Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
A visual demonstration would impress the masses. Use a real ecat and a dummy ecat with the same input power to inflate a balloon The real ecat will inflate the balloon faster. Harry On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Notice I did not say flow calorimetry was needed. Just heating a container of water - pool, spa, teapot I have thought about that. During the initial warm up phase you would get an interesting result. After that, when it reaches a steady state, you would maintain the entire body of water at a certain temperature for weeks. The body (the bath and its container) would be losing heat into the surroundings. It amounts to more or less the same thing they are doing now, with a bigger body and more thermal mass, plus evaporation and other complicated stuff. I do not see an advantage. A spa or a pond is not a simple thing to model. You do not need to measure flow rates if the effect is significant. You don't need to measure it now. You have to depend on Drs. Stefan and Boltzmann being right. As for convection, you just gotta look up the numbers in an HVAC textbook. It avoids all the % steam questions, the emissivity numbers, the air flow, the cameras.. It does not avoid the steam question! On the contrary, with a body water you are right back to that problem, with evaporation. There are no serious questions about emissivity, air flow, or cameras. The emissivity can be set to 1 (worst case). The air flow comes out of an engineering textbook. We know the camera and emissivity are right because the thermocouple confirms them. All questions are addressed and all are closed. It is about the simplest measure of heat. The present method is the simplest. Using a body of hot water heated to terminal temperature would be more complicated. The present method is not the most accurate but I doubt that a large body of water would be more accurate. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:42 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with some background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate 19th century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would cost a couple hundred bucks maybe Obviously if this is true then the $20,000 budget for the E-Cat HT test available to Levi et al (2013) would have been more than adequate. Clearly, if this estimate is accurate then it is easy to understand why a skeptic might get emotionally committed to discounting the report: I didn't see the claim, but I suspect some hyperbole was involved. But I would be skeptical of a $20,000 budget when a technology of this value was being validated, and you can buy tube furnaces off the shelf with water cooling in the range of 10k. Then the only thing that might be necessary for good calorimetry might be additional insulation.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:38 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: OK, I'll ask the question a different way: Is there any explanation offered, even if only in an interview, by the researchers as to why they did not use normal calorimetry? In the December run, the experiment was already running, so there was clearly no opportunity. They did not change very much for the March run, so the most likely explanation is that the option was not available, since it would clearly involve some modification to the ecat, but this is obviously speculation.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: They used perfectly normal calorimetry. Normal to me means common. But I have not seen calorimetry performed with IR thermometry. Do you have some references for where it has been used? There is not the slightest chance output is any less than 3 times input. The thing about that method is that it's indirect, and there is no natural way to integrate the output energy. That gives opportunities for deception. If you actually heat a large volume of water, the heat had to come from somewhere, so that's more unequivocal. And if that's done with a clearly isolated device, the evidence would be much stronger. Then, if you take it public, with unrestricted scrutiny, you've got a revolution. I do not think it would be good idea to put reactor in an enclosure where you cannot keep an eye on it. The previous one melted, so I think they should leave it in the open air. That's ridiculous. You keep an eye on it with thermocouples. And if you have a cooling system, you have far more opportunity to do something about it if it gets too hot. If they were to build something like an enclosure with flowing water tubes around the outside, the skeptics would find a hundred reasons to doubt those results. They would say that Rossi hid something in the box, or the flow rate is not correct, or the thermocouples are placed incorrectly, or this, or that, or an onion. Not if the water were collected to integrate the heat. And insulation is not heavy, so exceeding the entire device's weight in chemical fuel should be easy. But yes, open public scrutiny, or accessibility to the device by *any* qualified scientist would be necessary to allay all suspicions. It does not take much to set off the skeptics. Cude sees one extra wire with three-phase electricity and he calls that a rat's nest of wires. One wire! You're mixing objections up. The rat's nest of wires is possible with single-phase too. The reality is that it is a rat's nest from the pictures. The 3-phase involves more complicated measurement, and additional wiring. I don't know if there was a neutral or ground from the mains, but if there were, then it's more than one wire, and 3 times the measurements, and also more processing -- and for no advantage. No doubt he would call a flow calorimeter a rat's nest of cooling water pipes and way too many thermocouples. If you circulate the water from a 1000L tank, you wouldn't need anything more than a mercury thermometer to verify the heat produced. Thermocouples could be used to regulate things, but it would not affect the actual amount of heat needed to heat a volume of water. If you think that the ecat has a practical future, then surely an unequivocal demonstration should be possible.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Dennis, I don't think it would be quite so easy for Rossi to perform the experiment that you propose. It's amazing the excuses true believers contrive to explain why inferior experiments were used. If the thing is to be useful, it should at least be able to heat water. The recent tests were conducted in the open air and the thermal resistance that the ECAT works into has a very strong influence upon its operational parameters. But the thermal resistance is completely out of the experimenters control, and is affected by people walking by. Some kind of water cooling could be designed to remove heat at exactly the same rate, and would be easily controllable. How is that not preferable? If Rossi were to place his device into a tank of water much more heat would be conducted away from the core. That depends on how it is coupled to the water. But it doesn't need to placed into a tank. You can just circulate cooling water through conduits inside an enclosure. These things are already available off the shelf, and for much higher temperatures. This loss of internal temperature likely would prevent the positive feedback from operating properly. I suspect that he went to a lot of trouble adjusting the parameters so that the experiment would be successful in the open air instead of the typical connection methods planned. But why? It has practically no use in that configuration. To exploit it, especially to make electricity, requires some kind of heat exchange, usually with a fluid. Many skeptics insist upon a simple experiment where the ECAT is naked and is easy to observe as protection against scams. He has made a great deal of effort to accommodate their wishes and they are still not satisfied. Do you honestly think that Cude and the others would not come up with some other excuses to claim that the test was not accurate if set up as you suggest? I am convinced that there is no possible way to convince them that his device is real. If you think skeptics can't be convinced, how do you think it can ever be made practical? A system that heats a volume of water would be pretty convincing. That would leave only the input side to worry about. A generator with finite fuel would be good, as long as open scrutiny were permitted, but using controlled cooling should make it possible to self-sustain, and then no input at all would be necessary. Heating enough water in a neutral location without any input and with open scrutiny would convince anyone. But this system is so far from adequate from a skeptical view, that it's a joke. The input is unnecessarily complex and measurements are inadequate, the output is indirectly measured, the blank run uses a different power regimen, the system should self-sustain, but doesn't, the reactor temperature (central cylinder) is not monitored, and above all, it's behind closed doors in Rossi's facilities supervised by hand-picked academics, most of which have been avowed supporters from the beginning. A month before this report, I indicated what I thought would be significant, and what wouldn't. None of the criteria I suggested were needed were met in this test. And it fits the description of a test I specifically said would fall short. It's in the first verbose post I wrote on the subject here. So, this does not represent a change of criteria. On the other hand, true believers were hoping for an independent test with a dozen researchers from 4 universities published under peer review. But they seem to have lowered their standards and are perfectly happy with this farce.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The ECAT will need adjustment depending upon the environment into which it operates. This is what should be expected. Exactly, and controlled cooling provides a way to adjust it. Sitting in the open air does not.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I have significant experience with flow calorimeters. I would say: 1. It would end up costing much more than a few hundred dollars. True. But not more than 10k for an off-the-shelf unit. That sounds like a bargain for what Rossi's doing. 2. It would take weeks of testing and futzing around to make it work. 3. It would clog up and it would leak. They always do. I would hate to work with something like this running constantly for months! Not if it's off-the-shelf. It would be designed to work for months,and would certainly be adequate for days, which is what these experiments were run for. 4. The skeptics would find a hundred reasons to doubt it, as they did with Rossi's other flow calorimeters (some of which I will grant were not good). Well, if he produced steam, then yes. Otherwise, a repeat of Levi's experiment was repeatedly requested, but never done. How hard would it be to measure the temperature in the water flow, and if you circulate water from a large tank, even better. You say skeptics can't be pleased, but the experiments specified for the steam cat were simply never done, so how can you know. And now he's abandoned that configuration and is doing something totally different, with its own problems. No test can answer all questions or lay to rest all doubts. Of course it can. At least any doubts about the existence of a new source of energy. An isolated thing that heats a lot of water would do it, under suitable scrutiny..
