they have no basis. ...
>
> The above cases and all the other so called evidence discussed by Cude
> would not hold up in a court proceeding.
>
> So, instead of facing the issues head on, he prefers to spill out a
> barrage of statements that are not true hoping that readers of this list
> will not expect him to prove anything.
>
***I'm noticing a pattern.






> He is not being an honest skeptic, he is merely operating as a debunker of
> LENR
>
***Yup.  He's simply more skillful than the average debunker.




> and anyone that buys his arguments is being duped.   LENR is far too
> important for our future to allow people to play games for their
> amusement.  It is his hobby to debunk "cold fusion" which he has stated
> openly.
>
>
***Yes, he has stated it openly.  He also said he would be leaving
Vortex.  His word isn't worth what he would think, so Vorts will need to
decide on the merits.  Myself, I enjoy his Small-s skepticism when the
sneering is removed, but his ability to do that seems limited.  Much of
that is because sometimes he's been shown to be simply wrong.  And by
wrong, I mean wrong by 4500 orders of magnitude, far less than impossible.
Now, that's wrong.  So I can see why he would need to resort to sneering
and Big-s Skepticism.

>
>

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

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley 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.
>
***No, the most plausible explanation in the light of 14,700 replications
of the P-F Anomalous Heat Effect is that the effect is real and Rossi has
found a way to generate it more reliably.

We had this conversation about those replications, and you believe
that every single one of them was an error, which has been shown to be more
than 4500 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE demonstrably incorrect and impossible.

So, mathematically, the most plausible case is that LENR is real and this
independently verified result is just the latest evidence that points in
this direction.

Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[David Roberson]

Robin, how would Rossi prevent the lead from melting at the elevated 
temperatures?  Do you suspect that he has it confined within a closed shell of 
some kind?  I do not recall seeing any place for it to hide.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Jun 2, 2013 12:08 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy


In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sat, 1 Jun 2013 19:59:52 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Let me add that in the appendix to the Penon report, David Bianchini finds
>not only "no significant radiation" over background, but actually the peak
>radiation counts are slightly less during the experiment than background,
>indicating the apparatus shields the detector from cosmic rays slightly. 

That wouldn't surprise me if contained a couple of cm of lead shielding.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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


 

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

[David Roberson]

It is apparent that Mr. Cude does not have a valid case and is not willing to 
discuss the issues.  We can show that every one of his positions is nothing 
more than speculation with absolutely no substantiation.

He refuses to acknowledge errors that he continues to present as fact when he 
knows that they have no basis.  He fails to understand how heat can be used to 
control the ECAT even though I have attempted to explain it to him on numerous 
occasions.  He fails to understand how the DC component flowing through a sine 
wave source makes no difference to the reading of power from that source. This 
is true unless a DC supply is intentionally placed in series (only in the case 
of a scam)which has been proven to be untrue according to one or more of the 
scientists performing the tests.

The above cases and all the other so called evidence discussed by Cude would 
not hold up in a court proceeding.   He fails miserably in his attempt to prove 
anything except for what has been stated by those performing the experiment.  I 
challenged him to construct a spice model that easily proves that his DC 
contentions are non sense and he hides.  A simple model took less than 15 
minutes to construct which verified my statements.  It must be assumed that he 
is not qualified to make any EE related arguments or he would prove me wrong.  
Perhaps 15 minutes of his time is too much to ask for his education.  He 
prefers to lack knowledge so he can continue to offer opinions that he realizes 
would be shown wrong.

So, instead of facing the issues head on, he prefers to spill out a barrage of 
statements that are not true hoping that readers of this list will not expect 
him to prove anything.  He is not being an honest skeptic, he is merely 
operating as a debunker of LENR and anyone that buys his arguments is being 
duped.   LENR is far too important for our future to allow people to play games 
for their amusement.  It is his hobby to debunk "cold fusion" which he has 
stated openly.


Dave

-Original Message-
From: James Bowery 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2013 11:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.


Well, that's the general strategy of group selection:  Get the group on your 
side and go after the individual, or, failing that, after the smaller group.  
It isn't the human condition so much as it is the civil condition to which 
humanity has subjected itself. It is _very_ difficult to maintain social 
disciplines to contain its deleterious effects without mandating acceptance, 
particularly by "authorities", of challenges to duel to the death in nature 
over matters of honor.  That, of course, precludes civilization as we know it.



On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:


The tactic of the obstructionist is toavoid dealing with the case presented by 
the derided through justly committedbeliever, but to prejudice the less 
technically conversant members of thegeneral public who might be evaluating the 
debate.
 
The obstructionist realizes that neitherhis farfetched pejorative case nor his 
propaganda of recrimination is wasted onthe knowledgeable LENR expert. His goal 
is to undercut any spark of belief amongthe common folk before it is rightly 
turns into a conflagration of LENR enthusiasm.





On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:47 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

So, do you need help with that spice model?  The remainder of your discussion 
is nothing more than using words to avoid the issue.  It would take you less 
time to perform the spice experiment than to write a million words that prove 
nothing.
 
You wrote a large number of unsubstantiated and untrue statements which I want 
to take apart one by one.  It takes far too much time and is frankly boring to 
the other members of vortex to respond with the volume of material needed to 
rebut each one.  That is why I ask you to concentrate upon one of your choice.  
Is that asking too much?
 
Dave



-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 


Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.



On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, David Roberson  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 w

Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sat, 1 Jun 2013 19:59:52 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Let me add that in the appendix to the Penon report, David Bianchini finds
>not only "no significant radiation" over background, but actually the peak
>radiation counts are slightly less during the experiment than background,
>indicating the apparatus shields the detector from cosmic rays slightly. 

That wouldn't surprise me if contained a couple of cm of lead shielding.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sat, 1 Jun 2013 19:35:11 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>-Original Message-
>From: mix...@bigpond.com 
>
>Hi Robin,
>
>>> The H2 is of course f/H molecules.
>
>> Still three body reactions - no way
>
>>> No, these are all two body reactions, because the f/H is bound in a
>pico/femto molecule, and approaches the target nucleus as a single
>(composite) entity.
>
>
>What is the separation distance between the two protons? 

That depends on the model. In mine, it can be as small as a few fm.

>They may be
>relatively close, but it is hard to imagine that this is not three body. 

Three body reactions are usually rare, because it is unlikely that all three
bodies will be in the same place at the same time. However if two of the three
are already bound together, and hence guaranteed to both be present, then the
chances are the same as for a two body reaction.

>Why
>are spallation neutrons not produced?

The energy needed to remove a neutron for each of the isotopes is:

64Ni: 9.66 MeV
62Ni: 10.6 MeV
60Ni: 7.82 MeV
58Ni: 12.217 MeV 

For the three reactions:

64Ni + H2 => 62Ni + 4He + 11.8 MeV ("no" gammas)
62Ni + H2 => 60Ni + 4He + 9.88 MeV ("no" gammas)  
60Ni + H2 => 58Ni + 4He + 7.9  MeV ("no" gammas)

there isn't a lot of difference between the energy of the alphas and the
spallation energy, which means that such an alpha has to get really "lucky" and
hit a Ni nucleus close to where it was formed, before it loses too much energy
ionizing other atoms. Since very few will be so lucky, few spallation neutrons
will be created. BTW note also that alphas and other nuclei are both positively
charged, so they repel one another making direct hits even more unlikely.

Note also that *pure* 62Ni isn't capable of creating any at all 
(9.88 MeV < 10.6 MeV). However once a significant amount of 60Ni had
accumulated, it would be able to. OTOH, the 60Ni may get gobbled up by the H2
reaction before any significant spallation could occur.

(Perhaps a reason for Rossi's patent application?  ;) 

So it doesn't look like neutron spallation is going to be much of a problem.

The proton spallation energy is:

64Ni: 12.55 MeV
62Ni: 11.14 MeV
60Ni:  9.53 MeV
58Ni:  8.17 MeV

Obviously not a problem for the top two. However for the bottom two it is
possible. Not a problem for 60Ni, because 59Co is stable, however 57Co is
radioactive.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:Caveats to using SPICE for thermal analysis

[Robert Ellefson]

 

Hello Vortex-L participants,

 

First, I'd like to introduce myself, since this is my first time posting to
the list.  

Thus far, I've only read the web archives sporadically, and have found the
most interesting discussion matters to be well over my head, since I have no
formal nuclear physics education, and have presumed I would have little to
add.  My background is in electronic design engineering, mostly high-speed
digital systems.

 

I have skimmed a few recent threads discussing thermal modeling using SPICE
that David Roberson (and others?) has been posting about, and finally found
a point I might add.

 

There are limitations to using capacitive elements to represent thermal mass
with transient inputs, particularly with discontinuous input functions.  In
addition, appropriate element sizing and granularity is important;  too few
elements or the wrong size elements will see results diverge from real
responses.  

 

I found one decent appnote that discusses some of these points in detail, as
applied to semiconductor packages:

 www.onsemi.com/pub/Collateral/AND8218-D.PDF

 

If I find any more write-ups, I'll post them.  It's been too long since I
was directly involved in SPICE thermal modeling, but I do recall a number of
warnings from experts about divergences, subtle and not.

 

Hope this helps,

Robert Ellefson

 

 

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

[James Bowery]

Well, that's the general strategy of group selection:  Get the group on
your side and go after the individual, or, failing that, after the smaller
group.  It isn't the human condition so much as it is the civil condition
to which humanity has subjected itself. It is _very_ difficult to maintain
social disciplines to contain its deleterious effects without mandating
acceptance, particularly by "authorities", of challenges to duel to the
death in nature over matters of honor.  That, of course, precludes
civilization as we know it.


On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The tactic of the obstructionist is to avoid dealing with the case
> presented by the derided through justly committed believer, but to
> prejudice the less technically conversant members of the general public who
> might be evaluating the debate.
>
>
>
> The obstructionist realizes that neither his farfetched pejorative case
> nor his propaganda of recrimination is wasted on the knowledgeable LENR
> expert. His goal is to undercut any spark of belief among the common folk
> before it is rightly turns into a conflagration of LENR enthusiasm.
>
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:47 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> So, do you need help with that spice model?  The remainder of your
>> discussion is nothing more than using words to avoid the issue.  It would
>> take you less time to perform the spice experiment than to write a million
>> words that prove nothing.
>>
>> You wrote a large number of unsubstantiated and untrue statements which I
>> want to take apart one by one.  It takes far too much time and is frankly
>> boring to the other members of vortex to respond with the volume of
>> material needed to rebut each one.  That is why I ask you to concentrate
>> upon one of your choice.  Is that asking too much?
>>
>> Dave
>>  -Original Message-
>> From: Joshua Cude 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:01 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
>>
>>  On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, David Roberson 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 
>>> To: vortex-l 
>>>  Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 4:19 am
>>> Subje

RE: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[Jones Beene]

Let me add that in the appendix to the Penon report, David Bianchini finds
not only "no significant radiation" over background, but actually the peak
radiation counts are slightly less during the experiment than background,
indicating the apparatus shields the detector from cosmic rays slightly. 


-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

Hi Robin,

Why are spallation neutrons not produced?

RE: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[Frank]

Jones,

   Interesting concept..[snip] >> No, these are all two body
reactions, because the f/H is bound in a

pico/femto molecule,[/snip] how about combining it with Naudt's paper on
relativistiv hydrogen,  the hydrogen has an equivalent negative acceleration
of relativistic proportion from suppression geometry which is breaking the
isotropy into a tapestry of different values..could the covalent bond hold /
oppose the transition to different fractional values within the tapestry
such that it collides with a non fractional or lesser fractional hydrogen
from a temporal angle? It would be a Lorentzian contracted molecule
approaching the normal molecule .. I am questioning if a covalent bond can
drag an inertial frame with it into a different frame and collide on some
relativistic vector that reduces the columb barrier? Time dilation might
gain something but more than that I wonder if the barrier is lower on the
time axis.

Fran 

 

 

 

 

Jones
<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=from:%22Jones+Be
ene%22>  Beene Sat,
<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=date:20130601>
01 Jun 2013 19:35:51 -0700 

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 
 
Hi Robin,
 
>> The H2 is of course f/H molecules.
 
> Still three body reactions - no way
 
>> No, these are all two body reactions, because the f/H is bound in a
pico/femto molecule, and approaches the target nucleus as a single
(composite) entity.
 
 
What is the separation distance between the two protons? They may be
relatively close, but it is hard to imagine that this is not three body. Why
are spallation neutrons not produced?
 
 

 

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

[Axil Axil]

The tactic of the obstructionist is to avoid dealing with the case
presented by the derided through justly committed believer, but to
prejudice the less technically conversant members of the general public who
might be evaluating the debate.



The obstructionist realizes that neither his farfetched pejorative case nor
his propaganda of recrimination is wasted on the knowledgeable LENR expert.
His goal is to undercut any spark of belief among the common folk before it
is rightly turns into a conflagration of LENR enthusiasm.


On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:47 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> So, do you need help with that spice model?  The remainder of your
> discussion is nothing more than using words to avoid the issue.  It would
> take you less time to perform the spice experiment than to write a million
> words that prove nothing.
>
> You wrote a large number of unsubstantiated and untrue statements which I
> want to take apart one by one.  It takes far too much time and is frankly
> boring to the other members of vortex to respond with the volume of
> material needed to rebut each one.  That is why I ask you to concentrate
> upon one of your choice.  Is that asking too much?
>
> Dave
>  -Original Message-
> From: Joshua Cude 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:01 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
>
>  On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, David Roberson 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 
>> To: vortex-l 
>>  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 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 d

RE: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

Hi Robin,

>> The H2 is of course f/H molecules.

> Still three body reactions - no way

>> No, these are all two body reactions, because the f/H is bound in a
pico/femto molecule, and approaches the target nucleus as a single
(composite) entity.


What is the separation distance between the two protons? They may be
relatively close, but it is hard to imagine that this is not three body. Why
are spallation neutrons not produced?

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

[mixent]

In reply to  Robert Lynn's message of Fri, 31 May 2013 11:44:44 +0100:
Hi,
[snip]
>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.

I agree.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sat, 1 Jun 2013 17:27:32 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>-Original Message-
>
>From: mix...@bigpond.com 
>
>Hi Robin,
>
>> The H2 is of course f/H molecules.
>
>Still three body reactions - no way

No, these are all two body reactions, because the f/H is bound in a pico/femto
molecule, and approaches the target nucleus as a single (composite) entity.

Upon arrival, several things can happen:

1) Two neutrons tunnel out of the target nucleus into the molecule, producing
4He. (note that tunneling of a single neutron is out of the question, as it is
energetically forbidden). This option has the great advantage that only neutrons
tunnel, which is, I suspect, more likely than protons tunneling in.)
The energy is shared as kinetic energy between the lighter Ni nucleus and the
new alpha particle.

 or

2) The molecule tunnels into the nucleus producing an exited nucleus that then
decays through particle emission. That emission can take many forms. It may be a
proton, a neutron, an alpha particle, or the nucleus of a lighter element, i.e.
a fission reaction. (Strictly speaking all these possibilities are fission
reactions.)

 or

3) Only one proton of the pair tunnels into the target nucleus resulting in a
transmutation reaction, the energy of which is shared as kinetic energy between
the newly transmuted nucleus and the remaining free proton. 
(This option is I suspect much more probable than #2, because it involves the
concurrent tunneling of only a single proton, rather than both of them.
Comparison with #1 is more difficult because of the ease of tunneling for
neutrons compared to protons).

4) Any of the above, where at least some of the energy is shared with one or
both of the shrunken electrons too.

5) A repeat of all of the above, where however the original molecule is a
magnetically bound composite of at least 2 f/H molecules, containing at least 4
f/h atoms. In this case the energy released when all 4 are involved in a
transmutation reaction, as in #2 above, is much larger, so the fission channel
becomes much more likely.

(This is beginning to sound like a patent application. ;)

BTW each of the fast particles produced can "breed" hundreds of new f/H
molecules, provided that sufficient normal Hydrogen is within "reach". Each of
these can then produce another transmutation reaction, resulting in the
localized micro explosions that are responsible for the craters that are
detected.

[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Anomalous input energy

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Claudio C Fiorini" 
> Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2013 2:20:48 PM

> I checked it: I made an error. 147 V / 24 A were used in the test you
> mentioned, in august 2012, not november 20 in 2013.


Phew! For a minute I thought Rossi had mastered time travel.  

That would explain a lot: he could look ahead to see if they'd brought a DC 
meter, and know which kind of fake to use.

RE: [Vo]:Defkalion

[DJ Cravens]

I asked George X if they were going to present at ICCF and demo at NI Week.  
[I have leased a booth at NI Week (under the name of Neo-Coulombic) and I have 
not seen the Defkalion company name on the exhibitor list. 
https://niweek2013.activeevents.com/connect/search.ww ] 
 
The answer I got back (15th) was "
We do not
disclose what we will present in NI Week and ICCF-18. However we understand
that there have been some leaks in the media alluding to your questions.
Regrettably at this moment in time the only thing we can directly inform you
of, is to have a little patience. We will be issuing proper statements after
these two events. "
 
So I am not sure they will be demo'ing at NI Week or not.  I only hope they do
 
I do notice there is a "demo" listed on the ICCF program for Monday evening.   
I am not sure what that is. 
 
I could only take off for one of the two events and I have decided to go with 
the NI Week just to "play to a different audience" and perhaps get a new person 
or two interested in the field and try some experiments.  If I can do that, I 
will be happy. Nothing to sale, nothing to prove , just informational. I was 
hoping that Defkalion would be there and I would just be an "also ran" 
footnote.  I have seen the mindless attacks and don't want to be part of it.  
No matter what is shown they will always say things like you should have used 
this meter or that one, done a mass spec, use this paint or that one, do 
neutron activation, used a small current limited generator,  you name it. 
But I figure if I offer nothing for sale, no company position,   they at 
least can't attack me as scam and money fraud.  
 
I should say the label for the reaction I will be using is HOPE  - Hydrogen or 
proton event. 
I had to give them some name for a company on the booth . The name 
Neo-Coulombic comes from the 5D potential that is softer at the nucleus than 
the standard coulomb potential that is infinite at r=0.  I am not quite ready 
to put forth a formal theory.
 Dennis


 
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 10:20:21 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

I do not understand why this is in image format, but anyway, it says:
"[Defkalion] will present a paper on July 21-27 International Conference on 
Condensed Matter Nuclear Science at the University of Missouri and are strongly 
considering presenting audiovisual material during the August 5-8 national 
instruments conference in Austin, Texas."

I heard rumors that they were going to have an actual demonstration at the NI 
conference. Their previous presentations and audiovisual material has not been 
impressive in my opinion. Perhaps I missed something, but as far as I know they 
have not presented quantitative data or calibration curves. Until they do I am 
not inclined to take the claims seriously.

- Jed
  

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Apply heat?

[Harry Veeder]

Extra heat in the form of thermal pulse might disrupt a resonance that was
enabling the production excess heat.



Harry



On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 5:56 PM, David L Babcock wrote:

>  Apparently there's two threads of thought here:
>
> a:  Apply heat to make the process start, and more heat to take it to a
> higher cop. Stop the heat (or increase cooling) to bring the process back
> from cascade and ruin. This one seems to describe what Rossi has, and what
> Dave Roberson is modeling, and makes a lot of sense to me.
>
> b:  Apply heat to make it stop.  May involve recalescence.  Confusing.
> Would seem to be inherently stable, no?  (If it gets too hot, it slows
> itself down.)  Interesting, but doesn't seem to apply to Rossi's rig.
>
> Anybody wish to clarify?
>
> Ol' Bab
>
>
>
> On 6/1/2013 10:39 AM, Vorl Bek wrote:
>
> On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 10:28:03 -0400
> Jed Rothwell   wrote:
>
>
>  Vorl Bek   wrote:
>
>
>
>  No crazy "apply more heat to make it stop" nonsense.
>
>
>  Why is this nonsense?
>
>  I don't have the eloquence to explain, but if you ask over atmoletrap.co.uk, 
> or wavewatching.net/fringe, they can clear it up
> for you.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[Harry Veeder]

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>   The ultimate source of energy cannot be determined as of now but
>> Rossi’s hundreds of hours of operation at kilowatt levels with no gammas
>> clearly indicates NO fusion.
>>
>
> I don't exclude the possibility that there's something Millsean going on
> here, but I will take pleasure in quoting this post at a future point in
> time if research were to come out and show that d+p fusion is happening.
>
> Eric
>
>
hydrinos could be hydrotons that didn't get close enough to fuse.

Harry

RE: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-

From: mix...@bigpond.com 

Hi Robin,

> The H2 is of course f/H molecules.

Still three body reactions - no way

> Nevertheless, I suspect that indeed the primary source of energy in his
reactor is the formation of f/H.

Yup. By a large factor. 

There is actually an easy way to reinforce but not falsify this conclusion,
and without much ado. I've suggested that the SiC and SiN tubes at ~800 C
will be partially transparent to soft x-rays/EUV. If so, the emissivity will
be in excess of one, although only slightly so and only if the inner SS tube
allows some soft x-ray radiation through (not known). 

That should be relatively easy to confirm, and could have been done in
previous testing. Since there is no other reasonable explanation for
emissivity in excess of one, it would be worth the small effort.

Jones

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

[Berke Durak]

Does anyone know if the power analyzer sees DC *VOLTAGES*?

-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sat, 1 Jun 2013 14:33:22 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Eric,
>
> 
>
>I have dined on crow before and prefer mine well-charred with a nice Pinot 
>Noir…
>
> 
>
>The ultimate source of energy cannot be determined as of now but Rossi’s 
>hundreds of hours of operation at kilowatt levels with no gammas clearly 
>indicates NO fusion.

Some clean reactions: (Type I)

64Ni + H2 => 62Ni + 4He + 11.8 MeV ("no" gammas)
62Ni + H2 => 60Ni + 4He + 9.88 MeV ("no" gammas)  
60Ni + H2 => 58Ni + 4He + 7.9  MeV ("no" gammas)

Alternatives: (Type II)

64Ni + H2 => 65Cu + H (fast) + 7.45 MeV ("no" gammas) 
62Ni + H2 => 63Cu + H (fast) + 6.12 MeV ("no" gammas)

Dirty:

58Ni + H2 => 56Ni (radioactive) + 4He + 5.83 MeV
60Ni + H2 => 61Cu (radioactive) + H (fast) + 4.8 MeV

Decay reactions:

56Ni => 56Co (radioactive) => 56Fe
61Cu => 61Ni

However, if you start with 62Ni (& 64Ni) then you need to wait a very long time
before enough 56Ni shows up to produce significant radioactivity.

The "no" means no (few) primary gammas. A very small percentage of the fast
particles will produce the occasional spallation neutron, which will in turn,
over a long period of time, result in the production of some radioactive
isotopes. However the rate of production may be below the rate at which they
decay, so the overall level of radioactivity may remain very small.

The H2 is of course f/H molecules.
I have no idea whether Type I or Type II reactions would predominate.
Note also that in the Type II case, follow on Type II reactions would result in
stable Zn isotopes.

Nevertheless, I suspect that indeed the primary source of energy in his reactor
is the formation of f/H.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[Terry Blanton]

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> I have dined on crow before and prefer mine well-charred with a nice Pinot
> Noir…

Foul!  Fowl demands a white, say chardonnay,

[Vo]:Propose that a committee of astrophysicists wire up a new construction house

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> Ockham be damned ! Don’t forget that appeals to “parsimony” were used by
> skeptics to argue the wrong side of many past issues - against DNA for
> instance, as the carrier of genetic information. . . .
>

It is a rule of thumb, not a law of physics.

". . . more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules." -- Cpt.
Barbossa

Many pernicious notions masquerading as rules of science circulate. The one
I hate most is, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." NO! No,
no, no, no, NO. They require ordinary proof. Textbook proof, from off the
shelf, standard, conventional instruments.

There are many problems with that idea, enumerated by Melich and me. I
published that here before. Here is one that we did not list:

When you go about devising "extraordinary" proof, you design extraordinary
equipment, such as custom built calorimeters far more sensitive or
sophisticated than the measurements call for. This does not enhance
believability. On the contrary, it reduces it. People do not understand how
your super-calorimeter works, and they do not trust it because it is custom
designed, and one of a kind.

Over-engineered instruments also make people think the measurement is much
harder than it is. They look at McKubre's thermocouples, which cost
thousands of dollars and measure to ~0.001 deg C (as I recall) and they say
things like: "Levi will have to use similar thermocouples before we believe
the surface temperature of the reactor is correct."

If Levi et al. were to return to Rossi's place with some kind super-deluxe
custom watt meter designed by a committee of skeptics to answer every
possible imaginary objection, that instrument would be unwieldy. No one
would trust it, least of all me. I would prefer they bring an off-the-shelf
top-notch industrial meter such as any power company engineer uses. They
should ask the experts at Elforsk what meter they recommend. They should
ignore any suggestions from astrophysicists or so-called "skeptics"

Here is something for people who think Levi should take advice from
theoretical astrophysicists such as Ethan Siegel. Imagine you have two new
construction houses, freshly built and wired up to code, one by an
electrician -- any electrician -- and the other by Prof. Siegel. Your job
is to step into the house, turn on the main breaker, and turn on the
lights. Which would you feel more confidence in? Hm . . .? Okay,
perhaps Prof. Siegel has some practical abilities. However, suppose the
house was wired by a *committee* of astrophysicists. I can just about
guarantee it would burn down.

Now, before you say, "yeah, well, electrochemists and chemists have no
practical skills either!" consider this:

Ed Storms did, in fact, wire up new construction. His own house. It passed
code.

Tadahiko Mizuno single-handedly maintained a larger fraction of Japan's
cold war nuclear bomb radiation detection equipment, installed on the roof
of Hokkaido U. It dates back to the 1960s and it was used to detect the
North Korean bomb tests.

John Bockris wrote the book on practical, hands-on electrochemistry.

Most experimentalists are way ahead of theoreticians. However, in the case
of the upcoming Levi tests, I would still leave the choice of instruments
up to an experienced power company engineer.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:On deception

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>  It should be as demonstrable as the Wright's 1908 flight, which converted
> all serious skeptics long before commercial flight. There are plenty of
> anomalies that were accepted instantly because the evidence was strong.
> Your statement has no justification in history.
>
***History isn't exactly on your side of this argument when you include
the Wright brothers.  They first flew in 1903, first demonstrated publicly
in 1908 because there was no one willing to buy airplanes from them until
that time.  Does this mean they were anti-science frauds for those 5
years?  Commercial flight was invented the moment they first flew, but the
first commercial flight transaction of the Wright brothers selling an
airplane didn't happen for 5 years.  Very few "serious skeptics" were
converted during this period, because of the lack of IP protection and
because the "customers" weren't serious about buying it.  Every single
person who asked for a demo (and there were many) refused to buy airplanes
if the Wrights demonstrated it, for 5 years.  Finally, the military opened
a contract and they flew to that contract.  Were they frauds?   Skeptopaths
at the time certainly called them that, just like skeptopaths at this time
call Rossi a fraud even after an independent test of his device.

So, this particular, independent test which takes a black box approach in
order to preserve the industrial trade secret is an intermediate step.
Would the Wright brothers have demonstrated their technology if there was
no intellectual property protection available to them?  As it turned out,
Glenn Curtiss & others tried to steal the Wright patents anyways.

>
>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:On deception

[Harry Veeder]

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Harry Veeder  wrote:
>
>
>> Likewise if the testers concluded that the ecat did not work, the true
>> believers will reject the assessment
>> because they consider the testers untrustworthy.
>>
>
> There have been several failed tests, such as the one NASA did. I do not
> know anyone who claims these tests actually worked and NASA was lying. So I
> guess that means I do not know any "true believers." I think that label is
> unhelpful.
>
>

Of course the label is unhelpful.
So are labels and phrases like "pathological science", "too good to be
true" and "extraordinary claims..."
BTW is it ok to use the phrase "too evil to be true" as justification to
not investigate horrendous crimes?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Apply heat?

[David L Babcock]

Apparently there's two threads of thought here:

a:  Apply heat to make the process start, and more heat to take it to a 
higher cop. Stop the heat (or increase cooling) to bring the process 
back from cascade and ruin. This one seems to describe what Rossi has, 
and what Dave Roberson is modeling, and makes a lot of sense to me.


b:  Apply heat to make it stop.  May involve recalescence.  Confusing.  
Would seem to be inherently stable, no?  (If it gets too hot, it slows 
itself down.)Interesting, but doesn't seem to apply to Rossi's rig.


Anybody wish to clarify?

Ol' Bab



On 6/1/2013 10:39 AM, Vorl Bek wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 10:28:03 -0400
Jed Rothwell  wrote:


Vorl Bek  wrote:



No crazy "apply more heat to make it stop" nonsense.


Why is this nonsense?

I don't have the eloquence to explain, but if you ask over at
moletrap.co.uk, or wavewatching.net/fringe, they can clear it up
for you.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

[Jed Rothwell]

Cude wrote:


> The simple fact is that the measurements made and reported are woefully
>> inadequate to exclude deception.
>>
>
That is not a simple fact. It is an imaginary fact, like all of Cude's
statements about McKubre. He says things and then assumes they are correct,
but saying does not make it so.

Science would be a lot easier and more fun if the Cude method worked, and
we just make stuff up and have it magically be true. I, for one, would
simply assert that cold fusion powered cars are everywhere, and if Cude
would only step outside and look at one, he would see I am right. So
convincing! So clean, clear cut, so obvious! It is a shame I am constrained
by boring facts and graphs, and I can only point to things like calorimetry
and the laws of thermodynamics to make my case.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:On deception

[Harry Veeder]

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>
> Skeptics would change their minds in a heart beat with good evidence, just
> as they did in 1908. But there is nothing that will convince true believers
> in cold fusion that they are wrong.
>
>>
>
>


You should persuade the youtube poster to disclose his cheese power trick.
Vortex members could
then determine if Rossi could have concealed such a trick within his given
set up. Otherwise there is no compelling to reason to be impressed by the
trick.
However, I suspect you won't be told because the youtube poster just enjoys
staging magic tricks and used the occasion of the ecat report to post
another trick.


Harry

Re: [Vo]:On deception

[Jed Rothwell]

Harry Veeder  wrote:


> Likewise if the testers concluded that the ecat did not work, the true
> believers will reject the assessment
> because they consider the testers untrustworthy.
>

There have been several failed tests, such as the one NASA did. I do not
know anyone who claims these tests actually worked and NASA was lying. So I
guess that means I do not know any "true believers." I think that label is
unhelpful.

I think it is possible to conduct a definitive test in the "black box" mode
where you have no access to the inside of the reactor. I think this can be
done at Rossi's facility. It makes no difference where you conduct such a
test. Rossi has no magic ability to affect instruments.

The recent tests by Levi et al. came very close to definitive. If they
would use a somewhat more sophisticated watt meter and/or a battery backup
or external generator I do not think there will be any rational objections
left. However, I am certain that people such as Cude, Yugo and Park would
not accept such a result. They would claim there may be a hidden method of
practicing deception. I consider that impossible, and in any case -- as I
have said -- that assertion is not falsifiable, so it does not count. There
"may be" an invisible pink unicorn from Alpha Centauri adding heat to the
cell with advanced technology indistinguishable from magic . . . but until
someone proposes a method of detecting this unicorn, that hypothesis has no
merit.