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output couldn't have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which would still validate the claim of significant over unity energy output. It's not an order of magnitude, it's a factor of 3. That's the power gain. You can get an order of magnitude in claimed energy density with only a 10% gain in power if you wait long enough. So, the claimed energy density is kind of arbitrary, and relies on the credibility of the power measurement. Still, a factor of 3 is a lot, and if the measurements can be trusted, it's difficult to make an error that large. But it's an indirect method, and if there's suspicion of tampering or deception, it's better to use direct methods. Heating an actual volume of water, or even a flow of water, is harder to fake, as long as you avoid phase changes, and put the thermocouple probes in the water.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Extraordinary claims call for the most ordinary proof you can come up with. That's true for true believers. For everyone else the usual saying represents common sense, and the opinion of great thinkers from Pascal through Sagan. I see no reason to consider your view above theirs
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not high wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs. That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the reactor to melt, or explode, so it is not an option. That's the excuse anyway, but it makes no sense. If controlled cooling were used to regulate the temperature, I see no reason that the necessary temperature could not be maintained without it running away. And in the 2012 reports, Rossi, or Penon claim more than 100 hours of self-sustained running. And if it ever proves to have practical value, it will have to be possible to make it self-sustain, since it will have to be able to make more electrical power than it consumes, or more heat than you can make with the fuel that produced the electricity to begin with.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Flow calorimetry has much to be said for it but it is more complicated and less believable than this. A lot more can go wrong with it, and usually does go wrong with it for the first several weeks. It is both more believable, which is why it is actually used for calorimetry, while ir thermometry is not (normally), and has the important advantage that you can control and tailor the cooling.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I have thought about that. During the initial warm up phase you would get an interesting result. After that, when it reaches a steady state, you would maintain the entire body of water at a certain temperature for weeks. The body (the bath and its container) would be losing heat into the surroundings. It amounts to more or less the same thing they are doing now, with a bigger body and more thermal mass, plus evaporation and other complicated stuff. I do not see an advantage. Heat loss is of course an obvious problem in heating a large tank of water. But if it were simply ignored, and the tank still heated up, it would strengthen the claim of excess heat, not weaken it. Moreover, a blank run could be used to verify the effect of the ecat. A modern hot tub at 37C loses about 100W to 200W in ambient temperature, if covered. That would increase as the temperature went up, but presumably losses could be significantly reduced with a better cover, and possibly more insulation. But with an ecat producing 1.5 kW like the December run, it should be possible to demonstrate excess heat pretty clearly. It does not avoid the steam question! On the contrary, with a body water you are right back to that problem, with evaporation. With a covered tank below the boiling point, evaporation can be ignored. The present method is the simplest. Using a body of hot water heated to terminal temperature would be more complicated. But far more direct and unequivocal. It has a visual way of integrating the heat that spot temperature measurement does not.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:50 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It will take more than just a generator and an extension cord to close the loop. Some form of energy storage will be required to do the job. To close the loop with electricity, probably yes. But if you used controlled cooling, you could allow the ecat to rise to the temperature at which it self-sustains, and prevent runaway with the cooling. That would be the obvious way to do it.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:03 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: They only need to make their sponsors happy not Crude. I hope the best for them. Hey, if you're referring to me, I'm with you all the way on the self-sustaining water-tank heating demo. So the insult is particularly hurtful.
[Vo]:ECat Rossi Official website being Updated
Greetings Vortex-L, As most know, Rossi s official website gets infrequently updated. This morning the site was down for an update: http://www.ecat.com Update= a Biggie or a yawn? Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I do not understand what you have in mind here. Nature allows us to do some things and not others. We have to work with what nature allows, not what we would wish for in an ideal universe.[...] Obviously with more engineering RD a self-sustaining Rossi reactor could be made. How is that so obvious, after your song and dance about what nature allows. I think it's obvious now, that if it is triggered by heat, and it makes heat, it's a matter of controlling how much heat dissipates to make it self-sustaining. And he's claimed 100 hours of self-sustaining already. That's enough for a whiz-bang demo. It would not prove anything the present test does not prove. Mary Yugo would insist it is fake. Robert Park would ignore it. Why bother? Just use a different watt meter next time and all remaining questions vanish as surely as they would with a self-sustaining reactor. Well, that's not consistent with your previous statements about the need for an isolated self-sustaining device that remains palpably hotter than ambient as a demo that could not be refuted. I think that's right, but it just never appears, even though cold fusion is supposed to have an energy density a million times that of dynamite.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:18 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The best proof is one that has the least possibility of error. Or the least possibility of error that favors the ecat, or the least possibility of tampering. An isolated ecat eliminates input tampering. A heated tank of water eliminates output tampering. Heating an isolated tank of water of sufficient volume to sufficient temperature with an isolated device is pretty much iron-clad, as long as the isolation can be transparently verified. Every complication that is added to the setup results in many more issues to question by the skeptics. Not true if the complications allows disconnection from the mains, or allows manifest integration of the heat. The technique used by the testers of the ECAT is good enough for any reasonable scientist to accept Only if you define reasonable as true believer. You fail to realize that there is no way what so ever to meet their requirements since they do not believe LENR is possible. An isolated device heating an isolated tank of water in an isolated location would meet all the skeptics' requirements. Anyway, as I said, you can't possibly think it will ever be practical, if you think skeptics cannot be convinced. They have failed to prove their position entirely, Also the believers have failed to prove theirs...
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Indeed, making steam and using it to, say, drive a car across Italy without stopping would be pretty damn convincing. Nice to see you can envision a demo that would convince skeptics. Unfortunately the actual demos don't ever get better. They never approach this sort of level. There is always talk of self-sustaining, but it is never reached, in a public demo.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: There was a time when this field desperately needed a standalone self powered reactor to prove the reaction is real. That is because absolute power was low, ranging from 5 to 100 W. However, now that Rossi has developed high-powered reactors ranging from 500 to . . . 1 MW (I guess?) the need for standalone reactors is reduced. Nonsense, the absence is all the more suspicious. With a thermal-to-thermal COP of 2 or more, it should be a piece of cake to make it self-sustaining. That he hasn't most likely means the claims are bogus. The only way these results could be wrong would be if Rossi has somehow found a way to fool a watt meter. If he is capable of doing that he is also capable of making something that looks like a self-sustaining demonstration but is not. Disagree. The latter is not in the same league.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Dr. Richard L. Garwin is alive and well and will likely live to have his tea. If you believe Rothwell and Roberson, skeptics will never have to concede, because no application of cold fusion is obvious enough to make them believe it. Therefore, there will be no crow, or tea, on the menu. Of course the premise is nonsense. But the last sentence is still almost certainly true.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: If the device cannot self-power, it is still valuable with a lower COP, the proverbial hot water or space heater - A COP of 3 is not useful if the electricity was made with fossil fuels at an efficiency of 1/3. That's a wash.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If it is real it is the most important advance in technology since the discovery of fire. If the scientific community is convinced it is real, every industrial corporation and university will be hard at work on this. ~$100 million per day will devoted to it. Huh. That's what the skeptics say. I thought true believers thought that it was being suppressed because the mainstream hates cldan and abundant energy and challenges to the status quo. I'll hang on to that quote the next time conspiracy theories rear their ugly head.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: WHY are you so certain that wattmeters do not work?!? You know that's not the objection. There is no chance Rossi can fool one, and if the people doing the test have any doubt about that, they can bring a portable generator. Would that they had. To put it another way, if you do not trust the wattmeter, why would you trust the IR camera or thermocouple? If Rossi can fool a wattmeter he can fool any instrument. What would he fool with an isolated device? And he couldn't fool a mercury thermometer to measure the temperature of a tank of water, if it was brought by a skeptic to a neutral location.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: Portable generator is also fine and even better, because it leaves very little room for tricks and doubt. But after 10 or so demonstrations we have had only one portable generator and that also was brought by Rossi. And it had the same output as the claimed ecat.
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Onze helden zijn terug! (Our heroes are back!)
I'm sure you've seen this one, as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQLCZOG202k On 06/03/2013 09:14 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: See a flash mob performance celebrating the reopening of the Rijksmuseum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=a6W2ZMpsxhg This kind of thing is new to the world, thanks to video and YouTube. It is a 21st Century performance. I like it! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Nothing in the recent test was brought by Rossi. This test was a hands-off black box test, exactly what the skeptics have been demanding. It seems you will not take yes for an answer. So much nonsense. The test was running when they arrived in December, and the instruments were the same in March. In fact the ir camera, and the power meter were the same as used in the various experiments reported in 2012. Rossi's fingerprints are on every aspect of this test.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Leading scam hypothesis does assume that Giuseppe Levi is a scammer and he is as bad as Rossi. And he brought most of the instruments. I see. And these other co-authors are so stupid they do not even notice the equipment is not working? Probably. Essen was stupid enough to think a humidity probe could determine steam quality, or that visual inspection of steam was enough. Even though they calibrated the wattmeter with a resistor? Even though they stepped a blank cell through a calibration? Different power regimen. Doesn't count. So you are saying Levi wants to destroy his own reputation for no reason, for no possible benefit. There may be benefit, and he has retained plausible deniability, so the risk is small. Because there is not slightest chance he or Rossi will get away with this. Sooner or later someone will bring an instrument that reveals the scam. Much later is possible though. BLP has gone for 20 years+ with many claims and no product and no revealing of a scam. Also, how did Rossi and Levi manage to make modern integrated circuit instruments work wrong? Watch these videos if you didn't like the cheese video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD7DzTIFJdU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KMLmpC7-Ls http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1eMryiU1ro They're not about faking power, but show some amazing electronics fakes.
Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:55 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Why not give a direct answer to a direct question. Do you agree that the COP is greater than 1? Yes or no? Read the reply again, with particular attention to the first word. I would have thought that elaboration was a good way to advance the discussion, but apparently you prefer a kind of cross-examination to a discussion. I don't claim to be certain of anything, but I am highly skeptical of a COP 1, though there might be some amount of chemical heat produced in that cylinder. -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:23 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:44 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Josh, your entire theory will be shot if you acknowledge that the COP is greater than 1. Are you now ready to accept this condition? No. The only thing you seem to be able to do is miss the point. The claimed COP is 3. That means that even if the claim is right, it's far from ready for industrialization, given that electricity is produced with 1/3 efficiency. So, as I said, I hardly think he's looking at the final version of the power supply when the ecat is still completely inadequate. And so this excuse for using 3-phase is as much nonsense as all the other excuses with sub-gauss and sub mK magnetic field and temperature oscillations.
Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:59 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: No reason for any of your issues is given except that there is no reason that you are aware of to do what makes sense to most other engineers and scientists on the list. 3-phase is not needed. He ran higher power steam cats without it, and none of the excuses given make sense. And are there scientists other than Storms, on the list? The actual reason for the Dec run is most likely a holdover from the 2012 hot cat experiments, in which inputs up to 5 kW were used, and an ordinary line would not have been enough. But for the March run, they introduced a new power supply, and planned from the outset to run low power, so single phase would have worked, but maybe made deception more difficult. We do not have an problem with any of the design issues that Rossi has chosen. Three phase power is common in applications. Not applications with less than 1 kW resistive loads. Good true RMS power meters are used for the input power measurement. They are good for ordinary applications, but not when there is suspicion of tampering.
Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I admit that I do not believe that the magnetic field is important in this case. I am very pleased to see that some progress is being made. It is not too close to zero with this particular geometry Well, the particular geometry is not completely obvious, but if they are helical coils, then yes, it would be close to zero in the vicinity of the reactor. and if you recall the tops and bottoms of the resistor coil are very close to the core tube. Close, but off axis, and so while the field would be stronger, it would still be very weak. Anyway, if it were magnetic field, a very strong non-uniformity would be observed, with much more heat near the ends, but wasn't in the Dec or March runs. You need to admit an error when you make it if you intend to appear knowledgeable and not full of it. I did not make an error, and true believers will always think honest skeptics like me are full of it. I accept that.
Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:17 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: If you genuinely want an explanation of how the eCAT is positive feedback, which Dave is trying to do, backed up by his model, then it requires following a line of reasoning. Wrong discussion. The question of COP 1 here arose in the context of industrialization, not in the explanation for controlling positive feedback. Dave is NOT asking you for an acceptance that Rossi’s device does have COP1; he is only asking that we temporarily accept that condition, and follow the reasoning from there. That's exactly what I did in the other context. I said, *even if* the COP were 3, it wouldn't be enough for industrialization. And then 2 people pounced on me, suggesting I was admitting that the COP was 3. Why are you afraid to do that? I'm not. That's exactly what I am doing. In the feedback system, I argue that if the COP were 3 (or especially 6), then removing the external heat would not quench it. And if it were 3 or 6, it would be easy to make it self-sustain by controlling the heat loss with insulation and regulated cooling.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The effects of heat and the use of heat to control chemical and nuclear reactions is well established. Perhaps, but elsewhere I asked for an example where the addition of heat is used to control a positive thermal feedback system, especially one in which the external heat is several times *below* the heat produced by said reaction, and none were offered. Do you have an example?
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:35 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: 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. Except there are many reports in which the power is said to be stable, and the measured temperature is stable.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:44 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: 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. I doubt that will happen. So far, they are batting 1000, while Sterling Allan is batting zero.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:07 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Cude and the others of this group can not accept that LENR is anything except for a scam. Not true in my case. I think most of LENR research is not a scam; it is probably just pathological science. But I don't even rule it out completely. I just find the evidence far too weak to be convincing, and in the absence of good evidence, based on very strong evidence that it should not occur, I remain highly skeptical, as I am of perpetual motion and dowsing and telepathy and so on. This position explains why they 'know' that there must be some form of trick being propagated by Rossi. Again, that doesn't apply to me. I think cold fusion is extremely unlikely not only because it is contrary to expectations, but because if Rossi's claims were valid, unequivocal proof would be very easy to stage. So, I consider alternative explanations, including possible deception, far more likely.
Re: [Vo]: Interesting Information Contained in Output Temperature Curve Shape
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:57 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: There is a wealth of information contained within the shape of the output temperature curve associated with operation of the ECAT. That's total speculative and nonsensical over-interpretation. It's based in the first place on the assumption that the power is constant during the on phase and zero in the off phase, but if that's what it is, why would Rossi have forbidden measurement of the actual wave to the ecat during the live run? He permitted measuring the power to the ecat during the blank run. Then they say it's the same, except for the turning off, but don't allow measurement. Again, why? He's told us what it is, but it can't be measured. The most obvious explanation is that he's concealing additional power input during the off cycle. The exact shape of the power cycle is completely unknown. If the particular details of the power input are proprietary, and it's not measured, you can't conclude anything from the output waveform, beyond that it has the same periodicity as the input power fluctuation. The on portion may not be flat, and the off may not be zero or flat. Otherwise, there would be no reason to disallow their measurement. Even if your assumptions of the input were correct, your interpretation of the inflection point is far too vague and unspecific to mean anything to me. Your spice model may give you all the results you want, but your descriptions of what's happening are far from clear.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:11 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: No problem, I will meet you here in a couple of years and we can compare notes. Good, but I was hoping you'd be able to tell us now if you might get a little skeptical if the hot cat has a similar fate that the steam cat has seen in the last 2 years. If it has come to nothing in that time, will you be so confident? I assure you that I can speak to any of the objections that you have provided they are not totally out of reality. That's your argument? You assure me that you have one? Mostly you ignore my objections and speak to someone else's and repeat your own unsupported claims. Lets start with one of your choice regarding the many heat generation issues. How about how a small amount of heat can control a much larger amount? Are you interesting in an explanation or do you want to keep stating things that can be shown wrong? You haven't shown anything to be wrong. And if you have an explanation for controlling positive thermal feedback with heat, why don't you just give it already, instead of repeatedly saying you will give it. Or, how about my favorite recent issue about how DC flowing due to rectification in the load Someone else's argument. Address my points when you respond to my posts, or it's very inefficient.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:13 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am attempting to keep you form getting banned since I want to use you to clear up a number of issues. It is hoped that you will go back to the other skeptics and then set them straight. Garbage. You don't need anyone else to present an argument. Just post your best. You're free to go over to other forums and direct them to your words of wisdom.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:25 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Maybe we are making headway in this discussion. Can I assume that you are now saying that the hot cat can actually produce heat by some unknown process? So far it is not clear that you accept this premise. For heaven's sake. You piddle along asking stupid questions to avoid actually addressing my objections. Let me spell this out for you. I am skeptical of the ecat, partly because *if* it worked as he claims with a thermal-to-thermal COP of 3 or 6, (1) it would be easy to make it self-sustain (possibly with thermostatically controlled cooling), and yet he doesn't, and (2) it would be difficult to control with the addition of heat. What I said was that it is possible to conceive of a situation in which one could control positive thermal feedback with adding heat, particularly if the external heat were concentrated and at a higher temperature -- think flames to sustain charcoal briquets when they are being lit. But the hot cat uses external heat that is more diffuse and at a lower temperature than the heat from the reaction, so it is very difficult to imagine -- think controlling glowing embers with a space heater held nearby. And even if it were possible, it's the last way any sane person would do it. If the thing produces heat, and there's a danger of runaway, the obvious way to control it is with thermostatically controlled cooling. The claim that he needs heat to control it is such an obvious excuse to allow him to add heat, I'm amazed true believers buy into it. So, no, I think it highly unlikely that the hot cat is actually producing heat by an unknown process. But that's totally irrelevant to the question of whether it's plausible to use heat to control it *if it were producing heat*. Do you understand the concept of a hypothetical? Then, are you agreeing that DC current flowing in the primary due to rectification … I didn't follow the dc discussion you're talking about, and I don't follow what you're saying about it here. But that's not the point. I don't believe we could enumerate every possible way to trick those meters, even if we had a decent report about how things were connected and where the measurements were made, which we don't. But the way to exclude tricks is to take the control of the experiment away from the suspected deceiver. Give open access to the hot cat under whatever necessary supervision. This test was the furthest thing from that, and it used unnecessarily complex input, a severely inadequate device to measure the input if there was suspicion of deception, and an indirect way to measure the heat output, when much more direct and visual methods are available. I have not personally been following the energy density so I must leave that discussion to those with more knowledge. No one really knows exactly how LENR works including me so that is unfair to ask of me. And you don't see a double standard here? You said that anyone unqualified to describe how a deception might work is not allowed to speculate that deception might be occurring based on sadly inadequate measurements and scrutiny, And yet you say you are not qualified to explain how such a high power density is possible without melting the nickel, or how nuclear reactions can happen in the first place, and yet that doesn't stop you from speculating -- nay practically guaranteeing -- that they are happening. You know, there would be a very easy way to at least show that the heat is coming from the central cylinder (if it were), just by putting a thermocouple on it and outside the resistor radius. But of course, they didn't do that either, did they?