Unless evidence of fraud surfaces, I think it wise to tentatively accept
> the results.
>

This is the sensible approach.



> Of course, you can always change your mind,
> because you aren't expected to display unwavering faith in Rossi. This
> is not a cult.
>

Right. And Rossi is not the only person doing cold fusion. Even if he is
wrong or a fraud, that has no bearing on the work of others. They do not
answer for him.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[Jones Beene]

Eric,

 

I have dined on crow before and prefer mine well-charred with a nice Pinot Noir…

 

The ultimate source of energy cannot be determined as of now but Rossi’s 
hundreds of hours of operation at kilowatt levels with no gammas clearly 
indicates NO fusion.

 

I don't exclude the possibility that there's something Millsean going on here, 
but I will take pleasure in quoting this post at a future point in time if 
research were to come out and show that d+p fusion is happening.

 

Eric

 

Re:[Vo]:Anomalous input energy

[Claudio C Fiorini]

I checked it: I made an error. 147 V / 24 A were used in the test you
mentioned, in august 2012, not november 20 in 2013.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

[Harry Veeder]

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> The simple fact is that the measurements made and reported are woefully
> inadequate to exclude deception.
>
>


Unless Rossi tells people how to build an ecat or starts selling them, no
test will ever exclude deception.
It always possible that whoever is chosen to perform the test
will manipulate the instruments and circumstances to produce a trick
because they are part of a conspiracy to commit fraud.
If you accept the word of the chosen testers that it is real, then it is
because you
believe testers to be trustworthy. Likewise if the testers concluded that
the ecat did not work, the true believers will reject the assessment
because they consider the testers untrustworthy.

Unless evidence of fraud surfaces, I think it wise to tentatively accept
the results. Of course, you can always change your mind,
because you aren't expected to display unwavering faith in Rossi. This
is not a cult.



Harry

Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

  The ultimate source of energy cannot be determined as of now but Rossi’s
> hundreds of hours of operation at kilowatt levels with no gammas clearly
> indicates NO fusion.
>

I don't exclude the possibility that there's something Millsean going on
here, but I will take pleasure in quoting this post at a future point in
time if research were to come out and show that d+p fusion is happening.

Eric

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

[Claudio C Fiorini]

Jed 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. They verified that by making a video for the entire test:

"A wristwatch was placed next to the wattmeter, and a video camera was set
up on a tripod and focused on both objects: at one frame per second, the
entire sequence of minutes and power consumption were filmed and recorded
for the 96-hour duration of the test."

my answer: I must apologize, usually i make a clear distinction between
private comments and citations, in my last comment this was perhaps not
clear. My personal comments are not important, I am a blog commentator like
million others and everybody may ignore them. Important however are
citations and data sources and their evaluation. Everthing is in that
NET-Journal article.

opinion mode: I must admit that this article there is a sort of promotion
article full of conspiracy theories having (also) private webpages as
sources. For instance, they tell us in this article (feb. 2013) that BP,
Shell and Exxon would have started to sell their oil fields, fearing the
positive results of the Ecat test (results to be published later). And so
on. But as far as the visit of the Schneiders is concerned, I think the
article looks reliable. Aspecially because they show the same pictures as
in the report, even the screwdriver is a the same place.

You are right: I have seen no citable source saying that A. Rossi was not
present during the tests.

My personal opinion: end of november G. Levi and Rossi performed Ecat tests
in the Ferrara lab with an IR-camera. 3 weeks later, the tests started,
again with the same IP camera, and Rossi doesn't know who is performing the
tests. If Levi would suddenly appear to check something, Rossi would be
forced to say:

R: (with an twinkling eye) hey! You there with the red t-shirt - who are
you, what are you doing here? How did you pass the security check?"
L: (with black eyeglasses) "sorry, i can't reveal my identity, i am part of
the four professors group."
R: (smiling) "Ah, welcome."

This is a bit 
ridiculous
of
course. How did they manage not to see each other if visitors are present?
In my opinion it is also strange that an inventor can walk alone into an
"independent third party test" without beeing observed. I mean if he has
dicovered a new energy source, he is worth the nobel prize. He should not
risk his credibility.

Yes, the video is important: it could increase Rossis credibility or lead
to a quick retraction of this article. But in the past, data from Levi was
sometimes "lost". Lets hope that this time this video is not "lost", but
uploaded to the internet.

Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

Most cold fusion experiments have been milliwatt level and do not use the
> very sophisticated setup of Bianchini . . .
>

Fleischmann and Pons ran hundreds of tests with boiling cells, at 20 to 100
W. They has sophisticated detectors. They found nothing as far as I know.



> I doubt anyone has looked for deuterium. It would be very difficult to
> find. 
>
> ** **
>
> Moderately difficult but not “very difficult”
>

Impossible with any of the Rossi reactors I know of. You need complicated
Swaglok connections, as I said, to extract the sample of gas without
contamination.

It could be done. It should be done. But it has not been done as far as I
know. You would have to design that particular experiment around this goal.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[Jones Beene]

 

 

From: Jed Rothwell wrote:

 

Bianchini finds zero radiation over hundreds of hours of careful radiation
testing.

 

Most cold fusion experiments produce no measurable radiation over hundreds
of hours, including Pd-D ones.

 

Most cold fusion experiments have been milliwatt level and do not use the
very sophisticated setup of Bianchini - who after all is measuring kilowatts
and is a leading expert at this. 

 

Essen finds no radioactivity in the ash. No excess deuterium or
tritium have been documented in Rossi.

 

I doubt anyone has looked for deuterium. It would be very difficult to find.


 

Moderately difficult but not "very difficult" - but as a practical matter
for a theoretician - is it wise to build a theory on a foundation that
depends upon the viability of an extremely rare reaction (P-e-P), unless you
have tested the ash in some basic way - and found a skewed H/D ratio or
other indication of excess D?

 

In short, the Rossi effect looks very
much like the Mills effect.

 

And the Mills effect looks like cold fusion. 

 

And that is precisely why it was a mistake to bifurcate the two, circa 1992.

 

So we're back where we started. I agree with Mike McKubre about the
conservation of miracles. 

 

But cold fusion requires more miracles than Mills, who with his funding has
now proved many details. Mills predicts UV lines and finds them - miracle
erased. He predicts no gamma and there is none. He predicts and captures the
fractional hydrogen as physical atoms, and has the species tested - and it
shows up differently from hydrogen in NMR etc. 

 

In fact the only problem with Mills in the miracle department is the lack of
the commercial product - and if Rossi gets there first due to the high level
of a more robust reaction, and especially if AR has accurately predicted
Ni-62 then he wins the big prize... 

 

Gulp. Three cheers for Rossi, but in the end - it is LENR, and not cold
fusion per se as Ed wants to define it. The ultimate source of energy cannot
be determined as of now but Rossi's hundreds of hours of operation at
kilowatt levels with no gammas clearly indicates NO fusion. 

 

Which is to say, the Rossi effect is not fusion but can still be a new kind
of nuclear reaction if one can be found with no gamma radiation.

 

I expect that all of these effects are either nuclear in something like the
conventional sense, or they are Mills superchemical shrinking hydrogen. I
doubt there are two unrelated phenomena so similar in nature. 

 

Agreed- and there is one common denominator - QM tunneling.

 

Things tend to be unified at some deep level, as are combustion and
metabolism (to use Chris Tinsley's favorite example).

 

Exactamundo!  There are probably 5-6 similar variations on the theme of
quantum tunneling which result in either 

1)full fusion (as in the cold fusion of deuterium into helium)

2)some kind of weak force beta decay (W-L or related theory)

3)accelerated decay or internal conversion decay

4)UV supra-chemistry (energy coming from electron angular momentum)

5)QCD strong force effects (quantum chromodynamics)

6)Any combination of the above - even  several of them in the same
experiment!

 

Any theory which aspires to encompass all of these begins with QM tunneling,
but no simpler theory from there on - works. 

 

It cannot be true that all excess heat in Ni-H comes from a single kind of
reaction, as the result do not allow this. Even in the same experiment, one
could see three similar but different pathways to thermal gain that all
share QM tunneling as the starting point, but differ on everything else. 

 

Ockham be damned ! Don't forget that appeals to "parsimony" were used by
skeptics to argue the wrong side of many past issues - against DNA for
instance, as the carrier of genetic information. There is a long list of
Ockham failures and the workable LENR theory will be on the next one.

 

 

RE: [Vo]:On deception

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

"Why do entangled proton pairs pass through the coulomb barrier of a heavy
element nucleus with high probability in collisions with energies well below
those required to breach this barrier?"

 

Those who have been hangin' out in the Dime Box Saloon for a few years know
of my descriptions of subatomic particles as some form of localized
(dimensionally constrained) oscillations of some mediu, (the vacuum).  This
physical model would predict the empirical observation of how two coupled
(entangled) protons do this...

 

-Mark Iverson

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 11:29 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:On deception

 

Did you see this recent post as follows:

 

===

 

If you remember this thread as follows:

 

Entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling - 1/31/12

 

 

Why do entangled proton pairs pass through the coulomb barrier of a heavy
element nucleus with high probability in collisions with energies well below
those required to breach this barrier? 

 

This curiosity has been observed is heavy low energy ion collision studies.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.1393.pdf

 

This letter presents evidence that (1) 2p transfer (and

not _-particle transfer) is the dominant transfer process

leading to _Z = 2 events in the reaction 16O+208Pb at

energies well below the fusion barrier, and (2) 2p transfer

is significantly enhanced compared to predictions assum-

ing the sequential transfer of uncorrelated protons, with

absolute probabilities as high as those of 1p transfer at

energies near the fusion barrier.

 

Measurements of transfer probabilities in various reac-

tions and at energies near the fusion barrier have there-

fore been utilized to investigate the role of pairing corre-

lations between the transferred nucleons. Pairing effects

are believed to lead to a significant enhancement of pair

and multi-pair transfer probabilities [2, 4{7]. Closely re-

lated to the phenomenon of pairing correlations is the

nuclear Josephson effect [8], which is understood as the

tunneling of nucleon pairs (i.e. nuclear Cooper-pairs)

through a time-dependent barrier at energies near but be-

low the fusion barrier. This effect is believed to be similar

to that of a supercurrent between two superconductors

separated by an insulator. An enhancement of the trans-

fer probability at sub-barrier energies is therefore com-

monly related to the tunneling of (multi-)Cooper-pairs

from one superfluid nucleus to the other [2].

 

 

Following up on this thread as follows:

 

There has been a new type of Klein tunneling proposed where a high-potential
barrier can be made transparent.

 

Even though the barrier is impenetrable for single particles, it becomes
transparent when the two particles cross the energy barrier together. 

 

Coupled particles cross energy wall

 

http://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6
-1421254-0

 

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 1:51 PM,  wrote:

Axil,

I missed that post.  Can you repost the reference.

Does it have any relationship with the following arxiv.org paper that
might be relevant in plasmons?

"New Enhanced Tunneling in Nuclear Processes"
http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0307012

ABSTRACT:
The small sub-barrier tunneling probability of nuclear processes can be
dramatically enhanced by collision with incident charged particles.
Semiclassical methods of theory of complex trajectories have been applied
to nuclear tunneling, and conditions for the effects have been obtained.
We demonstrate the enhancement of alpha particle decay by incident proton
with energy of about 0.25 MeV. We show that the general features of this
process are common for other sub-barrier nuclear processes and can be
applied to nuclear fission.

-- Lou Pagnucco




Axil^2 wrote:
> I showed Joshua Cude an experiment using Nanoplasmonic processes that
> changed the alpha particle emission half-life of U232 form 69 years to 6
> microseconds.

> [...]

 

[Vo]:Nostalgia time - Zeta 1958

[Leonard Arbuthnot]

I know this email list is for discussing "alternative" and "unconventional" 
power sources, but sometimes it can be useful to look back at some 
"conventional" projects (which went nowhere), and see how the press handled the 
news.

55 years ago Britain was going to save the world:

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/taming-the-h-bomb

It was all going to be so easy.  These "boffins" knew everything there was to 
know about atoms and stuff. After all, "atomic scientists" had created megaton 
bombs - which was proof that they must have known what they were doing...

- Leo

Re:[Vo]:Anomalous input energy

[Claudio C Fiorini]

Charles, a week before they started the test in december 2012 (dec. 7 to
dec. 17, testing: december 13 to 17), on november 20, they did the same.
The reactor was supplied that day by a AC tension of 147 V, and current was
24 to 25 A. Power is then 3.5 to 3.6 kW. The two resistors were connected
in parallel and had allegedly 6 ohm (together, this would mean: 12 ohm
each). They claimed a surface temperature of 800 to 873 degrees C. This is
what they told.

Source: "Photos of E-Cat Delivery Released", Ecat report, may 2013

I forgot: I think Levi was present during that test. There is a foto
showing him in the background of the Rossi lab in Ferrara. 3 weeks later,
Rossi says that he is not aware who is performing the tests. I must
apologize: I am wrinting this without checking it using my notes. Check it
again please, I am not at home.
Claudio

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

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "David Roberson" 
> Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2013 9:28:13 AM
 
> Let me make a suggestion Robert. The linear technology company
> publishes a spice program that can be downloaded and used by the
> general public. 

That's the LTspice I just recommended.

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

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Robert Lynn" 
> Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2013 9:14:06 AM
> 
> Don't think I have Microsim pspice lying around anywhere anymore (and
> non-GUI is very slow and clumsy if not using it frequently), it was
> an excellent little tool (or was in late 90's when I used it last)
> that I spent 100's of hours with, and is useful even for the
> amateur, probably still out there somewhere on the interwebs if
> hunted for.

ltspice (which I use) has a nice little schematic editor (hierarchical, with 
symbols and one sheet at each level) and waveform display [you can do 
arithmetic on nodes, eg power = (V(node1)-V(node2))*I(comp.pin) ]. Works fine 
(for me) up to a couple of thousand nodes.

I'm not sure what models you want -- behavioral voltage and current models

 Bxxx node1 node2 V =  expression of node voltages, pin currents etc etc
 Bxxx node1 node2 I =  expression of node voltages, pin currents etc etc

Re: [Vo]:Rossi is suing Wikipedia for libel

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan Fletcher  wrote:

That was the Italian wiki.
>

There is an article in English:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_(entrepreneur)

It is linked to an Italian one, which is gone, as you say.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:On deception

[pagnucco]

> This is the post you wanted to see as follows:
>
> =
>
> See references:
Interesting paper.

I've only perused it, but it may be that eigenstates of unstable atoms are
sometimes dramatically shifted in these environments
- deep potential wells can become much shallower when the hamiltonian of
the entire system is taken into account.

>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&;
> source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%
> 2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276&ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAg&usg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-
> NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQ&sig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUA&bvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ
>
> also see
>
> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=331
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> The central dilemma at the very heart of LENR is what causes nuclear
>> reactions at low energy levels.
>>
>> What causes the nuclei of most elements to fall apart and reassemble
>> their
>> subatomic parts in new ways?
>>[...]

Re: [Vo]:Jeane Manning about Defkalion, second sending

[Axil Axil]

It takes two to tango. maybe the NI people did not take kindly to the idea.
Such a demo would be a major distraction from the other things that NI want
to do at their show.

Just think if you invite Elvis or Bill Clinton to your party, you may not
receive the personal attention form the other party goers that you crave.


On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

> Peter,
> If it will be a real demo why didn't she write that?
>
> I listened to Sterling Allan's audio interview from two months ago and the
> representative from Defkalion stated quite clearly
> that they intended to set up working device at National Instruments Week
> this august. Perhaps
> Defkalion is no longer sure they can do it.
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>
>> it will be a demo, do not worry
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>>
>>> the only new point I notice is that
>>> - they rent a lab in University of BC
>>> - they think about "audio visual material" for NIWeek2013...
>>> -> I was enthusiastic about the "demo", and if it is only video it is
>>> less an event
>>> it confirm the paper for iccf18
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/6/1 Peter Gluck 
>>>
 My dear friends,

 I have just published:

 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/05/jeane-manning-writes-about-defkalion.html

 The Canadian New Energy writer Jeane Manning discovers and describes
 the new paradigm of LENR+ - and I am also trying to describe LENR+ for you,
 inviting you to contribute to its development

 Peter

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

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

Re: [Vo]:Jeane Manning about Defkalion, second sending

[Harry Veeder]

Peter,
If it will be a real demo why didn't she write that?

I listened to Sterling Allan's audio interview from two months ago and the
representative from Defkalion stated quite clearly
that they intended to set up working device at National Instruments Week
this august. Perhaps
Defkalion is no longer sure they can do it.


Harry



On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> it will be a demo, do not worry
> Peter
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>
>> the only new point I notice is that
>> - they rent a lab in University of BC
>> - they think about "audio visual material" for NIWeek2013...
>> -> I was enthusiastic about the "demo", and if it is only video it is
>> less an event
>> it confirm the paper for iccf18
>>
>>
>> 2013/6/1 Peter Gluck 
>>
>>> My dear friends,
>>>
>>> I have just published:
>>>
>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/05/jeane-manning-writes-about-defkalion.html
>>>
>>> The Canadian New Energy writer Jeane Manning discovers and describes the
>>> new paradigm of LENR+ - and I am also trying to describe LENR+ for you,
>>> inviting you to contribute to its development
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>>> Cluj, Romania
>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> Bianchini finds zero radiation over hundreds of hours of careful radiation
> testing.


Most cold fusion experiments produce no measurable radiation over hundreds
of hours, including Pd-D ones.


Essen finds no radioactivity in the ash. No excess deuterium or
> tritium have been documented in Rossi.


I doubt anyone has looked for deuterium. It would be very difficult to
find. You could not look for it with any of the Rossi cells I have seen.
You need something smaller, tightly sealed with high grade Swaglok fittings.

I do not know if they have looked for tritium either. I'll bet it would
escape.



> In short, the Rossi effect looks very
> much like the Mills effect.
>

And the Mills effect looks like cold fusion. So we're back where we
started. I agree with Mike McKubre about the conservation of miracles. I
expect that all of these effects are either nuclear in something like the
conventional sense, or they are Mills superchemical shrinking hydrogen. I
doubt there are two unrelated phenomena so similar in nature. Things tend
to be unified at some deep level, as are combustion and metabolism (to use
Chris Tinsley's favorite example).

- Jed

[Vo]:Sterling Allan's compilation of recent Rossi news

[Jed Rothwell]

Sterling put together a handy compilation of recent mass media articles,
and claims:

http://pesn.com/2013/05/30/9602324_LENR-to-Market_Weekly_May30/

He also advocates signing this petition:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/form-national-commission-research-lenr-energy-production-devices-such-andrea-rossis-ecat/bj9CH9Ps

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms 

> The Mills effect is a different phenomenon all together. His effect is not
nuclear, as he admits. 

Yes, but that is not relevant to understanding Rossi. Many other
researchers, including Miley have incorporated major parts of Mills theory
into a nuclear version for Ni-H - using the important Rydberg energy details
- like IRH (inverted Rydberg hydrogen). 

It is easily possible that Mills' theory, like your own (and everyone
else's) is partly correct and partly wrong. It is a major mistake to be
ignorant of Mills experiments when analyzing Rossi.

> The Rossi effect follows from the cold fusion phenomenon when H is used
instead of D.  

No, it doesn't. Just the opposite, in fact. There is no evidence of any cold
fusion effect in the Rossi results. You are intentionally conflating with
Piantelli. 

Bianchini finds zero radiation over hundreds of hours of careful radiation
testing. Essen finds no radioactivity in the ash. No excess deuterium or
tritium have been documented in Rossi. In short, the Rossi effect looks very
much like the Mills effect. 

> The Rossi effect is claimed to produce a nuclear product. 

Many inaccurate claims have been made about the Rossi effect, but no nuclear
product has been documented by anyone including Focardi, who is responsible
for that detail. Testing of the copper showed natural isotope balance,
indicating metal migration - not transmutation ash.

> In addition, the Ni-H2 system produces radiation that CAN NOT result from
a Mills reaction.

Piantelli alone has made claim this claim, but we are talking about the
Rossi effect and Mills. Piantelli is irrelevant to Rossi. Bianchini finds
zero radiation over hundreds of hours of careful radiation testing of
Rossi's results on three separate occasions. Celani saw something on startup
but nothing at all during operation. Rossi may have used a startup isotope,
but there is NO radioactivity at all during operation.

Your theory may work for Piantelli's results, which have trade secrets that
make it different from Rossi - but your theory is incompatible with Rossi's
actual results.

Again, Rossi see no radiation during operation and no nuclear ash, like
Mills. Rossi uses potassium catalyst, like Mills (this has been documented
in the spectrographic data). Rossi see long term gain, like Thermacore.
Rossi has no radioactivity in the ash or in the process itself.

Once again, the Rossi effect bears every resemblance to Mills, and none to
Piantelli at all, or to "cold fusion" or as you chosen to define it. 

> Apparently you have not read my book, or any of my papers or followed the
discussion on Vortex. I have no loyalty to deuterium. 

I have read your book and other material but continue to reject the notion
that it is relevant to Rossi's actual results. You know that I have stated
several times that your theory may well apply to Piantelli's results, but
not to Rossi's yet you continue to conflate Rossi and Piantelli because your
theory falls flat with Rossi. 

Jones


<>

Re: [Vo]:On deception

[Axil Axil]

This is the post you wanted to see as follows:

=

See references:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&;
source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%
2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276&ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAg&usg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-
NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQ&sig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUA&bvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ

also see

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=331


On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The central dilemma at the very heart of LENR is what causes nuclear
> reactions at low energy levels.
>
> What causes the nuclei of most elements to fall apart and reassemble their
> subatomic parts in new ways?
>
> Two new papers dealing with the nature and workings of the vacuum lend
> insight into the LENR question.
>
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.6165.pdf
>
> The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light
>
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.3923v1.pdf
>
> A sum rule for charged elementary particles
>
> These papers suggest that the nature of the vacuum is defined by
> electromagnetic mechanisms revolving around the action of the constant
> creation and destruction of virtual dipoles.
>
> The nature of radioactive decay is also driven off the action of the
> virtual particle life cycle and its electromagnetic consequences.
>
> These papers also suggest that the nature of space/time can be changed and
> controlled by augmentation of this virtual dipole mechanism.
>
> It is generally recognized that the Fine Structure constant is not a
> really a constant at all and can vary.
>
>
> If this FSC can be changed by as little as 4% ether more or less, the
> delicate balance between the strong force and the electromagnetic force
> will fatally disrupt the forces inside the nucleus.
>
> A successful LENR system will setup a positive feedback loop that produces
> enhanced dipole production caused by enhanced electron tunneling.
>
> If the proper dipole production topology is created, dipole production
> begets enhanced electron tunneling and vice versa. In this way, an extreme
> dipole EMF field can be concentrated is a localized volume of space.
>
> The extreme dipole EMF fields thus produced gets so strong that the fabric
> of the vacuum within this nanoscopic localized volume is distorted to the
> point that the nuclei of atoms in that volume become unbalanced. The
> greatly enhanced and increased dipole EMF counteracts the actions of the
> strong force and the nuclei inside the localized volume will fall apart.
> The control of this process is possible. Through the control of how the way
> that the dipole production topology is setup, the amount of nuclear
> disruption is proportional to the strength of the dipole field, from slight
> to extreme.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Did you see this recent post as follows:
>>
>> ===
>>
>>
>> If you remember this thread as follows:
>>
>> * *
>>
>> Entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling – 1/31/12
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Why do entangled proton pairs pass through the coulomb barrier of a heavy
>> element nucleus with high probability in collisions with energies well
>> below those required to breach this barrier?
>>
>>
>>
>> This curiosity has been observed is heavy low energy ion collision
>> studies.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.1393.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> This letter presents evidence that (1) 2p transfer (and
>>
>> not _-particle transfer) is the dominant transfer process
>>
>> leading to _Z = 2 events in the reaction 16O+208Pb at
>>
>> energies well below the fusion barrier, and (2) 2p transfer
>>
>> is significantly enhanced compared to predictions assum-
>>
>> ing the sequential transfer of uncorrelated protons, with
>>
>> absolute probabilities as high as those of 1p transfer at
>>
>> energies near the fusion barrier.
>>
>>
>>
>> Measurements of transfer probabilities in various reac-
>>
>> tions and at energies near the fusion barrier have there-
>>
>> fore been utilized to investigate the role of pairing corre-
>>
>> lations between the transferred nucleons. Pairing effects
>>
>> are believed to lead to a significant enhancement of pair
>>
>> and multi-pair transfer probabilities [2, 4{7]. Closely re-
>>
>> lated to the phenomenon of pairing correlations is the
>>
>> nuclear Josephson effect [8], which is understood as the
>>
>> tunneling of nucleon pairs (i.e. nuclear Cooper-pairs)
>>
>> through a time-dependent barrier at energies near but be-
>>
>> low the fusion barrier. This effect is believed to be similar
>>
>> to that of a supercurrent between two superconductors
>>
>> separated by an insulator. An enhancement of the trans-
>>
>> fer probability at sub-barrier energies is therefore com-
>>
>> monly related to the tunneling of (multi-)Cooper-pairs
>>
>> from one superfluid nucleus to the other [2].
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Following up on this thread as follows:
>>
>>
>>
>> There has been a new type of Klein tunneling propo

Re: [Vo]:On deception

[Axil Axil]

The central dilemma at the very heart of LENR is what causes nuclear
reactions at low energy levels.

What causes the nuclei of most elements to fall apart and reassemble their
subatomic parts in new ways?

Two new papers dealing with the nature and workings of the vacuum lend
insight into the LENR question.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.6165.pdf

The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.3923v1.pdf

A sum rule for charged elementary particles

These papers suggest that the nature of the vacuum is defined by
electromagnetic mechanisms revolving around the action of the constant
creation and destruction of virtual dipoles.

The nature of radioactive decay is also driven off the action of the
virtual particle life cycle and its electromagnetic consequences.

These papers also suggest that the nature of space/time can be changed and
controlled by augmentation of this virtual dipole mechanism.

It is generally recognized that the Fine Structure constant is not a really
a constant at all and can vary.


If this FSC can be changed by as little as 4% ether more or less, the
delicate balance between the strong force and the electromagnetic force
will fatally disrupt the forces inside the nucleus.

A successful LENR system will setup a positive feedback loop that produces
enhanced dipole production caused by enhanced electron tunneling.

If the proper dipole production topology is created, dipole production
begets enhanced electron tunneling and vice versa. In this way, an extreme
dipole EMF field can be concentrated is a localized volume of space.

The extreme dipole EMF fields thus produced gets so strong that the fabric
of the vacuum within this nanoscopic localized volume is distorted to the
point that the nuclei of atoms in that volume become unbalanced. The
greatly enhanced and increased dipole EMF counteracts the actions of the
strong force and the nuclei inside the localized volume will fall apart.
The control of this process is possible. Through the control of how the way
that the dipole production topology is setup, the amount of nuclear
disruption is proportional to the strength of the dipole field, from slight
to extreme.






On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Did you see this recent post as follows:
>
> ===
>
>
> If you remember this thread as follows:
>
> * *
>
> Entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling – 1/31/12
>
>
>
>
>
> Why do entangled proton pairs pass through the coulomb barrier of a heavy
> element nucleus with high probability in collisions with energies well
> below those required to breach this barrier?
>
>
>
> This curiosity has been observed is heavy low energy ion collision studies.
>
>
>
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.1393.pdf
>
>
>
> This letter presents evidence that (1) 2p transfer (and
>
> not _-particle transfer) is the dominant transfer process
>
> leading to _Z = 2 events in the reaction 16O+208Pb at
>
> energies well below the fusion barrier, and (2) 2p transfer
>
> is significantly enhanced compared to predictions assum-
>
> ing the sequential transfer of uncorrelated protons, with
>
> absolute probabilities as high as those of 1p transfer at
>
> energies near the fusion barrier.
>
>
>
> Measurements of transfer probabilities in various reac-
>
> tions and at energies near the fusion barrier have there-
>
> fore been utilized to investigate the role of pairing corre-
>
> lations between the transferred nucleons. Pairing effects
>
> are believed to lead to a significant enhancement of pair
>
> and multi-pair transfer probabilities [2, 4{7]. Closely re-
>
> lated to the phenomenon of pairing correlations is the
>
> nuclear Josephson effect [8], which is understood as the
>
> tunneling of nucleon pairs (i.e. nuclear Cooper-pairs)
>
> through a time-dependent barrier at energies near but be-
>
> low the fusion barrier. This effect is believed to be similar
>
> to that of a supercurrent between two superconductors
>
> separated by an insulator. An enhancement of the trans-
>
> fer probability at sub-barrier energies is therefore com-
>
> monly related to the tunneling of (multi-)Cooper-pairs
>
> from one superfluid nucleus to the other [2].
>
>
>
>
>
> Following up on this thread as follows:
>
>
>
> There has been a new type of Klein tunneling proposed where a
> high-potential barrier can be made transparent.
>
>
>
> Even though the barrier is impenetrable for single particles, it becomes
> transparent when the two particles cross the energy barrier together.
>
>
>
> Coupled particles cross energy wall
>
>
>
>
> http://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6-1421254-0
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 1:51 PM,  wrote:
>
>> Axil,
>>
>> I missed that post.  Can you repost the reference.
>>
>> Does it have any relationship with the following arxiv.org paper that
>> might be relevant in plasmons?
>>
>> "New Enhanced Tunneling in Nuclear Processes"
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/nuc

Re: [Vo]:On deception

[Axil Axil]

Did you see this recent post as follows:

===


If you remember this thread as follows:

* *

Entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling – 1/31/12





Why do entangled proton pairs pass through the coulomb barrier of a heavy
element nucleus with high probability in collisions with energies well
below those required to breach this barrier?



This curiosity has been observed is heavy low energy ion collision studies.



http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.1393.pdf



This letter presents evidence that (1) 2p transfer (and

not _-particle transfer) is the dominant transfer process

leading to _Z = 2 events in the reaction 16O+208Pb at

energies well below the fusion barrier, and (2) 2p transfer

is significantly enhanced compared to predictions assum-

ing the sequential transfer of uncorrelated protons, with

absolute probabilities as high as those of 1p transfer at

energies near the fusion barrier.



Measurements of transfer probabilities in various reac-

tions and at energies near the fusion barrier have there-

fore been utilized to investigate the role of pairing corre-

lations between the transferred nucleons. Pairing effects

are believed to lead to a significant enhancement of pair

and multi-pair transfer probabilities [2, 4{7]. Closely re-

lated to the phenomenon of pairing correlations is the

nuclear Josephson effect [8], which is understood as the

tunneling of nucleon pairs (i.e. nuclear Cooper-pairs)

through a time-dependent barrier at energies near but be-

low the fusion barrier. This effect is believed to be similar

to that of a supercurrent between two superconductors

separated by an insulator. An enhancement of the trans-

fer probability at sub-barrier energies is therefore com-

monly related to the tunneling of (multi-)Cooper-pairs

from one superfluid nucleus to the other [2].





Following up on this thread as follows:



There has been a new type of Klein tunneling proposed where a
high-potential barrier can be made transparent.



Even though the barrier is impenetrable for single particles, it becomes
transparent when the two particles cross the energy barrier together.