Re: [Vo]:OT: scrabble challenge
Hi, An appropriate anagram of cold fusion would be ;-) : Coils Found Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:08 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Josh, once you understand how the ECAT uses heat for control you will realize that the heat can not be applied continuously. Well, you're gonna have to explain it if you expect me to understand it. And then you're gonna have to explain how the December hot cat used continuously applied heat, and worked for over 100 hours. And how the steam cats were all at constant temperature. And how some of the steam cats allegedly self-sustained for 4 hours, or the hotcat self-sustained for more than 100 hours back in August or July 2012. Or you're gonna have to suspect Rossi was less than honest in some of those demos, and that would make him suspicious in this one. 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. I haven't been able to read everything. Did I miss where you explained something? Because all I've seen is a few vague and unjustified paragraphs that in themselves explain squat. Remember, continuous heat input to the ECAT results in thermal run away. Except when it doesn't, I guess, as in the examples listed above.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** 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. ** Which analogy is that? I was suggesting there was no analogy in which heat is used to control a positive thermal feedback. 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. In ICF, the goal is to reach a situation where each pellet self-sustains -- i.e. ignites. That is expected when the heat produced by fusion that stays within a pellet is equal to the heat added to initiate fusion. That point has been reached in the ecat, but it has not been reached in ICF, so my objection does not apply there. Subcritical fission is also a good metaphor No, it's not, because in that case, they don't control large heat with smaller heat. They control fission reactions with neutrons. The neutrons produced by the reactions themselves are necessarily fewer, or of a less favorable energy than the external neutrons. So, there is no neutron profit, and therefore it is subcritical. But there could be an energy profit, although it's not clear it will be realized in practice. The ECat can indeed be self-sustaining in single or in multiple units, according to the inventor. Right, and the repeated claims without demonstration makes it suspicious. The electrical input provides *control* and prevents runaway by permitting a lower mass of active material. Well, that's his excuse, but my objection stands. If 360 W from outside the reactor is enough to initiate the reaction, it seems implausible that 1.6 kW produced inside the reactor would not sustain it. Rossi uses electricity to make heat as part of ongoing phase-change cycling process [wild speculation deleted] The temperature was stable in the Dec hot cat. Apparently phase-change cycling is too difficult a topic for Cude to understand. True. Your explanations sound like word salad to me. Now, some of Hawking's words read like that to me too. So you may be another Hawking. But in any case, I don't benefit from it. You're out of my league.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: But I think you misunderstood. I was not referring to new science theories there. I was saying that it's common sense that if Rossi's claims were being accepted by the majority, there would be huge excitement. Not necessarily. Sometimes people act in accordance with the rule Once bitten, twice shy. But I'm referring to the time where they have overcome shyness on the second round; that is, where the claims are accepted by the majority. Once that happens there will be huge excitement. So I am arguing precisely that they have *not* accepted it, probably because they are twice shy. Others were arguing I could not know that it was not widely accepted. I still think it's common sense.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com 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. No, any ICE can run without a battery (except for artificial fault detection), and a battery is not a secondary source of power. The battery holds the same amount of energy when you shut the engine down as it did when you started it. So, even if you want to think of the battery helping to control something, all the energy in the battery, beyond a short time after it's installed or recharged after you left the lights on, is put there from the engine. The engine supplies the power that controls it. That's self-sustaining buy any definition. Anyway, if it serves some purpose for you, that's fine, but I was asking if there was a system that uses an *external* *heat* source to control a source of heat. That's not it. If an ecat were to use a battery which was charged by the ecat, that would be self-sustaining too.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com 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. I passed over this point too quickly. One question is why in Rossi's device the heat generated by the reaction would not be sufficient to sustain the reaction, as in combustion, without some kind of external drive. This does seem like an odd requirement. Giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt, the fact that an external stimulus is required in the form of resistance heating (also heat, as has been pointed out), this seems to indicate that one of two phenomena, or both, would need to be occurring: - The general area of the reaction is somewhat localized, and the normal thermal gradient that would lead heat to dissipate from that location must be countered from outside of it by the resistance heaters, so that sufficient heat is retained in that area. Right. External heat would affect the temperature gradient. But remember it took only a fraction of the external 360 W to cause the reaction power to initiate and increase to 1.6 kW, so it seems implausible that the 1.6 kW would not be enough to sustain it. - The reaction depends upon a flux of heat, and not simply elevated an temperature on its own. Heat is random motion, so it's hard to see how at the site of the potential reaction the direction of the flux would make a difference, and rate of the flux would be far higher at 1.6 kW than at 360 W.
Re: [Vo]:Sonoluminescence
Hi Axil, very plausible theory! Explains radioactive decay anomalies and at lesser levels will fit most of the different categories. sonoluminescence, plasma engines. Ni H in powders or skeletal cats. I would only suggest the H2O as the difference with LeClair vs H2 for Rossi and Mills not the temperature of the water to explain why Gammas not thermalized. I like the concept of LENR turned inward, modifying space-time effecting radioactive decay of a certain number of gas atoms per unit time. I do have my pet theory that the geometry of catalyst being utilized causes segregation of the vacuum and that there be equal and opposite regions outside the cavity - where the quantum billions of atoms forming the lens around the cavity must also have a dispersed outer surface where vacuum pressure exactly balances the concentrated levels inside the cavity. Like hydrogen that obviously has an affinity for finding these confinement zones inside the cavity per unit time another gas may have an affinity for the outer zones such that radioactive decay would instead be retarded. This would then account for both types of radioactive decay anomalies. An interesting experiment that removes unit time for radioactive decay in a possibly related anomaly. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/425731/radioactive-decay-anomaly-finall y-explained-maybe/ Fran Axil Axil http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22Axil+Axi l%22 Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:30:58 -0700 http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20130603 Unlike most if not all of the LENR faithful, I believe that LeClair has a powerful LENR system. The LeClair system produces so much power that nobody can think of it as a LENR system. They think that LENR must be weak. I am coming to believe that LENR is a powerful energy concentration mechanism, where billions of coherent and entangled atoms can destroy the strong force inside a nucleus through the concentration of EMF. Nanospire has in fact created a supernova device. When a billion atoms share their energy in superposition, some cannot take the stress as induced by random fluctuations on vacuum energy. As energy is pumped into the condensate, the condensate wants to return to a lower energy state. Like radioactive decay, a certain number of atoms per unit time will drop out of the condensate and be subject to the full force of the combined energy potential of the entire condensate. This huge electric field is so great and its concentration is so sharp that the local space/time that encircles the atom dropping out of the condensate is distorted. In this way, the greatly amplified strength of the electroweak force reaches some appreciable fraction of the magnitude of the strong force. These two forces are on the road to unification. A quark-gluon plasma (QGP) or quark soup is formed at extremely high temperatures and/or density with an approximate temperature of 4 trillion degrees Celsius. This phase consists of asymptotically free quarks and gluons, which are several of the basic building blocks of matter. This quark soup will reform into atoms in new nuclear configurations like they would have done just after the big bang when the strong force and the electroweak force were going through a cooling process aka phase transition. Usually in LENR the gammas in this type of situation are thermalized, but in the LeClair system, the coupling constraint between the entangled concentrate members are not right for some reason, probably the low temperature of water is the cause. You can think of a Bose-Einstein condensate as a huge super-atom. If this superatom is excited and therefore unstable, it will decay radioactively. The decay products of this superatom are not fundamental particles but are remade atoms whose nuclei have been put through a quantum mechanical blender and then reformed by quark soup cooling.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: There is a third possibility as well. The reaction is localized, and it depends upon an elevated temperature to kick off. But the local region is destroyed by the reaction, so you have apply heat once more to initiate the reaction in other parts of the charge. But again 1.6 kW from within can do this more efficiently than 360 W from outside.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 3:22 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, The resistive heating requirement is to be able to reverse the temperature excursion at the proper time by removing the extra input. Constant heat input will result in the destruction of the device when useful output power is generated. Except when it doesn't like in the December hot cat, and all the steam cats.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Jun 4, 2013, at 2:26 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Leading scam hypothesis does assume that Giuseppe Levi is a scammer and he is as bad as Rossi. So you are saying Levi wants to destroy his own reputation for no reason, for no possible benefit. There may be benefit, and he has retained plausible deniability, so the risk is small. That is true. The risk for Levi is negligible and he can always claim ignorance. Levi has very steady job at university and his pay roll is determined solely by his Ph.D level education and his work experience measured in years. If there are any deviations, Levi can just ask the Union lawyer to clear things up. His academic credentials are not based on how nice person he is but how peer review panels are rating his published articles: http://scholar.google.fi/citations?hl=enuser=vEZM3BQJview_op=list_workspagesize=100 So If Levi is making few dozens of kiloeuros extra money with Rossi with very little efforts, his involvement is more than justified. If I were in Levi's shoes, I would without any doubt help Rossi as much I dare. After all this is not an academic scam, because academic world does not take commercial level cold fusion anyway seriously! ―Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 4:10 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, Model 1 appears to be more in line with what I suspect is happening except for the explanation of the lack of external heat for control issue. You need to consider that the peak heat power being generated inside the core is only about 2 times greater than the resistor heating required to control it at the turn around point. Rossi has stated this on several occasions and it matches my model. But it's not consistent with the December hot cat, in which case the overall COP was 6, and as I've argued, less than half of the input power will reach the core, the rest directly heating the outer ceramic. So, in that case, you probably have at least a peak power in the core at least 10 times larger that the external heat that is controlling it. When such a large percentage of the net power at that node is taken away abruptly, a turn around in temperature direction occurs. This is a complicated positive feedback system where a large fraction of the internally generated heat is being absorbed by the thermal mass of the device. Enough external heat is removed to force the core to be starved. That reverses the temperature path. Once reversed, the positive feedback works in a manner that accelerates the falling core temperature toward room. Could you provide the temperature dependence of the reaction rate and the heat loss that would produce such an effect. And also explain how the December hot cat was stable with constant input power. If you are very good, or lucky, you can reverse the core at just below an optimum point which will allow the temperature to languish there for an extended time before it begins it rapid decent. This is how you achieve a high value of COP. The core has a lot of time during which it puts out large values of heat energy before requiring a refresh drive pulse. The drive remains off for a longer time while the high temperature lingers. Does this help to explain the operation according to my model? Not to me. It's all just hand-waving. Could you quantify things a little? And explain why constant power was used in December.