Coupled particles cross energy wall



http://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6-1421254-0


On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 1:51 PM,  wrote:

> Axil,
>
> I missed that post.  Can you repost the reference.
>
> Does it have any relationship with the following arxiv.org paper that
> might be relevant in plasmons?
>
> "New Enhanced Tunneling in Nuclear Processes"
> http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0307012
>
> ABSTRACT:
> The small sub-barrier tunneling probability of nuclear processes can be
> dramatically enhanced by collision with incident charged particles.
> Semiclassical methods of theory of complex trajectories have been applied
> to nuclear tunneling, and conditions for the effects have been obtained.
> We demonstrate the enhancement of alpha particle decay by incident proton
> with energy of about 0.25 MeV. We show that the general features of this
> process are common for other sub-barrier nuclear processes and can be
> applied to nuclear fission.
>
> -- Lou Pagnucco
>
>
>
> Axil^2 wrote:
> > I showed Joshua Cude an experiment using Nanoplasmonic processes that
> > changed the alpha particle emission half-life of U232 form 69 years to 6
> > microseconds.
> > [...]
>
>

Re: [Vo]:On deception

[pagnucco]

Axil,

I missed that post.  Can you repost the reference.

Does it have any relationship with the following arxiv.org paper that
might be relevant in plasmons?

"New Enhanced Tunneling in Nuclear Processes"
http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0307012

ABSTRACT:
The small sub-barrier tunneling probability of nuclear processes can be
dramatically enhanced by collision with incident charged particles.
Semiclassical methods of theory of complex trajectories have been applied
to nuclear tunneling, and conditions for the effects have been obtained.
We demonstrate the enhancement of alpha particle decay by incident proton
with energy of about 0.25 MeV. We show that the general features of this
process are common for other sub-barrier nuclear processes and can be
applied to nuclear fission.

-- Lou Pagnucco



Axil^2 wrote:
> I showed Joshua Cude an experiment using Nanoplasmonic processes that
> changed the alpha particle emission half-life of U232 form 69 years to 6
> microseconds.
> [...]

Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[Edmund Storms]

On Jun 1, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Jones Beene wrote:


-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms


We are taking about two different phenomenon of nature. Trying to use

the same concepts and words to describe both results in confusion.
Those of us who have studied cold fusion for the last 23 years have a
definition of CF that is not up for discussion.

That may be true regarding "cold fusion". You are free to stick with  
that
antiquated term if you want to, but do not pretend to speak for the  
broader

field of LENR.


Jones, I think I'm in a better position to speak for the field than  
you are.


I am NOT talking about "cold Fusion". Period. LENR is much more than  
"cold

fusion" in 2013. The two are not synonymous.


Cold fusion was the term first applied to the phenomenon. Then  
transmutation was observed, which required the term not be focused on  
fusion. Consequently, several additional terms were tried and LENR  
stuck.  LENR includes the phenomenon called cold fusion and the  
reaction producing transmutation.


I have followed what is now called LENR for 23 years too from a  
different
perspective which does not require deuterium - and I believe that  
the proper
definition of LENR must include sonofusion, the Farnsworth Fusor,  
the Mills

effect and the Rossi effect, in addition to "cold fusion".


That is not what is accepted or is accurate. The phenomenon that is  
called cold fusion produces helium and tritium without neutrons. The  
phenomenon called hot fusion produces no helium and equal numbers of  
neutrons and tritium, examples of which are sonofusion, the Farnsworth  
Fusor, and muon fission. The Mills effect is a different phenomenon  
all together. His effect is not nuclear, as he admits. The Rossi  
effect follows from the cold fusion phenomenon when H is used instead  
of D.  I have shown exactly how the D and H systems are related to the  
cold fusion phenomenon and why tritium is produced without neutrons. I  
hope you have followed the discussion of my explanation on Vortex.


In any case, this has no relationship to the difference between cold  
fusion or LENR and hot fusion.



In fact- doing so will make understanding the LENR field less  
confusing, not

more - since there is plenty of overlap and we have moved well beyond
deuterium.


Please try to understand what I'm telling you.


I understand what you are saying - but I reject completely your  
contention
that the definition of LENR is somehow fixed by the old days when  
"cold
fusion" was the only game in town, and fractional hydrogen was  
considered

taboo to cold fusion practitioners.


Please note what I said above. Your comment has no relationship to  
what I'm saying.


You have overlooked Mills' excellent experiments from the start and  
continue
to overlook his contributions, despite his publications, patents and  
success

in fund-raising - or to consider the newer offshoots of CQM.

Mills is NOT "cold fusion" in any relevant way - but can be included  
under
the broader definition of LENR, especially since many of us have  
adapted
parts of his theory to a nuclear perspective. In short, Mills work  
is more

relevant to understanding Rossi than were P&F.


That is simply not true. The Rossi effect is claimed to produce a  
nuclear product. I think the product is wrong, but the focus has been  
on detecting the product. In addition, the Ni-H2 system produces  
radiation that CAN NOT result from a Mills reaction.


In a nutshell - Ed this is our disagreement: You are lost in fading
reminiscence of "cold fusion" of palladium and deuterium - which is  
going

nowhere as of 2013 - now that Nickel-hydrogen is showing an ability to
provide kilowatts in contrast to the milliwatts of most cold fusion  
efforts.


Apparently you have not read my book, or any of my papers or followed  
the discussion on Vortex. I have no loyity to deuterium. I have made  
cear that ANY isotope of hydrogen can fuse as a result of the cold  
fusion (LENR) process. In contrast, Jones, you are mixing applies and  
oranges and producing confusion.  Please read my book. cold fusion  
using deuterium produces more than milliwatts of power. Rossi has made  
the Ni-H2 system more active than it ever was, but this does not  
change the nature of the reaction.


Ed Storms





Please do not confuse the two.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[Edmund Storms]

You can call it what you want. Jones called the muon reaction ""cold  
fusion" before he applied the term was applied to the F-P effect.   
Nevertheless, the products are those that result from hot fusion, i.e.  
equal amounts of neutron and tritium that result from fragmentation of  
the resulting helium nucleus.  In discussions, these two different  
nuclear processes MUST be described accurately and not confused with  
each other.  To make the description clear, hot fusion is the term  
applied to the reaction that fragments the helium and cold fusion is  
applied when helium itself is produced. Of course, the two different  
reactions have many other important differences. We just need to  
describe them so that we are clear about which reaction is being  
described.



Ed Storms
On Jun 1, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:


I thought we agreed to call Muon assisted fusion "warm fusion".

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
We are taking about two different phenomenon of nature. Trying to  
use the
same concepts and words to describe both results in confusion.  
Those of us
who have studied cold fusion for the last 23 years have a  
definition of CF
that is not up for discussion.  Please try to understand what I'm  
telling

you.

Cold fusion and hot fusion require different conditions to cause  
their

initiation, they have different nuclear products, and they result at
different rates. These are facts and not a matter of arbitrary  
definition.


Cold fusion requires only a few eV for it to be initiated. In  
contrast, many

keV are required to cause hot fusion at the same rate.

Cold fusion produces helium while hot fusion produces fragments of  
helium.


Cold fusion requires a solid while hot fusion occurs in plasma.

Cold fusion does not produce neutrons, while hot fusion produces many
neutrons when the same amount of energy is released.

The term LENR is used to only describe cold fusion. It was not  
created for

it to be applied to hot fusion.





On Jun 1, 2013, at 9:48 AM, Jones Beene wrote:


-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms

Jones, please do not confuse hot fusion with cold fusion. The  
difference


is in the products.

Not necessarily. Perhaps that is your definition, but as I stated  
- the
Farnsworth Fusor is LENR on the input side. Same with sonofusion -  
it is

the
input that matters most - NOT the output.

The Fusor is definitely NOT hot fusion. The average plasma  
temperature is

in
the range of neon lighting of CFL or CRTs.



The resulting nuclear products are the important criteria. I can  
produce hot
fusion simply by hitting LiD with a hammer. Therefore the applied  
power is
not important. The amount of applied power only changes the rate,  
not the
resulting nuclear reactions. Because neutrons are made by hot  
fusion, it can

be detected at VERY LOW rates. That is why only a few keV can cause a
detectable rate. The applied voltage does not change the kind of  
nuclear
reaction that takes place. We must make a clear distinction between  
the
nuclear reaction that results from hot fusion and the different one  
that

results from cold fusion. Your approach confuses this requirement.



Sonofusion produces neutrons, and is generally considered "cold"  
and the

Fusor is similar.



Sonofusion produces hot fusion, i.e, it apparently produces equal  
amounts of
neutrons and tritium, not helium. Yes, I know the tritium has not  
been
reported in this case.   The relative applied power is not  
important. I say
again, the applied power ONLY CHANGES THE RATE. It does not change  
the

resulting nuclear reaction.



Most observers these days label the Fusor "warm" but it in reality  
it is

FAR
closer to LENR than to hot fusion - and IMO if the device is in no- 
man's

land - then LENR group should claim it, just as with sonofusion.



I don't know who you are quoting, but they have no idea what they are
talking about.

Ed Storms



Jones

RE: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms 

> We are taking about two different phenomenon of nature. Trying to use  
the same concepts and words to describe both results in confusion.  
Those of us who have studied cold fusion for the last 23 years have a  
definition of CF that is not up for discussion.  

That may be true regarding "cold fusion". You are free to stick with that
antiquated term if you want to, but do not pretend to speak for the broader
field of LENR.

I am NOT talking about "cold Fusion". Period. LENR is much more than "cold
fusion" in 2013. The two are not synonymous.

I have followed what is now called LENR for 23 years too from a different
perspective which does not require deuterium - and I believe that the proper
definition of LENR must include sonofusion, the Farnsworth Fusor, the Mills
effect and the Rossi effect, in addition to "cold fusion". 

In fact- doing so will make understanding the LENR field less confusing, not
more - since there is plenty of overlap and we have moved well beyond
deuterium.

> Please try to understand what I'm telling you.

I understand what you are saying - but I reject completely your contention
that the definition of LENR is somehow fixed by the old days when "cold
fusion" was the only game in town, and fractional hydrogen was considered
taboo to cold fusion practitioners. 

You have overlooked Mills' excellent experiments from the start and continue
to overlook his contributions, despite his publications, patents and success
in fund-raising - or to consider the newer offshoots of CQM. 

Mills is NOT "cold fusion" in any relevant way - but can be included under
the broader definition of LENR, especially since many of us have adapted
parts of his theory to a nuclear perspective. In short, Mills work is more
relevant to understanding Rossi than were P&F.

In a nutshell - Ed this is our disagreement: You are lost in fading
reminiscence of "cold fusion" of palladium and deuterium - which is going
nowhere as of 2013 - now that Nickel-hydrogen is showing an ability to
provide kilowatts in contrast to the milliwatts of most cold fusion efforts.


Please do not confuse the two. 

Jones 

Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[Terry Blanton]

I thought we agreed to call Muon assisted fusion "warm fusion".

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
> We are taking about two different phenomenon of nature. Trying to use the
> same concepts and words to describe both results in confusion. Those of us
> who have studied cold fusion for the last 23 years have a definition of CF
> that is not up for discussion.  Please try to understand what I'm telling
> you.
>
> Cold fusion and hot fusion require different conditions to cause their
> initiation, they have different nuclear products, and they result at
> different rates. These are facts and not a matter of arbitrary definition.
>
> Cold fusion requires only a few eV for it to be initiated. In contrast, many
> keV are required to cause hot fusion at the same rate.
>
> Cold fusion produces helium while hot fusion produces fragments of helium.
>
> Cold fusion requires a solid while hot fusion occurs in plasma.
>
> Cold fusion does not produce neutrons, while hot fusion produces many
> neutrons when the same amount of energy is released.
>
> The term LENR is used to only describe cold fusion. It was not created for
> it to be applied to hot fusion.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2013, at 9:48 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Edmund Storms
>>
>>> Jones, please do not confuse hot fusion with cold fusion. The difference
>>
>> is in the products.
>>
>> Not necessarily. Perhaps that is your definition, but as I stated - the
>> Farnsworth Fusor is LENR on the input side. Same with sonofusion - it is
>> the
>> input that matters most - NOT the output.
>>
>> The Fusor is definitely NOT hot fusion. The average plasma temperature is
>> in
>> the range of neon lighting of CFL or CRTs.
>
>
> The resulting nuclear products are the important criteria. I can produce hot
> fusion simply by hitting LiD with a hammer. Therefore the applied power is
> not important. The amount of applied power only changes the rate, not the
> resulting nuclear reactions. Because neutrons are made by hot fusion, it can
> be detected at VERY LOW rates. That is why only a few keV can cause a
> detectable rate. The applied voltage does not change the kind of nuclear
> reaction that takes place. We must make a clear distinction between the
> nuclear reaction that results from hot fusion and the different one that
> results from cold fusion. Your approach confuses this requirement.
>
>>
>> Sonofusion produces neutrons, and is generally considered "cold" and the
>> Fusor is similar.
>
>
> Sonofusion produces hot fusion, i.e, it apparently produces equal amounts of
> neutrons and tritium, not helium. Yes, I know the tritium has not been
> reported in this case.   The relative applied power is not important. I say
> again, the applied power ONLY CHANGES THE RATE. It does not change the
> resulting nuclear reaction.
>
>>
>> Most observers these days label the Fusor "warm" but it in reality it is
>> FAR
>> closer to LENR than to hot fusion - and IMO if the device is in no-man's
>> land - then LENR group should claim it, just as with sonofusion.
>
>
> I don't know who you are quoting, but they have no idea what they are
> talking about.
>
> Ed Storms
>>
>>
>> Jones
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:On deception

[Axil Axil]

I showed Joshua Cude an experiment using Nanoplasmonic processes that
changed the alpha particle emission half-life of U232 form 69 years to 6
microseconds.



>From his post, I conclude that either Cude is not intellectually honest in
that he does not let facts or experiments get in the way of his opinions or
it could be that he just has a memory problem.








On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> LENR complies with all know physical laws. The problem is that few
>> scientists have a background in this new branch of science.
>>
>
> You don't know what you're talking about. LENR is contrary to predictions
> based on a century of copious, reproducible experimental results which fit
> a highly consistent and robust picture. That doesn't mean it's wrong, as
> history shows; it means the evidence for it must be as consistent and
> robust as the evidence that predicts it's wrong before it will be taken
> seriously. At present, there is no consistent evidence for it at all.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:On deception

[Kevin O'Malley]

Joshua:

I have keyed up on your sneering in the past, so it is only right that I
point out that your skepticism on this post is quite healthy and, with the
cheese analogy, even interesting to read.  Once you drop the sneering, you
bring value to Vortex.

The next thing to learn is the difference between hyperskepticism (Big S)
and Small s skepticism.

Let me ask this hypothetical.  If the 7 scientists wheeled in their own
power generator, would you accept this report for the most part as it
stands?




On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Joshua Cude  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.
>>
>>
> You miss the point as usual, which was that no wires need to be stripped
> to measure voltage.
>
>
> As for no engineers being fooled by the video, that's because the
> alternative to a trick is cheese power. Almost no one would be fooled by it
> for that reason. The immediate assumption is a trick and so the immediate
> reaction is to look for it. Plus Tinsel deliberately left a couple of clues
> in the video. That's not the case for the ecat.
>
>
> But what if he found some true believers in cheese power, or instead of
> cheese, he used a little box that was maybe a little radioactive, and he
> called it a cold fusion electrical generator. Then he could have used the
> same laissez faire Swedish team and Levi. And say he skillfully built up
> expectations in a very elaborate way over a period of time, and was a
> little more careful in the deception, and maybe used a more complicated
> input with 3-phase power, and restricted the measurements and inspection to
> protect his secret sauce. I'm confident that team could have been easily
> fooled. And then, instead of nice video with a couple of tells, he gets the
> true believer team to write up their account of the device. Now, if the
> Swedes were fooled, people who have access only to the written account
> cannot determine what the trick is, and so you and the rest of the cold
> fusion believers would insist that unless we can prove what the trick was,
> it has to be real cold fusion.
>
>
> You are just guessing about the measurements they must have made to
> exclude things. But those things are not in the paper, and to hear their
> interviews, it sounds like they were mostly napping.
>
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> What the hell does that prove? The argument is that Rossi set it up
> beforehand. In the first case, that's obvious. Any measurements they made
> could easily have been on points provided by Rossi when the experiment was
> set up, or on the PCE830, which clearly is not designed to detect
> deception; it's a but like Essen using a relative humidity probe to measure
> steam quality. You're not suggesting they would strip the wires while the
> experiment was in progress are you? So that monitoring video is meaningless.
>
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> It is the furthest thing from proof of anything. It in no way excludes the
> likely possibility that Rossi set up both experiments, leaving only "safe"
> points to monitor the input during the run. (Is that video publicly
> available, by the way? I haven't seen it.)
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>
> 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 m

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion

[Eric Walker]

On Jun 1, 2013, at 8:57, Vorl Bek  wrote:

> The moletrap people ... seem
> knowledgeable about this stuff, so even their sneering opinions
> might be worth considering.

I agree.  I think they have many interesting points to make.

I just wish discussing things with them was more like talking to normal people. 
Instead it's like trying to pin down the corners of a map that keep on rolling 
up.  It feels like an exercise in religious jurisprudence.

Eric

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

[David Roberson]

Let me make a suggestion Robert.  The linear technology company publishes a 
spice program that can be downloaded and used by the general public.  This is a 
fantastic offering and I have found it extremely accurate.  Anyone who has an 
interest in electronic modeling would be well advised to get this gem.

It took me about 15 minutes to model the performance of a simple diode 
rectified system.  I made a model which showed without any doubt that the power 
being delivered by a sine wave generator can be measured at the source by 
looking only at the fundamental current sine wave component.  Any DC currents 
that flow through this source do not make any difference to the measurement of 
source power.

Also, any harmonic currents that flow due to load distortion do not change the 
power reading at the source as I have stated several times.  If you question 
this assertion, then I think it is common courteously to take the small amount 
of time requested to prove your position.  I will make myself available to help 
you install and operate a model if you wish.

The program SwCAD III also performs FFT's of the current waveform making the 
measurement we are discussing trivial.  Let me know if you need further 
assistance.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Robert Lynn 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2013 12:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE


Don't think I have Microsim pspice lying around anywhere anymore (and non-GUI 
is very slow and clumsy if not using it frequently), it was an excellent little 
tool (or was in late 90's when I used it last) that I spent 100's of hours 
with, and is useful even for the amateur, probably still out there somewhere on 
the interwebs if hunted for.


Principle problem with using it is that it doesn't have models for the clamp 
ammeters transfer functions.  I also don't have the hours required to hunt this 
down and run it at the moment.




On 31 May 2013 22:14, MarkI-ZeroPoint  wrote:


Robert,
Dave Roberson has challenged anyone to do a spice model RE: at least one of the 
concerns over DC input power.  Do you know how to use Spice, and would you be 
willing to try to duplicate his model in order to determine if its valid, and 
if not, why?
-Mark
 

From: Robert Lynn [mailto:robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 1:26 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE


 

Another EE here (plus mechanical undergrad).  On balance I think Rossi has 
something, but I have been disappointed by too many of his slap-dash demos over 
the last two years to put my reputation on the line in backing him.  And there 
are some potentially big holes in the electrical power delivery (that have been 
discussed to death here).  I can't give him the benefit of the doubt give his 
dubious history, and It would need a more rigorously instrumented test by 
people who are more aggressively skeptical than in his tests to date for me to 
give unequivocal support.

 

On 31 May 2013 18:51, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

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  
wrote:
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  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]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[Edmund Storms]

We are taking about two different phenomenon of nature. Trying to use  
the same concepts and words to describe both results in confusion.  
Those of us who have studied cold fusion for the last 23 years have a  
definition of CF that is not up for discussion.  Please try to  
understand what I'm telling you.


Cold fusion and hot fusion require different conditions to cause their  
initiation, they have different nuclear products, and they result at  
different rates. These are facts and not a matter of arbitrary  
definition.


Cold fusion requires only a few eV for it to be initiated. In  
contrast, many keV are required to cause hot fusion at the same rate.


Cold fusion produces helium while hot fusion produces fragments of  
helium.


Cold fusion requires a solid while hot fusion occurs in plasma.

Cold fusion does not produce neutrons, while hot fusion produces many  
neutrons when the same amount of energy is released.


The term LENR is used to only describe cold fusion. It was not created  
for it to be applied to hot fusion.





On Jun 1, 2013, at 9:48 AM, Jones Beene wrote:


-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms

Jones, please do not confuse hot fusion with cold fusion. The  
difference

is in the products.

Not necessarily. Perhaps that is your definition, but as I stated -  
the
Farnsworth Fusor is LENR on the input side. Same with sonofusion -  
it is the

input that matters most - NOT the output.

The Fusor is definitely NOT hot fusion. The average plasma  
temperature is in

the range of neon lighting of CFL or CRTs.


The resulting nuclear products are the important criteria. I can  
produce hot fusion simply by hitting LiD with a hammer. Therefore the  
applied power is not important. The amount of applied power only  
changes the rate, not the resulting nuclear reactions. Because  
neutrons are made by hot fusion, it can be detected at VERY LOW rates.  
That is why only a few keV can cause a detectable rate. The applied  
voltage does not change the kind of nuclear reaction that takes place.  
We must make a clear distinction between the nuclear reaction that  
results from hot fusion and the different one that results from cold  
fusion. Your approach confuses this requirement.


Sonofusion produces neutrons, and is generally considered "cold" and  
the

Fusor is similar.


Sonofusion produces hot fusion, i.e, it apparently produces equal  
amounts of neutrons and tritium, not helium. Yes, I know the tritium  
has not been reported in this case.   The relative applied power is  
not important. I say again, the applied power ONLY CHANGES THE RATE.  
It does not change the resulting nuclear reaction.


Most observers these days label the Fusor "warm" but it in reality  
it is FAR
closer to LENR than to hot fusion - and IMO if the device is in no- 
man's

land - then LENR group should claim it, just as with sonofusion.


I don't know who you are quoting, but they have no idea what they are  
talking about.


Ed Storms


Jones

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

[Robert Lynn]

Don't think I have Microsim pspice lying around anywhere anymore (and
non-GUI is very slow and clumsy if not using it frequently), it was an
excellent little tool (or was in late 90's when I used it last) that I
spent 100's of hours with, and is useful even for the amateur, probably
still out there somewhere on the interwebs if hunted for.

Principle problem with using it is that it doesn't have models for the
clamp ammeters transfer functions.  I also don't have the hours required to
hunt this down and run it at the moment.


On 31 May 2013 22:14, MarkI-ZeroPoint  wrote:

> Robert,
>
> Dave Roberson has challenged anyone to do a spice model RE: at least one
> of the concerns over DC input power.  Do you know how to use Spice, and
> would you be willing to try to duplicate his model in order to determine if
> its valid, and if not, why?
>
> -Mark
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Robert Lynn [mailto:robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, May 31, 2013 1:26 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE
>
> ** **
>
> Another EE here (plus mechanical undergrad).  On balance I think Rossi has
> something, but I have been disappointed by too many of his slap-dash demos
> over the last two years to put my reputation on the line in backing him.
>  And there are some potentially big holes in the electrical power delivery
> (that have been discussed to death here).  I can't give him the benefit of
> the doubt give his dubious history, and It would need a more rigorously
> instrumented test by people who are more aggressively skeptical than in his
> tests to date for me to give unequivocal support.
>
> ** **
>
> On 31 May 2013 18:51, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>
> 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 
> wrote:
>
> 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 
> 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]:Defkalion

[David Roberson]

Vorl,

They do not understand this type of product at all.  They believe that the 
entire concept of LENR is not possible so they attack.  This is not the 
behavior of a true skeptic who at least will give consideration to what the 
proponents of the concept  say.

Cude and the others of this group can not accept that LENR is anything except 
for a scam.  This position explains why they 'know' that there must be some 
form of trick being propagated by Rossi.  This is much like the game of whack a 
mole.   The problem is that the moles do not remain down once hammered.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Vorl Bek 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2013 11:57 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion



The moletrap people are certainly, most of them, emotionally
adolescent, self-congratulatory clowns, but they seem
knowledgeable about this stuff, so even their sneering opinions
might be worth considering.

I am sure they would be as happy as you are to see lenr cars,
hot-water heaters, furnaces, etc.

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 11:44:56 -0400 (EDT)
David Roberson  wrote:

> 
> You must be kidding!  Those guys do not have a clue and anyone that follows 
that non sense is being fooled.  The group at moletrap has a hobby of trying to 
debunk anything that they do not understand.  You should have realized by now 
that these clowns can not admit when they are shown in error to keep up 
appearances of understanding these systems.  They know when they are found 
wrong, but fail to state it publicly.
> 
> This would be funny if it were not tragic for these groups to be possibly 
delaying the introduction of life giving discoveries such as LENR.  One day 
they 
will be shown completely wrong and will crawl under a rock to avoid blame.  
Honest skepticism is OK, but what they are doing is plain wrong.


 

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion

[Vorl Bek]

The moletrap people are certainly, most of them, emotionally
adolescent, self-congratulatory clowns, but they seem
knowledgeable about this stuff, so even their sneering opinions
might be worth considering.

I am sure they would be as happy as you are to see lenr cars,
hot-water heaters, furnaces, etc.

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 11:44:56 -0400 (EDT)
David Roberson  wrote:

> 
> You must be kidding!  Those guys do not have a clue and anyone that follows 
> that non sense is being fooled.  The group at moletrap has a hobby of trying 
> to debunk anything that they do not understand.  You should have realized by 
> now that these clowns can not admit when they are shown in error to keep up 
> appearances of understanding these systems.  They know when they are found 
> wrong, but fail to state it publicly.
> 
> This would be funny if it were not tragic for these groups to be possibly 
> delaying the introduction of life giving discoveries such as LENR.  One day 
> they will be shown completely wrong and will crawl under a rock to avoid 
> blame.  Honest skepticism is OK, but what they are doing is plain wrong.

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion

[David Roberson]

Dear Peter,

I agree with you that all the parties developing products need time to enhance 
their performance.  You asked for my opinion so I gave you my best guess of the 
current situation.  There is little doubt that my crystal ball can use polish.  
No one can know what will eventually arise to capture most of the future 
market, but everyone can guess.

It is in the best interest of the industry for competition to become vigorous 
and that looks like what is ahead in this field.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Peter Gluck 
To: VORTEX 
Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2013 11:41 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion


Dear Dave,


Let the facts speak, I think we cannot compare and or judge
such new technologies when we (you and I) have so lmited
information about those technologies. Let's Rossi and DGT
develop their generators. In my terminology both are on
the way from enhanced excess heat to a controlled commercial energy
source- and it is not an easy way. They use different approaches
and let's the faster and better one arrive first but the energy market
is insatiable.
I am using speculation with extreme care




On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:21 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Peter,
 
You have done an excellent job of listing the main issues that will need 
attention.  At this point we do not have sufficient information about the 
actual processes occurring and a good theory of how the energy is released.  
Until that occurs it will take a lot of empirical testing which seems to be 
what the two camps are doing.
 
It would appear that DGT has a process that is fuel starved for control much 
like an ICE which has been considered an analogy in recent posts.  This 
technique may well result in a large COP which has advantages.  I have to 
wonder whether or not damage is done to the active materials by the discharges. 
 If this happens then life of service may be limited.  Also, I suspect that the 
generation of the high voltages used for the process pose other problems as 
well.
 
The basic design of Rossi's ECAT appears to be simple in structure which offers 
other advantages.  The manufacturing cost should be low in his case, at least 
for the configuration that we have seen.  My biggest concern is the limitation 
of COP and the difficulty of maintaining control.
 
Dave



-Original Message-
From: Peter Gluck 
To: VORTEX 
Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2013 9:35 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion


OK, David I have the impression you are an experienced
man, what else can be done than testing the duration, solve
the material problems, and improve the system? And this was done
and will be continued in the professional way. Est modus in rebus.
Peter




On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 4:15 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

It has been apparent to me for a long time that DGT uses a different method for 
generation of heat than does Rossi.  Both techniques appear to work.


The main question is whether or not one of the processes has a significantly 
long life span before internal damage makes it require maintenance.  Of course 
the cost of manufacturing is important as well.


Dave




-Original Message-
From: Vorl Bek 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2013 7:28 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion


On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:52:44 -0400
Ron Kita  wrote:

> Greeting Vortex-L
> 
> Boring
> http://www.lenrnews.eu/

Are you kidding? This blows Rossi out of the water.

[quote]
The good-news claim is that DGT can control their multi-stage
dynamic process. We observed their fifth-generation apparatus being
ramped up in minutes instead of taking hours or days to reach
levels of heat output several times higher than equivalent energy
input of electricityAll that's needed to stop the reactor from
producing excess heat energy is to switch off those currents that
create plasma.
[/quote]

No crazy "apply more heat to make it stop" nonsense.

This sounds like the real deal.


 







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








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

[Vo]:Anomalous input energy

[Charles Francis]

A document "HIGH TEMPERATURE E-CAT MODULE Test of July 16th" can be viewed
here:

 

http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf

 

Unlike the paper of Levi et al., it doesn't appear to have been prepared for
the research community, but is perhaps meant as an internal report for use
by commercial parties interested in evaluating E-Cat technology.  How and
why it entered the public domain is unknown to me. 

 

The remarks on Page 11 are of interest in view of considerations on Vortex-l
regarding possible anomalous electrical inputs:

 

"E-Cat power supply was effected through a control box panel provided with a
kWh meter which did not allow separate evaluation of the voltage and current
supplied to the module. For this reason, a voltmeter and a clamp ammeter
were installed downstream from the control box, so as to monitor power data
independently from the panel meter. Due to the fact that panel meter data
were found to be quite discordant from those measured by the voltmeter and
the ammeter, it was decided to ignore the former and use only the voltmeter
and ammeter data recorded manually in the course of the test."

 

The nature of the discordance is apparently not described.

 

The authors add a further remark on page 15 "On the other hand, power
consumption measurements were less than optimal, because of the reported
problem with the control panel; ..."

 

 

Charles

RE: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms 

> Jones, please do not confuse hot fusion with cold fusion. The difference
is in the products. 

Not necessarily. Perhaps that is your definition, but as I stated - the
Farnsworth Fusor is LENR on the input side. Same with sonofusion - it is the
input that matters most - NOT the output.

The Fusor is definitely NOT hot fusion. The average plasma temperature is in
the range of neon lighting of CFL or CRTs. 

Sonofusion produces neutrons, and is generally considered "cold" and the
Fusor is similar.

Most observers these days label the Fusor "warm" but it in reality it is FAR
closer to LENR than to hot fusion - and IMO if the device is in no-man's
land - then LENR group should claim it, just as with sonofusion.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion

[David Roberson]

Applying more heat to make it stop is not what he does.  He ceases to apply the 
excess drive heat to make it stop.  This is 180 degrees different.  The extra 
drive power to the resistors is added to the internal power during the time the 
device is heating up and hence gaining temperature.  When that source is 
quickly removed, the positive feedback direction becomes reversed and the 
device begins to cool.

You need to understand the process before calling it stupid.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2013 10:28 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion


Vorl Bek  wrote:
 

No crazy "apply more heat to make it stop" nonsense.