Re: [Vo]: DC Meter Cheat Spice Model to be Replicated
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:21 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have requested that Cude or any others interested in finding the truth construct a similar model and prove me wrong. I never made any claims about dc rectification. I said that the experimental design leaves opportunities for deception, one example of which is the cheese video. There are surely others that talented electrical engineers could design that would fool that cabal of trusting dupes, and would be impossible to deduce from a poorly written account of the experiment. I think it's a mug's game because it assumes that every possible method of deception can be excluded. There are obviously ways to reduce the possibilities of deception, but the best way is to have people *not* selected by Rossi arrange all the input power and its monitoring, make it as simple as possible (2 lines) and preferably from a finite source (generator), and use a method that visually integrates the heat, like heating a volume of water. It's just such nonsense to imagine that Rossi has a technology that will replace fossil fuels, and he can't arrange an unequivocal demonstration. This [cooperative analysis of a particular deception scheme] is the way science should be conducted and I hope that it represents the future of cooperation between all parties concerned. If you think *science* is about second guessing someone's demo, and trying to sleuth whether or not he cheated, then you have no clue. Science at its best is about disclosing discoveries so others can test them. Even if Rossi needs to keep his sauce secret, the need to guess and speculate about what's going on, and to make models to determine something that *someone already knows* is not science. It's idiocy. And yes, I freely participate in this idiocy, but at least I don't call it science.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This is a good start Josh. I think I can explain that to you since you seem to be a pretty sharp guy. Thank you Mr Roberson for that kind compliment. Unfortunately it also takes an explanation that is realistic and a sharp guy to explain it. And you seem to be a guy who thinks he's a lot sharper than he is. I wish you'd look at my much simpler intuitive argument, and tell me what's wrong with it. For example, if 360 W from the outside can trigger the reaction, why would 1.6 kW from the inside not sustain it? I get that the basic claim is that the reaction power alone is not enough to maintain the reaction, so it decays toward zero, but the sum of the external and reaction powers is enough to make it grow, even to a temperature at which runaway occurs. But the problem is that it seems unlikely that a plausible temperature dependence of the reaction rate and of heat loss would produce that situation, given the constraints represented by the claimed observations. In particular, the much higher output power compared to the input power. While they claim a COP of 3 or 6 for the device, that would correspond to a much higher COP for the fuel itself, because much less than half of the input heat would reach the fuel. As I see it, you only need to postulate how the reaction rate depends on temperature, and how the heat loss depends on temperature to determine what will happen to the system. For a given input power and temperature, you can then calculate the net power (total power produced by the external plus reaction minus the heat loss). If that's positive, it will get hotter, if negative it will cool down. When it encounters a change in sign it will stabilize, A sign change (or zero net power) occurs when the heat loss is equal to external power plus the reaction power, much like the sun is stable with it's heat loss balancing its reaction rate. If the net power is positive, and it grows with temperature, then you get a runaway condition. In my brief tests I only used simple functions (of the temperature for the reaction rate, and of the temperature difference from ambient for the heat loss), and if the system is designed to be stable at 2 kW output for 360 W input, as in the December run, the removal of the input always left a system stable at a somewhat lower temperature. The reason is that the reaction rate has to grow quickly at the beginning to keep the total input power ahead of the heat loss so it is always positive until it reaches the 2 kW level in the December test. In my calculations, if it grows fast enough to ensure that it reaches 2 kW, where the sign changes by design, then removal of the external drive doesn't quench it. This is true even assuming all 360 W reach the fuel. Realistically, far less than half would, especially at the higher temperatures, and this makes removal of the external even less significant. Now, it is surely possible to contrive a reaction rate dependence and a heat loss dependence to make it quench without the external heat, but it's far from obvious that it would be realistic, and that one could engineer the necessary dependence, particularly in so many and varied configurations. So, that's why I asked what your proposed functional dependences are that would give the observed behavior. How does the reaction rate depend on temperature, and how does the heat loss depend on temperature? And are they realistic dependences? But the real question, which is what raised the issue to begin with, is *why bother* trying to engineer these dependences. You and Storms admit that Rossi has difficult engineering challenges to make such a system stable with a high COP. Why would he make it so difficult for himself? No sane person would do it this way. If the reaction rate depends on temperature, and there is danger of runaway, then the obvious way to control it is with thermostatically controlled cooling. And then you could easily make it self-sustaining, by adjusting the cooling to give any temperature necessary. Instead he adds heat with the pretense of controlling the heat, because of course, that may be all the heat he's actually got. It's like so many cold fusion claims. It's not that there is an obvious alternative explanation for the apparent excess heat. It's that there are far more direct, straightforward, transparent, and well-established ways to demonstrate it that are not used. It seems like the claims only occur when the experiment is unnecessarily indirect and complex. So, I think it's a waste of time analyzing results like this. Do the experiment with an isolated finite power source, with flow calorimetry that integrates heat in a visual way, and do it under public scrutiny without restrictions on observers, and then the world will change. As Aesop's fable The leap at Rhodes finshes: No need of witnesses. Suppose this city is Rhodes. Now show us how far you can jump. The
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: So, do you need help with that spice model? 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. The remainder of your discussion is nothing more than using words to avoid the issue. They are a direct response to your arguments or requests. But you have no counter to them, so you just repeat what you said before. You wrote a large number of unsubstantiated and untrue statements which I want to take apart one by one. Yea, sure. But you don't respond to any of them. Instead you just stomp your feet and repeat yourself. As long as you ignore my responses, I'll keep repeating them. You have a double standard. Answer for that.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The tactic of the obstructionist is to avoid dealing with the case The avoidance here is from the true believers who insist that any alternative explanation must described in detail, whereas they refuse to explain the thermodynamics of a power density 100 times that of uranium in a fission reactor without melting, or how nuclear reactions can produce that much heat and no radiation, etc.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is apparent that Mr. Cude does not have a valid case and is not willing to discuss the issues. I've written a lot of words, so obviously I'm willing to discuss. I'm kind of outnumbered here, so it's not possible to respond to everything promptly. I'm sorry if you felt neglected in the last round, but Rothwell spewed forth so much nonsense, that was nevertheless more comprehensible than your non-explanation explanations (which are really just assertions), that it took higher priority. As for the weekend, well, I do unfortunately have a life. I insisted to others who are part of it that there were more people than usual wrong on the internet, and it was really important that I straighten them out, but it was my anniversary, and my wife was having none of it. But on our little weekend, I asked everyone who would listen if they thought adding heat was a logical way to regulate positive thermal feedback, and everyone from the concierge to the waiter to the lifeguard at the pool said that while it might be possible in some contrived situation, it's the stupidest thing they ever heard of. Of course, I had to explain that it was like using an electric space heater to regulate the output of a fireplace. Only the cab driver hesitated, and said he'd get back to me after he checked with his dispatcher -- I'm still waiting. We can show that every one of his positions is nothing more than speculation with absolutely no substantiation. With only a paper to go on describing an experiment that we cannot test, that's true of every position, and in particular the position that it involves cold fusion. There are alternative explanations, and to the smart people, cold fusion is the least likely. You have made no argument to change that view. He refuses to acknowledge errors I've acknowledged several errors that true believers have made. that he continues to present as fact when he knows that they have no basis. I have presented as fact only things that are facts. Like the fact that they said they used 3-phase power. The idea that the purpose of the 3-phase is to obfuscate and make deception easier is, I have admitted, speculation, just as is the idea that there's any cold fusion going on. 