Why is this nonsense?


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion

[David Roberson]

You must be kidding!  Those guys do not have a clue and anyone that follows 
that non sense is being fooled.  The group at moletrap has a hobby of trying to 
debunk anything that they do not understand.  You should have realized by now 
that these clowns can not admit when they are shown in error to keep up 
appearances of understanding these systems.  They know when they are found 
wrong, but fail to state it publicly.

This would be funny if it were not tragic for these groups to be possibly 
delaying the introduction of life giving discoveries such as LENR.  One day 
they will be shown completely wrong and will crawl under a rock to avoid blame. 
 Honest skepticism is OK, but what they are doing is plain wrong.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Vorl Bek 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2013 10:39 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion


On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 10:28:03 -0400
Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Vorl Bek  wrote:
> 
> 
> > No crazy "apply more heat to make it stop" nonsense.
> >
> 
> Why is this nonsense?

I don't have the eloquence to explain, but if you ask over at
moletrap.co.uk, or wavewatching.net/fringe, they can clear it up
for you.


 

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Dave,

Let the facts speak, I think we cannot compare and or judge
such new technologies when we (you and I) have so lmited
information about those technologies. Let's Rossi and DGT
develop their generators. In my terminology both are on
the way from enhanced excess heat to a controlled commercial energy
source- and it is not an easy way. They use different approaches
and let's the faster and better one arrive first but the energy market
is insatiable.
I am using speculation with extreme care


On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:21 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Peter,
>
> You have done an excellent job of listing the main issues that will need
> attention.  At this point we do not have sufficient information about the
> actual processes occurring and a good theory of how the energy is
> released.  Until that occurs it will take a lot of empirical testing which
> seems to be what the two camps are doing.
>
> It would appear that DGT has a process that is fuel starved for control
> much like an ICE which has been considered an analogy in recent posts.
> This technique may well result in a large COP which has advantages.  I have
> to wonder whether or not damage is done to the active materials by the
> discharges.  If this happens then life of service may be limited.  Also, I
> suspect that the generation of the high voltages used for the process pose
> other problems as well.
>
> The basic design of Rossi's ECAT appears to be simple in structure which
> offers other advantages.  The manufacturing cost should be low in his case,
> at least for the configuration that we have seen.  My biggest concern is
> the limitation of COP and the difficulty of maintaining control.
>
> Dave
>  -Original Message-
> From: Peter Gluck 
> To: VORTEX 
> Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2013 9:35 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion
>
>  OK, David I have the impression you are an experienced
> man, what else can be done than testing the duration, solve
> the material problems, and improve the system? And this was done
> and will be continued in the professional way. Est modus in rebus.
> Peter
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 4:15 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> It has been apparent to me for a long time that DGT uses a different
>> method for generation of heat than does Rossi.  Both techniques appear to
>> work.
>>
>>  The main question is whether or not one of the processes has a
>> significantly long life span before internal damage makes it require
>> maintenance.  Of course the cost of manufacturing is important as well.
>>
>>  Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Vorl Bek 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2013 7:28 am
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion
>>
>>  On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:52:44 -0400
>> Ron Kita  wrote:
>>
>> > Greeting Vortex-L
>> >
>> > Boring
>> > http://www.lenrnews.eu/
>>
>> Are you kidding? This blows Rossi out of the water.
>>
>> [quote]
>> The good-news claim is that DGT can control their multi-stage
>> dynamic process. We observed their fifth-generation apparatus being
>> ramped up in minutes instead of taking hours or days to reach
>> levels of heat output several times higher than equivalent energy
>> input of electricityAll that's needed to stop the reactor from
>> producing excess heat energy is to switch off those currents that
>> create plasma.
>> [/quote]
>>
>> No crazy "apply more heat to make it stop" nonsense.
>>
>> This sounds like the real deal.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>  --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>



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

Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[Edmund Storms]

Jones, please do not confuse hot fusion with cold fusion. The  
difference is in the products. Cold fusion does not produce neutrons  
and energetic radiation. Hot fusion produce neutrons and radiation  
because the conditions require the nuclear product to fragment.  This  
fragmentation does not take place during cold fusion. In addition,  
cold fusion takes places only in a lattice without any additional  
energy being applied. Hot fusion occurs in plasma where high energy is  
available, as is the case with the Farnsworth Fusor.


The Farnsworth Fusor produces hot fusion, but at a low level.  It  
works at an apparently low energy because the process is efficient and  
the real energy of the deutrons is not properly calculated. There is  
no threshold level. The rate is simply roughly related to the log of  
the energy and becomes undetectable at low energy.


Causing hot fusion is trivial. Anyone can do this with high voltage  
and some D2 gas.  The challenge is to produce more energy than is  
applied. This has not been done using hot fusion using any of the  
methods. In contrast, cold fusion has accomplished this on many  
occasions, although with difficulty and at low level.  These are facts  
and not a matter of opinion. Please try to understand the difference  
between these two phenomenon. Your opinion is important and needs to  
be correct.


Ed Storms
On Jun 1, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

In the category of "truth is stranger than fiction" here is an  
amazing story

of "impersonation" on several levels

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming-teen-who-built-fusion-reacto
r-disqualified-from-science-fair/article_15dda5ab-b68e-5fa7- 
a13f-7b30d22f850

f.html

A Wyoming high school student builds a nuclear reactor in his dad's  
garage -
and then is disqualified from the International Science and  
Engineering Fair
on a technicality. The beginning of a conspiracy theory? LENR  
suppression?


His problem could have been: impersonating Philo - :-)

Anyway the Farnsworth Fusor is a fusion reactor that many high  
school level

students have built, including Conrad.

It involves adding electrical energy in order to achieve LENR  
reactions.
Sound familiar, Joshua? The "mainstream" wants to call it "hot"  
fusion but
it is not. The gainful reactions are fusion but technically not hot  
or cold,

and yes they are definitely low energy - warm not hot.

The published threshold level for D+D fusion is variously listed at  
around
1.4 MeV up to 2.2 MeV and yet the Fusor average plasma energy level  
is less
than 1 eV - so it truly is LENR on the input side. It is definitely  
NOT in

any way hot fusion. Since it is orders of magnitude lower input.

Since there are neutrons emitted, no one doubts the reaction is  
nuclear.

Plasma LENR reaction produce neutrons but the same does not happen in
condensed matter LENR.

BTW Conrad is also a YT! Jockey. His channel is replete with his  
experiments


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4Sjg2aNw6w

Jones

Re: [Vo]:On deception

[Alain Sepeda]

2013/6/1 Joshua Cude 
>
>
> Nothing against Elforsk or NI, but is there a recent example of a
> revolution in science that was adopted first by instrument makers and
> energy companies. And interest from NI is not surprising; it's a potential
> market.
>
>
What was the industry of Lumière brother before inventing Cinema ?
and pasteur ?
and Wright brothers ?
and Nokia before mobile?
the job of einstein, and Edison ?

who first accepted Wright brothers plan existed, and who denied last ?

there are adult courses on innovation in corporations... Sure they talk of
that ! (at least ou professor, Norbert Alter teach us that).

Re: [Vo]:Jeane Manning about Defkalion, second sending

[Peter Gluck]

it will be a demo, do not worry
Peter


On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Alain Sepeda  wrote:

> the only new point I notice is that
> - they rent a lab in University of BC
> - they think about "audio visual material" for NIWeek2013...
> -> I was enthusiastic about the "demo", and if it is only video it is less
> an event
> it confirm the paper for iccf18
>
>
> 2013/6/1 Peter Gluck 
>
>> My dear friends,
>>
>> I have just published:
>>
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/05/jeane-manning-writes-about-defkalion.html
>>
>> The Canadian New Energy writer Jeane Manning discovers and describes the
>> new paradigm of LENR+ - and I am also trying to describe LENR+ for you,
>> inviting you to contribute to its development
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>> Cluj, Romania
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion

[Daniel Rocha]

There is another one: Rossi failed until now to achieve either reliable
control of the ecat at 6COP or the means to do it whenever he wants and
DGTG succeed..


2013/6/1 James Bowery 

> What is nonsense here is the idea that Defkalion came up with a technology
> independent of Rossi.  It seems the plausibilities are that Defkalion has:
>
>
>- nothing because Rossi has nothing.
>- nothing because their attempt to replicate Rossi was a failure.
>- something because their attempt to replicate Rossi succeeded.
>
> Now given the plausibility that they succeeded, it may also be plausible
> that they improved on Rossi, but let's not kid ourselves about Defkalion
> being the only company in the world to have a product coming on the market
> to compete with Rossi coinciding with being the first company to have had a
> manufacturing contract with Rossi.
>
>
>
-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:A visit at Defkalion, Jeane Manning about the new paradigm

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Steven,

Yes, the things are REALLY very different from
what we have believed so many years.
Please try to put flesh on the LENR+ skeleton.
Very few colleagues will enjoy this and in order
to get Useful LENR, many of our most sacred
idea cows will go to the scientific slaughterhouse.
You well know what are doing those ugly facts
with the beautiful theories.
Peter


On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 5:42 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> From Peter:
>
> ** **
>
> > I have just published:
>
> >
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/05/jeane-manning-writes-about-defkalion.html
> 
>
> >** **
>
> > The Canadian New Energy writer Jeane Manning discovers and describes
>
> > the new paradigm of LENR+ - and I am also trying to describe LENR+
>
> > for you, inviting you to contribute to its development
>
> >** **
>
> > Peter
>
> ** **
>
> I was not aware of Jean Manning’s site. Thanks for the tip, Peter..
>
> ** **
>
> See:
>
> ** **
>
>
> http://changingpower.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Defkalion-2-page-JM-Article-100-3.pdf
> 
>
> ** **
>
> Some interesting excerpts:
>
> ** **
>
> Page 16, 3rd column, about in the middle:
>
> ** **
>
> > The Hyperion doesn’t burn fuel; it creates a
>
> > reaction involving atoms’ nuclei but not any
>
> > nuclear reaction known by nuclear physicists.
>
> > Instead it’s said to be somewhere between nu-
>
> > clear and chemical energy. Bottom line: a 45-
>
> > watt Hyperion unit tested in Greece ran contin-
>
> > uously for six months on less than three grams
>
> > of powdered nickel and two liters of hydrogen.
>
> ** **
>
> And this on page 58:
>
> ** **
>
> > Nature’s clues were also
>
> > recognized; LENR-type events happen in
>
> > the sun’s corona and possibly in Earth’s
>
> > crust and in volcanic explosions.
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> "...somewhere between nuclear and chemical energy." And "...the sun's
> corona..."  Hmmm sounds a little bit like portions of Dr. Mill's (BLP)
> CQM theory might be weaseling its way into the mysterious LENR mixture. I
> wonder if DGT process produces hydrinos. I suppose nobody has had hankering
> to try to detect them. ;-)
>
> ** **
>
> Ah, wait! DGT has come up with a definition of their own, according to
> Jean Manning!
>
> ** **
>
> > Defkalion’s terminology makes sense;
>
> > instead of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
>
> > (LENR), the company would prefer to say Heat
>
> > Energy from Nuclei Interactions (HENI).
>
> ** **
>
> Well... at lest they aren't nixing "CF", like someone we know.
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> svjart.OrionWorks.com
>
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
> tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
>



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

Re: [Vo]:Jeane Manning about Defkalion, second sending

[Alain Sepeda]

the only new point I notice is that
- they rent a lab in University of BC
- they think about "audio visual material" for NIWeek2013...
-> I was enthusiastic about the "demo", and if it is only video it is less
an event
it confirm the paper for iccf18


2013/6/1 Peter Gluck 

> My dear friends,
>
> I have just published:
>
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/05/jeane-manning-writes-about-defkalion.html
>
> The Canadian New Energy writer Jeane Manning discovers and describes the
> new paradigm of LENR+ - and I am also trying to describe LENR+ for you,
> inviting you to contribute to its development
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion

[David Roberson]

Peter,

You have done an excellent job of listing the main issues that will need 
attention.  At this point we do not have sufficient information about the 
actual processes occurring and a good theory of how the energy is released.  
Until that occurs it will take a lot of empirical testing which seems to be 
what the two camps are doing.

It would appear that DGT has a process that is fuel starved for control much 
like an ICE which has been considered an analogy in recent posts.  This 
technique may well result in a large COP which has advantages.  I have to 
wonder whether or not damage is done to the active materials by the discharges. 
 If this happens then life of service may be limited.  Also, I suspect that the 
generation of the high voltages used for the process pose other problems as 
well.

The basic design of Rossi's ECAT appears to be simple in structure which offers 
other advantages.  The manufacturing cost should be low in his case, at least 
for the configuration that we have seen.  My biggest concern is the limitation 
of COP and the difficulty of maintaining control.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Peter Gluck 
To: VORTEX 
Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2013 9:35 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion


OK, David I have the impression you are an experienced
man, what else can be done than testing the duration, solve
the material problems, and improve the system? And this was done
and will be continued in the professional way. Est modus in rebus.
Peter




On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 4:15 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

It has been apparent to me for a long time that DGT uses a different method for 
generation of heat than does Rossi.  Both techniques appear to work.


The main question is whether or not one of the processes has a significantly 
long life span before internal damage makes it require maintenance.  Of course 
the cost of manufacturing is important as well.


Dave




-Original Message-
From: Vorl Bek 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2013 7:28 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion


On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:52:44 -0400
Ron Kita  wrote:

> Greeting Vortex-L
> 
> Boring
> http://www.lenrnews.eu/

Are you kidding? This blows Rossi out of the water.

[quote]
The good-news claim is that DGT can control their multi-stage
dynamic process. We observed their fifth-generation apparatus being
ramped up in minutes instead of taking hours or days to reach
levels of heat output several times higher than equivalent energy
input of electricityAll that's needed to stop the reactor from
producing excess heat energy is to switch off those currents that
create plasma.
[/quote]

No crazy "apply more heat to make it stop" nonsense.

This sounds like the real deal.


 







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

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion

[James Bowery]

What is nonsense here is the idea that Defkalion came up with a technology
independent of Rossi.  It seems the plausibilities are that Defkalion has:


   - nothing because Rossi has nothing.
   - nothing because their attempt to replicate Rossi was a failure.
   - something because their attempt to replicate Rossi succeeded.

Now given the plausibility that they succeeded, it may also be plausible
that they improved on Rossi, but let's not kid ourselves about Defkalion
being the only company in the world to have a product coming on the market
to compete with Rossi coinciding with being the first company to have had a
manufacturing contract with Rossi.

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Vorl Bek  wrote:
>
>
>> No crazy "apply more heat to make it stop" nonsense.
>>
>
> Why is this nonsense?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion

[Vorl Bek]

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 10:50:12 -0400
Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Vorl Bek  wrote:
> 
> >
> > > Why is this nonsense?
> >
> > I don't have the eloquence to explain, but if you ask over at
> > moletrap.co.uk, or wavewatching.net/fringe, they can clear it up
> > for you.
> >
> 
> Where, specifically, in wavewatching.net? 

I would suggest you ask at
http://wavewatching.net/fringe/the-hot-cat-report
but I have just done that so you need only check it for answers,
or I can post them here. 



> They reference Krivit, who is not
> a credible source of information on physics, in my opinion.
> 
> The effects of heat and the use of heat to control chemical and nuclear
> reactions is well established.

[Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy

[Jones Beene]

In the category of "truth is stranger than fiction" here is an amazing story
of "impersonation" on several levels

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming-teen-who-built-fusion-reacto
r-disqualified-from-science-fair/article_15dda5ab-b68e-5fa7-a13f-7b30d22f850
f.html

A Wyoming high school student builds a nuclear reactor in his dad's garage -
and then is disqualified from the International Science and Engineering Fair
on a technicality. The beginning of a conspiracy theory? LENR suppression?

His problem could have been: impersonating Philo - :-) 

Anyway the Farnsworth Fusor is a fusion reactor that many high school level
students have built, including Conrad.

It involves adding electrical energy in order to achieve LENR reactions.
Sound familiar, Joshua? The "mainstream" wants to call it "hot" fusion but
it is not. The gainful reactions are fusion but technically not hot or cold,
and yes they are definitely low energy - warm not hot. 

The published threshold level for D+D fusion is variously listed at around
1.4 MeV up to 2.2 MeV and yet the Fusor average plasma energy level is less
than 1 eV - so it truly is LENR on the input side. It is definitely NOT in
any way hot fusion. Since it is orders of magnitude lower input.

Since there are neutrons emitted, no one doubts the reaction is nuclear.
Plasma LENR reaction produce neutrons but the same does not happen in
condensed matter LENR.

BTW Conrad is also a YT! Jockey. His channel is replete with his experiments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4Sjg2aNw6w

Jones


<>

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion

[Jed Rothwell]

Akira Shirakawa  wrote:


> That wasn't a rumor, it's what Xanthoulis supposedly told to Sterling
> Allan a couple months ago:
>

Ah, thanks. You do a good job of keeping track of things!



> There could have been a misunderstanding regarding this, however.
>

I suppose it is a change of plans.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion

[Jed Rothwell]

Vorl Bek  wrote:

>
> > Why is this nonsense?
>
> I don't have the eloquence to explain, but if you ask over at
> moletrap.co.uk, or wavewatching.net/fringe, they can clear it up
> for you.
>

Where, specifically, in wavewatching.net? They reference Krivit, who is not
a credible source of information on physics, in my opinion.

The effects of heat and the use of heat to control chemical and nuclear
reactions is well established.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:A visit at Defkalion, Jeane Manning about the new paradigm

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Peter:

 

> I have just published:

>
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/05/jeane-manning-writes-about-defkalion
.html

> 

> The Canadian New Energy writer Jeane Manning discovers and describes

> the new paradigm of LENR+ - and I am also trying to describe LENR+

> for you, inviting you to contribute to its development

> 

> Peter

 

I was not aware of Jean Manning's site. Thanks for the tip, Peter..

 

See:

 

http://changingpower.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Defkalion-2-page-JM-Arti
cle-100-3.pdf

 

Some interesting excerpts:

 

Page 16, 3rd column, about in the middle:

 

> The Hyperion doesn't burn fuel; it creates a

> reaction involving atoms' nuclei but not any

> nuclear reaction known by nuclear physicists.

> Instead it's said to be somewhere between nu-

> clear and chemical energy. Bottom line: a 45-

> watt Hyperion unit tested in Greece ran contin-

> uously for six months on less than three grams

> of powdered nickel and two liters of hydrogen.

 

And this on page 58:

 

> Nature's clues were also

> recognized; LENR-type events happen in

> the sun's corona and possibly in Earth's

> crust and in volcanic explosions.

 

 

"...somewhere between nuclear and chemical energy." And "...the sun's
corona..."  Hmmm sounds a little bit like portions of Dr. Mill's (BLP)
CQM theory might be weaseling its way into the mysterious LENR mixture. I
wonder if DGT process produces hydrinos. I suppose nobody has had hankering
to try to detect them. ;-)

 

Ah, wait! DGT has come up with a definition of their own, according to Jean
Manning!

 

> Defkalion's terminology makes sense;

> instead of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions

> (LENR), the company would prefer to say Heat

> Energy from Nuclei Interactions (HENI).

 

Well... at lest they aren't nixing "CF", like someone we know.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion

[Vorl Bek]

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 10:28:03 -0400
Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Vorl Bek  wrote:
> 
> 
> > No crazy "apply more heat to make it stop" nonsense.
> >
> 
> Why is this nonsense?

I don't have the eloquence to explain, but if you ask over at
moletrap.co.uk, or wavewatching.net/fringe, they can clear it up
for you.

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2013-06-01 16:20, Jed Rothwell wrote:


I heard rumors that they were going to have an actual demonstration at
the NI conference. Their previous presentations and audiovisual material
has not been impressive in my opinion. Perhaps I missed something, but
as far as I know they have not presented quantitative data or
calibration curves. Until they do I am not inclined to take the claims
seriously.


That wasn't a rumor, it's what Xanthoulis supposedly told to Sterling 
Allan a couple months ago:


http://pesn.com/2013/04/04/9602290_Defkalion-laying-low-preparing-to-make-a-big-splash/

There could have been a misunderstanding regarding this, however.

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion

[Jed Rothwell]

Vorl Bek  wrote:


> No crazy "apply more heat to make it stop" nonsense.
>

Why is this nonsense?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion

[Jed Rothwell]

I do not understand why this is in image format, but anyway, it says:

"[Defkalion] will present a paper on July 21-27 International Conference on
Condensed Matter Nuclear Science at the University of Missouri and are
strongly considering presenting audiovisual material during the August 5-8
national instruments conference in Austin, Texas."

I heard rumors that they were going to have an actual demonstration at the
NI conference. Their previous presentations and audiovisual material has
not been impressive in my opinion. Perhaps I missed something, but as far
as I know they have not presented quantitative data or calibration curves.
Until they do I am not inclined to take the claims seriously.

- Jed

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

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

  But the ecat just uses electricity to make heat. So if the ecat already
> makes heat, it should self-sustain on that. Like combustion.
>
> ** **
>
> An ICE is self-sustaining. The ecat needs external power. They're
> different. Your example is wrong, no matter how much you wriggle.
>
> ** **
>
> Yes it was a poor analogy, but so what? Cude’s analysis is wrong no matter
> how much he obfuscates and by jumping on a poor analogy – he does not gain
> credibility.
>

Forgive me, but I rather like the analogy.  That Joshua is studiously
avoiding seeing how it applies does not make it a bad analogy.  Note that
its limitation -- that in a normal ICE the motion of the shaft can easily
be used to recapture the energy, which is different from the case of the
E-Cat, is a good and relevant limitation in this context.  It improves the
relevance of the analogy.  It shows that, given the possibility that the
E-Cat may require a secondary source of power (let's call it requirement
1), you have to do some fancy footwork in this particular case (Stirling
engine, etc.) in order to recapture the energy that was not required in the
case of the ICE (let's call this requirement 2).

It's not clear that requirement 1 applies in the case of the E-Cat; perhaps
it doesn't.  This is what Joshua is pointing out.  I'm saying that the
possibility exists, however (as in the case of the ICE), and that if we
assume for the sake of argument that it does, then requirement 2 also
applies in this instance.  I'm going further and saying that requirement 1
is quite common.  These things are all I need to make my point that Rossi's
need for an external control system is not outlandish; on the contrary,
it's quite reasonable.

Eric

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

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

No, you don't. Plenty of ICEs (outboards, motorcycles) run without
> batteries. Car engines would run without batteries too, unless they use
> some kind of electronic fault detection that shuts it down without a
> battery. But the spark doesn't need a battery. And even with a battery,
> it's still self-sustaining.  It's not a valid point.
>

It's a simple point -- some engines (many engines; most engines?) require a
secondary source of power to control the cycle.  That source of power in
this case is different from the one being used for work.  You discredit
your objectivity by failing to acknowledge this point.  It does not matter
to me that you do this.  I don't think it matters to you that you do this.
 It's all stimulus and response at this point.  The name of the game is to
get the last word in.  It demonstrates to any onlookers that the purpose
here is not to try to understand what might be going on with the E-Cat,
it's to engage in endless argument.

Eric

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

[Jones Beene]

 

From: Joshua Cude 

 

Eric Walker wrote:

 

the analogy only goes so far, in that it is harder in Rossi's case to
recapture the heat and channel it back into the secondary source.

 

But the ecat just uses electricity to make heat. So if the ecat already
makes heat, it should self-sustain on that. Like combustion.

 

An ICE is self-sustaining. The ecat needs external power. They're different.
Your example is wrong, no matter how much you wriggle.

 

Yes it was a poor analogy, but so what? Cude's analysis is wrong no matter
how much he obfuscates and by jumping on a poor analogy - he does not gain
credibility. 

 

He would rather talk and invent imaginary problems, than listen and learn.
Yes - the ICE is not a good analogy to ECat but in contrast ICF is an
adequate metaphor - which is why he avoids ICF of course. Subcritical
fission is also a good metaphor but Cude is not interested in actually
finding truth, and he has no interest in addressing adequate metaphors.

 

The ECat can indeed be self-sustaining in single or in multiple units,
according to the inventor. The electrical input provides control and
prevents runaway by permitting a lower mass of active material. 

 

Rossi uses electricity to make heat as part of ongoing phase-change cycling
process known as recalescence; but the gain comes during cooling, not during
heating. The applied heat only insures that the next cycle is primed, but
that level of make-up heat can be applied from another ECat unit if
necessary, or from natural gas, which he has demonstrated - but control is
easier to handle and switch via electrical current.

 

Apparently phase-change cycling is too difficult a topic for Cude to
understand.

 

I will try to explain it once again. 

 

Recalescence happens on cooling. It is a sudden rise in temperature at the
expense of internal reordering of the active metal (nickel-hydrogen based).
The internal reordering causes absorbed hydrogen to give up LENR energy in
some way - which is the presently unknown quasi-nuclear feature of LENR.

 

The phase-change energy (Gibbs free energy) itself - having caused some
temporal gain - must then be fully compensated by heat from somewhere, if
the reaction is to continue. It can be compensated internally without added
electricity, if one is willing to give up control by having a large amount
of reactant which pushes safety limits, but it is advisable to control the
reaction by having less reactant and using applied electrical heat.

 

In any given cycle, when operating with a low mass of reactant - the "excess
energy" from  hydrogen LENR gain alone may be insufficient in any single
time-frame, even if over hours there is an average net excess of impressive
proportions. Rossi may claim 6-1 but the evidence favors a lower ratio. At
any rate, and for control purposes, additional externally available heat
simply guarantees that the next cycle proceeds in a regular fashion.
Technically electrical input is not needed after startup.

 


Electrical input is used to control the process by applying bursts of heat
faster and more regularly than the internal gain will permit but without the
risk of runaway.  This is not a particularly difficult concept to grasp for
anyone with an open mind - who seeks to learn, instead of being afflicted
with pathological negativity, combined with a misguided agenda to impede
progress.

 

Jones

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion

[Peter Gluck]

OK, David I have the impression you are an experienced
man, what else can be done than testing the duration, solve
the material problems, and improve the system? And this was done
and will be continued in the professional way. Est modus in rebus.
Peter


On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 4:15 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> It has been apparent to me for a long time that DGT uses a different
> method for generation of heat than does Rossi.  Both techniques appear to
> work.
>
>  The main question is whether or not one of the processes has a
> significantly long life span before internal damage makes it require
> maintenance.  Of course the cost of manufacturing is important as well.
>
>  Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Vorl Bek 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2013 7:28 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion
>
>  On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:52:44 -0400
> Ron Kita  wrote:
>
> > Greeting Vortex-L
> >
> > Boring
> > http://www.lenrnews.eu/
>
> Are you kidding? This blows Rossi out of the water.
>
> [quote]
> The good-news claim is that DGT can control their multi-stage
> dynamic process. We observed their fifth-generation apparatus being
> ramped up in minutes instead of taking hours or days to reach
> levels of heat output several times higher than equivalent energy
> input of electricityAll that's needed to stop the reactor from
> producing excess heat energy is to switch off those currents that
> create plasma.
> [/quote]
>
> No crazy "apply more heat to make it stop" nonsense.
>
> This sounds like the real deal.
>
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion

[David Roberson]

It has been apparent to me for a long time that DGT uses a different method for 
generation of heat than does Rossi.  Both techniques appear to work.


The main question is whether or not one of the processes has a significantly 
long life span before internal damage makes it require maintenance.  Of course 
the cost of manufacturing is important as well.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Vorl Bek 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2013 7:28 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion


On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:52:44 -0400
Ron Kita  wrote:

> Greeting Vortex-L
> 
> Boring
> http://www.lenrnews.eu/

Are you kidding? This blows Rossi out of the water.

[quote]
The good-news claim is that DGT can control their multi-stage
dynamic process. We observed their fifth-generation apparatus being
ramped up in minutes instead of taking hours or days to reach
levels of heat output several times higher than equivalent energy
input of electricityAll that's needed to stop the reactor from
producing excess heat energy is to switch off those currents that
create plasma.
[/quote]

No crazy "apply more heat to make it stop" nonsense.

This sounds like the real deal.


 

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

[David Roberson]

Josh, once you understand how the ECAT uses heat for control you will realize 
that the heat can not be applied continuously.  Please take time to study what 
I have been and am currently writing so that you will not keep making this 
statement when it is not accurate.


Remember, continuous heat input to the ECAT results in thermal run away.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2013 6:54 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question



On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:








the analogy only goes so far, in that it is harder in Rossi's case to recapture 
the heat and channel it back into the secondary source.









But the ecat just uses electricity to make heat. So if the ecat already makes 
heat, it should self-sustain on that. Like combustion.


An ICE is self-sustaining. The ecat needs external power. They're different. 
Your example is wrong, no matter how much you wriggle.

Re: [Vo]:On deception

[Yamali Yamali]

Jed wrote: "No, it was their idea."

How do you know that? And in case this is one of those "oh well, they didn't 
say so but to me it sounds obvious that..." assumptions of yours: why on earth 
would anybody who has to write a paper like that bind their own hands behind 
their backs with such a primitive and counter intuitive approach to data 
logging?

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion

[Peter Gluck]

See please what says Yiannis about Rossi. It is place
for many players on the market of energy and it is not about competition
but coopetition
Peter


On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Vorl Bek  wrote:

> On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:52:44 -0400
> Ron Kita  wrote:
>
> > Greeting Vortex-L
> >
> > Boring
> > http://www.lenrnews.eu/
>
> Are you kidding? This blows Rossi out of the water.
>
> [quote]
> The good-news claim is that DGT can control their multi-stage
> dynamic process. We observed their fifth-generation apparatus being
> ramped up in minutes instead of taking hours or days to reach
> levels of heat output several times higher than equivalent energy
> input of electricityAll that's needed to stop the reactor from
> producing excess heat energy is to switch off those currents that
> create plasma.
> [/quote]
>
> No crazy "apply more heat to make it stop" nonsense.
>
> This sounds like the real deal.
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:On deception

[John Berry]

Actually thinking about it. the reason these people reject big new thing is
because the have very small minds/vision, this is why they reject anything
big.

That is not the same as stupid, but literally they have very real limits to
them.

They reject these things because they want to keep a very simple and
reductionist view of reality that is as minimalistic as possible.

And as such no wonder they can't accept new information.

Ok, maybe I am getting a little carried away, but then again maybe not.

Think, there are both spiritual and other 'energy' based beliefs and
systems and I now think that there will be evidence for many of these held
within these systems.
And there are scientific belief systems.

Both have large numbers of followers.
Some of the spiritual types do reject scientific knowledge, but as far as I
can tell most don't.

Many belief systems are quite expansive .vs the reductionism in skeptics.

Of course there are scientists with spiritual beliefs etc.
But they tend not to be the skeptics of course.

I can understand the attraction of a simple model for the world, it is more
attractive when trying to understand everything.

I am reminded of these immortal words: There are more things in heaven and
earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

I now know the aether is real, a fluid aether at that.
I was aware of the concept long before I accepted it, but it seemed too
complex so I outright rejected it out of distaste.
It was too complex and unattractive to tackle.

So I can appreciate wishing reality was a bit simpler than I eventually
found it to be, and I find looking back at those words above saying them to
my past self.

Except I don't call myself Horatio.

John