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. No. You really haven't. You have only said that you could explain it. I have asked for your proposed temperature dependence of the reaction rate and heat loss, and you haven't supplied it. He fails to understand how the DC component … I have made no specific argument about dc. You are arguing with someone else. I have said that the meter they use is inadequate because it has a limited frequency range, and clampons measure only net ac current. Therefore power at a frequency outside the range of the meter would not be detected, or concealed conductors could produce zero net current through a clampon, while nevertheless delivering power to the load, as in cheese power. I'm no EE, but if you want to exclude tricks, you should measure the input in detail. There is no indication the connections were removed and checked carefully, or of any use of a scope. That makes it suspicious. One method of deception has been identified. I hardly think it's the only one, given the confusing wiring, and the even more confusing description of the wiring and the measurements. We can't even agree on where the measurements were made in some instances. I didn't follow the dc discussion you're talking about, and I don't follow what you're saying about it. But one thing that I've not seen excluded (in addition to the cheese power) is that the 3 power lines are all floating on a dc level because of tampering with the line itself. The clampons would not detect that, and neither would the interline voltage measurements, which is all that is reported. But if there's a neutral line in to the box, power can be generated from the dc component above that indicated by the meter. Hartman says he considered a dc bias of all the input lines, but that it would require a return line, and he looked for one from the ecat. If that's what Essen was referring to as excluding dc, then I'm not buying it. Because there was no measurement of the voltage or current on the lines to the ecat during the live run in March, so that says nothing. The voltage measurement was on the input, and there is no mention that a neutral line was not available there. So that's 2 scenarios I've proposed, and you have yet to propose a single scenario 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. So,
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: 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. No, you don't know your mathematics, because that's like saying that the chance of rolling 10 sixes out of 60 dice is (1/6)^10. It's nonsense.
Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: 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? You missed the point. I have no problem adding energy to get energy. The problem I have is when you get back several times more heat than you used to start it, it should be easy to keep it going on its own. It's like combustion. In the Fusor, they haven't done this, plus what they put in is not heat, but real electrical energy to accelerate ions. They don't get that back, so self-sustaining is harder. It's more like trying to close the loop in electrolysis experiments, where you need electricity, but you produce heat. That takes a bigger COP. 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. Well, you can play with labels hot and cold, but this is ordinary fusion in the sense that the Coulomb barrier is overcome (or tunneled through) by kinetic energy, the branching ratios are perfectly standard, and everything is completely consistent with scientific generalizations (theory) already accumulated and verified. The published threshold level for D+D fusion is variously listed at around 1.4 MeV up to 2.2 MeV Where are those published? Because from what I've seen (see Bussard's google talk for example, or just wikipedia) the cross-section for D-D fusion peaks around 50 keV, and is still appreciable below 10 keV. The article on fusors says a minimum of about 4 keV is needed to get useful rates. The sun's interior is 15 billion kelvins, corresponding to about 1.3 keV. That makes for a slow fusion rate, and keeps the sun burning. and yet the Fusor average plasma energy level is lessthan 1 eV But in the fusor, it's not the plasma temperature that gives the ions the energy to fuse. The ions are accelerated into the plasma with a few keV energy. In the fusor, the ions are accelerated to several keV by the electrodes, so heating as such is not necessary (as long as the ions fuse before losing their energy by any process). -- Wiki so it truly is LENR on the input side. No, it truly is not. You don't have a clue.
Re: [Vo]:Adding Energy to get Energy
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: 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. What do you mean fragments? Isotopes? The nuclei? Hot fusion produces isotopes of helium, including 4He very occasionally from DD fusion, but commonly from DT fusion, among other products. Cold fusion requires a solid while hot fusion occurs in plasma. Hot fusion also occurs in a solid in neutron sources where they accelerate hydrogen isotopes into palladium deuteride in commercial neutron sources.
[Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4
Mr. Beaty, When I opened up my mail box this morning I was flooded with over 40 posted messages from Joshua Cude. And it's only 7:10 AM in the morning. I know of no one within the Vort Collective besides Cude that has displayed this amount of excessive and obsessive posting behavior. How many more Cude posts can we expect, today alone? Granted, a brief scan of some of Mr. Cude's messages appear to be reasonably polite, usually so, and yes, I certainly can filter Mr. Cude out. I've done so in the past. But at what point does this incessant (IMO) kind posting behavior considered a nuisance and hindrance to on-going Vortex discussions? Now, if Cude is genuinely making a good contribution I'll have nothing more to say on this matter. But it would be interesting to hear a consensus on how much of a genuine contribution Cude is allegedly making - from other Vort members. The point being: Cude, himself, has claimed he is addicted to going after CF claims. That was the word he used: addicted. From my POV, does this kind of incessant posting behavior truly educate anyone else on the list? . other than witnessing run-away skepticism? BTW, in the time it took me to craft this post, I see that EIGHT more JC postings have arrived in my mail box. Enuf of this. I'm filtering Cude out. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: That is true. The risk for Levi is negligible and he can always claim ignorance. The risk is that his reputation would be shattered. He would be forced to retire at least. So If Levi is making few dozens of kiloeuros extra money with Rossi with very little efforts. . . Do you seriously believe that a professor at a national university would destroy his own reputation and lose his job and all of his friends and professional associations in exchange for a few thousand euro?!? Can you point an example of a professor who has done that. Again I say: your speculation is far removed from reality. People do not act this way. They do not ruin their lives for trivial sums of money. These accusations of fraud have circulated for years. I ask you: Where is the evidence? Where are the victims? Where are the indictments? Rossi has shipped equipment and put on many demonstrations, some in public, others in private. Why has no one other than Krivit come forward with claims that Rossi cheated? There is not a shred of evidence for this hypothesis. It is based on Rossi's flamboyant personality and his legal troubles in the past, which is to say it is based on nothing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4
OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: But at what point does this incessant (IMO) kind posting behavior considered a nuisance and hindrance to on-going Vortex discussions? It is not a problem. Just filter the messages out. Frankly, I do not see why you raise the issue. I think this forum may have become a little too exclusive lately. As I mentioned before, regarding Andrew, Bill explained to me that they discussed the matter and agreed he should leave for a while anyway. Andrew was not thrown out so much as he decided to leave. I myself had no objection to his messages. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 07:35:47 -0500 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Mr. Beaty, When I opened up my mail box this morning I was flooded with over 40 posted messages from Joshua Cude. And it's only 7:10 AM in the morning. I know of no one within the Vort Collective besides Cude that has displayed this amount of excessive and obsessive posting behavior. How many more Cude posts can we expect, today alone? Cude is one sane person in a nest of True Believers. He has every right to point out the nonsense the TBs are spouting. Others on this list post far more often than Cude, but you have nothing to say about them; it seems to me you just want to shut Cude up because you do not like what he says.
Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
Finally, a direct answer to a simple question. Although you still leave it up to me to interpret the response. Unless you say otherwise, I now accept that you do not believe that there is any level of internally generated heat being released during this test series. With this position, it is apparent that you assume that some form of magic trick is being conducted and hence the lack of belief that the device functions. This is a valid position to begin with, but you need to look at the evidence and should be willing to change your beliefs at some point. Is there any level of evidence that will cause you to change your opinion? What would need to be done? I have a suspicion that it will require you being there during the test before your mind will change, is that true? Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:29 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:55 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Why not give a direct answer to a direct question. Do you agree that the COP is greater than 1? Yes or no? Read the reply again, with particular attention to the first word. I would have thought that elaboration was a good way to advance the discussion, but apparently you prefer a kind of cross-examination to a discussion. I don't claim to be certain of anything, but I am highly skeptical of a COP 1, though there might be some amount of chemical heat produced in that cylinder. -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:23 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:44 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Josh, your entire theory will be shot if you acknowledge that the COP is greater than 1. Are you now ready to accept this condition? No. The only thing you seem to be able to do is miss the point. The claimed COP is 3. That means that even if the claim is right, it's far from ready for industrialization, given that electricity is produced with 1/3 efficiency. So, as I said, I hardly think he's looking at the final version of the power supply when the ecat is still completely inadequate. And so this excuse for using 3-phase is as much nonsense as all the other excuses with sub-gauss and sub mK magnetic field and temperature oscillations.
Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4
The guy is a liar. I showed how he's doing his probability wrong, because he assumes EVERY one of 14,700 replications is in error. He just keeps repeating his error: No, you don't know your mathematics, because that's like saying that the chance of rolling 10 sixes out of 60 dice is (1/6)^10. It's nonsense. He isn't here to shed light. When a person is off by 4500 orders of magnitude, he cannot be called the one sane person in a nest of True Believers. His purpose is to debunk even when he's been shown to be completely hundreds-of-orders-of-magnitude wrong. Bill says debunking is not allowed. I would think that's when a guy is only off by a few dozen orders of magnitude. On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 6:23 AM, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 07:35:47 -0500 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Mr. Beaty, When I opened up my mail box this morning I was flooded with over 40 posted messages from Joshua Cude. And it's only 7:10 AM in the morning. I know of no one within the Vort Collective besides Cude that has displayed this amount of excessive and obsessive posting behavior. How many more Cude posts can we expect, today alone? Cude is one sane person in a nest of True Believers. He has every right to point out the nonsense the TBs are spouting. Others on this list post far more often than Cude, but you have nothing to say about them; it seems to me you just want to shut Cude up because you do not like what he says.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Cude, You always over simplify the system. If these types of devices were easy to control and to work with, everyone could do it. How much time do you think Rossi should devote to trying to prove this to skeptics with your opinion? I think he should concentrate his efforts upon those that really want to know the truth instead of folks that just debunk for pleasure. He would be wasting valuable time dealing with your concerns. You will eventually accept the truth but only after about half of mankind. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:00 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Dennis, I don't think it would be quite so easy for Rossi to perform the experiment that you propose. It's amazing the excuses true believers contrive to explain why inferior experiments were used. If the thing is to be useful, it should at least be able to heat water. The recent tests were conducted in the open air and the thermal resistance that the ECAT works into has a very strong influence upon its operational parameters. But the thermal resistance is completely out of the experimenters control, and is affected by people walking by. Some kind of water cooling could be designed to remove heat at exactly the same rate, and would be easily controllable. How is that not preferable? If Rossi were to place his device into a tank of water much more heat would be conducted away from the core. That depends on how it is coupled to the water. But it doesn't need to placed into a tank. You can just circulate cooling water through conduits inside an enclosure. These things are already available off the shelf, and for much higher temperatures. This loss of internal temperature likely would prevent the positive feedback from operating properly. I suspect that he went to a lot of trouble adjusting the parameters so that the experiment would be successful in the open air instead of the typical connection methods planned. But why? It has practically no use in that configuration. To exploit it, especially to make electricity, requires some kind of heat exchange, usually with a fluid. Many skeptics insist upon a simple experiment where the ECAT is naked and is easy to observe as protection against scams. He has made a great deal of effort to accommodate their wishes and they are still not satisfied. Do you honestly think that Cude and the others would not come up with some other excuses to claim that the test was not accurate if set up as you suggest? I am convinced that there is no possible way to convince them that his device is real. If you think skeptics can't be convinced, how do you think it can ever be made practical? A system that heats a volume of water would be pretty convincing. That would leave only the input side to worry about. A generator with finite fuel would be good, as long as open scrutiny were permitted, but using controlled cooling should make it possible to self-sustain, and then no input at all would be necessary. Heating enough water in a neutral location without any input and with open scrutiny would convince anyone. But this system is so far from adequate from a skeptical view, that it's a joke. The input is unnecessarily complex and measurements are inadequate, the output is indirectly measured, the blank run uses a different power regimen, the system should self-sustain, but doesn't, the reactor temperature (central cylinder) is not monitored, and above all, it's behind closed doors in Rossi's facilities supervised by hand-picked academics, most of which have been avowed supporters from the beginning. A month before this report, I indicated what I thought would be significant, and what wouldn't. None of the criteria I suggested were needed were met in this test. And it fits the description of a test I specifically said would fall short. It's in the first verbose post I wrote on the subject here. So, this does not represent a change of criteria. On the other hand, true believers were hoping for an independent test with a dozen researchers from 4 universities published under peer review. But they seem to have lowered their standards and are perfectly happy with this farce.
[Vo]:Heating an Olympic pool to boiling
There has been some discussion here as to whether you could heat an Olympic pool to boiling with a 900 W heater. The answer is no, you cannot. In fact there is no way you could even detect this much heat with that much water. As I mentioned that is the heat from two people swimming. That does not ever produce a measurable effect on the pool. It is swamped by sunlight, humidity, wind, the water being stirred by people swimming and other factors. It depends upon how well the pool is insulated but I do not think you could do this even in deep space with a hard vacuum insulation. Here on earth, it would take about 10 MW to heat a pool to boiling, according to this site: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/swimming-pool-heating-d_878.html Length (ft) 164 Width (ft) 82 Depth (ft) 6 Initial Temperature (oF) 50 Final Temperature (oF) 212 Heat-up Load (Btu/hr) Heat Pick-up Time (hr) 24 CALCULATED VALUES: Volume (gal) 605160 (this is correct) Heat-up Load (Btu/hr) 34,067,482 34 067 482 (btu / hour) = 9.98419341 megawatts That sounds about right to me. People should think about their everyday experiences and try to do a reality check when considering questions such as this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Nope, each takes a lot of engineering effort to achieve. When did you become an expert on the design of ECATs? You don't even believe they work in the first place, how can you offer solutions to the problems? Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:01 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The ECAT will need adjustment depending upon the environment into which it operates. This is what should be expected. Exactly, and controlled cooling provides a way to adjust it. Sitting in the open air does not.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Try to be serious Cude. You know that you would find fault with any test system regardless of its performance. Your record speaks for itself. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:02 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I have significant experience with flow calorimeters. I would say: 1. It would end up costing much more than a few hundred dollars. True. But not more than 10k for an off-the-shelf unit. That sounds like a bargain for what Rossi's doing. 2. It would take weeks of testing and futzing around to make it work. 3. It would clog up and it would leak. They always do. I would hate to work with something like this running constantly for months! Not if it's off-the-shelf. It would be designed to work for months,and would certainly be adequate for days, which is what these experiments were run for. 4. The skeptics would find a hundred reasons to doubt it, as they did with Rossi's other flow calorimeters (some of which I will grant were not good). Well, if he produced steam, then yes. Otherwise, a repeat of Levi's experiment was repeatedly requested, but never done. How hard would it be to measure the temperature in the water flow, and if you circulate water from a large tank, even better. You say skeptics can't be pleased, but the experiments specified for the steam cat were simply never done, so how can you know. And now he's abandoned that configuration and is doing something totally different, with its own problems. No test can answer all questions or lay to rest all doubts. Of course it can. At least any doubts about the existence of a new source of energy. An isolated thing that heats a lot of water would do it, under suitable scrutiny..
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Cude, I was of the understanding that you have accepted the accuracy of the thermal imaging output power measurement. Are you now returning to that lost cause? Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:03 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output couldn't have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which would still validate the claim of significant over unity energy output. It's not an order of magnitude, it's a factor of 3. That's the power gain. You can get an order of magnitude in claimed energy density with only a 10% gain in power if you wait long enough. So, the claimed energy density is kind of arbitrary, and relies on the credibility of the power measurement. Still, a factor of 3 is a lot, and if the measurements can be trusted, it's difficult to make an error that large. But it's an indirect method, and if there's suspicion of tampering or deception, it's better to use direct methods. Heating an actual volume of water, or even a flow of water, is harder to fake, as long as you avoid phase changes, and put the thermocouple probes in the water.
Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: The guy is a liar. I doubt that. I get a sense he is somewhat innumerate. People who claim that 14,700 tests are all errors do not have a strong grasp of probability, or the basis of experimental science. I am sure he sincerely believes that. No one would go on repeating that all these years if they did not believe it. There is no point to repeating it, especially here, where practically no one else agrees. It is like preaching to atheists. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Wrong. The ECat at low gain would be valuable to the segment of the population whose only affordable alternative is a resistance space heater COP=1 versus LENR heater COP=3. Next is the home electric water heater. For them, net power for heat is cut by two thirds. DoE says space heating and water heating are the largest consumer of energy in U.S. residences, accounting for approximately 15% of total electricity usage. Savings from this market alone in the USA is a minimum $15 billion annual - from a COP=3 device - if it is safe enough for home use. The low gain is valuable to the those with daytime solar power, needing to maximize house heating from a limited amount of electricity, or at night from electricity stored by batteries. . so little imagination, so much debilitating stubbornness. From: Joshua Cude A COP of 3 is not useful if the electricity was made with fossil fuels at an efficiency of 1/3. That's a wash.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Do you promise to accept the results if he uses one of these calorimeters? Why do I think not? Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:07 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Flow calorimetry has much to be said for it but it is more complicated and less believable than this. A lot more can go wrong with it, and usually does go wrong with it for the first several weeks. It is both more believable, which is why it is actually used for calorimetry, while ir thermometry is not (normally), and has the important advantage that you can control and tailor the cooling.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Wrong again Cude. No one has ever claimed that an ECAT has run in SSM without connection to the power mains. Read what Rossi has written. His definition of SSM is restricted to a brief period of time during which the device is slowly cooling off but generating internal heat. Controlled cooling has not been proven to work yet and may not work with the present design. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:06 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not high wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs. That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the reactor to melt, or explode, so it is not an option. That's the excuse anyway, but it makes no sense. If controlled cooling were used to regulate the temperature, I see no reason that the necessary temperature could not be maintained without it running away. And in the 2012 reports, Rossi, or Penon claim more than 100 hours of self-sustained running. And if it ever proves to have practical value, it will have to be possible to make it self-sustain, since it will have to be able to make more electrical power than it consumes, or more heat than you can make with the fuel that produced the electricity to begin with.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote, regarding a COP of 3: Wrong. The ECat at low gain would be valuable to the segment of the population whose only affordable alternative is a resistance space heater COP=1 versus LENR heater COP=3. There are not many people like that in the first world. Most of them are in the U.S. Pacific Northwest where the electricity comes from hydro or wind power, so production does not take 3 units of thermal power per 1 unit of electricity. That is what I recall from the EIA. Next is the home electric water heater. For them, net power for heat is cut by two thirds. Right. DoE says space heating and water heating are the largest consumer of energy in U.S. residences, accounting for approximately 15% of total electricity usage. Right again. Electric water heating is more common that resistance electric space heating. However, as I said there is no reason to think Rossi or anyone else is limited to a COP of 3. In the most recent tests, the first COP was 6 and the second was 3 but that was very conservative. Probably it was closer to 4. No matter how difficult it is to control the thing at higher COPs, methods will be found, and then perfected. People are able to control extremely dangerous reactions, such as igniting small amounts of gasoline without causing the entire vehicle to explode. This is done all over the world in billions of automobiles every day. Automobiles seldom burn. When they were first developed Otto cycle engines and diesel engines burned and exploded often. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
I wrote: No matter how difficult it is to control the thing at higher COPs, methods will be found, and then perfected. This control problem only seems to be an issue with the high temperature Hot Cat model. At moderate temperatures Rossi ran for long periods with less input power, and a much better COP. Therefore, if we're talking about space heating or hot water heaters, where the temperature reaches about 80°C at most, he has already demonstrated commercially useful COP's. These devices would reduce electric power consumption by a large margin, and eliminate the use of natural gas for everything but cooking. As noted this is a large fraction of all energy use. See chapter 15 of my book. Applications that must have the Hot Cat higher temperatures include things such as electric power generation, transportation, manufacturing, cooking, and some process heat. Process heat used for curing wood and other applications could be done with a low temperature Rossi reactors. We think of energy as necessarily being high temperature high grade heat, such as combustion heat. Actually a large fraction of useful heat is at low temperatures. It just happens that most of our technology produces high-grade heat. This is often an impedance mismatch. It would be better if we could make heat at 50°C rather than thousands of degrees which then have to be cooled down, from a gas flame to space heating. This is crying shame from the point of view of thermodynamics. Heat pumps are a far better use of such high grade energy. A gas flame powered heat pump heating coil would be a better use of natural gas, but it would be difficult to engineer. As I remarked in the last pages of my book, the ultimate impedance mismatch would be a Tokamak reactor which produces temperatures of 400,000,000°C, and might end up being used for resistance electric power heating in houses. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Again, how confident are you that controlled cooling will perform this function? I have serious doubts that it is easy and you have serious doubts that it is possible at all. Please tell us how sure you are that this will work? Do you now believe that the ECAT is real? Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:09 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:50 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It will take more than just a generator and an extension cord to close the loop. Some form of energy storage will be required to do the job. To close the loop with electricity, probably yes. But if you used controlled cooling, you could allow the ecat to rise to the temperature at which it self-sustains, and prevent runaway with the cooling. That would be the obvious way to do it.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Cude, you are consistent at least. You are like a Mary Yugo on steroids. Both of you repeat your statements over and over and they have no substance. I just proved your DC cheat trick inert and the others you insist upon depend upon Rossi running a scam so you have nothing but straws. I only believe what I have seen adequately demonstrated. You would not believe anything you see period. That is the difference between us. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:13 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:18 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The best proof is one that has the least possibility of error. Or the least possibility of error that favors the ecat, or the least possibility of tampering. An isolated ecat eliminates input tampering. A heated tank of water eliminates output tampering. Heating an isolated tank of water of sufficient volume to sufficient temperature with an isolated device is pretty much iron-clad, as long as the isolation can be transparently verified. Every complication that is added to the setup results in many more issues to question by the skeptics. Not true if the complications allows disconnection from the mains, or allows manifest integration of the heat. The technique used by the testers of the ECAT is good enough for any reasonable scientist to accept Only if you define reasonable as true believer. You fail to realize that there is no way what so ever to meet their requirements since they do not believe LENR is possible. An isolated device heating an isolated tank of water in an isolated location would meet all the skeptics' requirements. Anyway, as I said, you can't possibly think it will ever be practical, if you think skeptics cannot be convinced. They have failed to prove their position entirely, Also the believers have failed to prove theirs...
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
How much of an impact will it have upon you (Cude) to hear that an ECAT self distructed because the input control was removed? Hum, seems like that has been stated. Get real, admit that there is no level of performance that would convince you except for the next one you dig up. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:15 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: There was a time when this field desperately needed a standalone self powered reactor to prove the reaction is real. That is because absolute power was low, ranging from 5 to 100 W. However, now that Rossi has developed high-powered reactors ranging from 500 to . . . 1 MW (I guess?) the need for standalone reactors is reduced. Nonsense, the absence is all the more suspicious. With a thermal-to-thermal COP of 2 or more, it should be a piece of cake to make it self-sustaining. That he hasn't most likely means the claims are bogus. The only way these results could be wrong would be if Rossi has somehow found a way to fool a watt meter. If he is capable of doing that he is also capable of making something that looks like a self-sustaining demonstration but is not. Disagree. The latter is not in the same league.
RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
must be connected to the mains--bingo- if your process requires electrical input you must have a high COP. The conversion from heat back into electrical power places restrictions on you ability to make it self sustaining. IF you can get heat out at around 300C you theoretically could self sustain at somewhere just over 2:1 but that would require closely matching the conversion device and the rate of heat extraction. When you down in the sub 100C range (where I always seem to end up) for extraction, then you have to be at over 5:1 if you are perfect and more like 10 to 1 for a real world device when you have to also make electrical conversion, fight heat losses, power to the controlling units, and such. Also, you have to have a way to balance heat extraction rates with keeping the unit above its desired working temperature. You just about have to have a variable heat conductive path of some kind. [ a few here might be interested- I am presently trying to make a variable heat path device using a concentric tube around a heat pipe with a ferro fluid between- but then I am a much lower COP ] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:46:26 -0400 Wrong again Cude. No one has ever claimed that an ECAT has run in SSM without connection to the power mains. Read what Rossi has written. His definition of SSM is restricted to a brief period of time during which the device is slowly cooling off but generating internal heat. Controlled cooling has not been proven to work yet and may not work with the present design. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:06 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not high wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs. That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the reactor to melt, or explode, so it is not an option. That's the excuse anyway, but it makes no sense. If controlled cooling were used to regulate the temperature, I see no reason that the necessary temperature could not be maintained without it running away. And in the 2012 reports, Rossi, or Penon claim more than 100 hours of self-sustained running. And if it ever proves to have practical value, it will have to be possible to make it self-sustain, since it will have to be able to make more electrical power than it consumes, or more heat than you can make with the fuel that produced the electricity to begin with.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
You know that we are just being truthful Cude. The evidence is overwhelming at this point but you do not see it. And I have tried to educate you about how heat controls the ECAT and you fail to understand. Frankly, I do not know what else can be done except to have you burn yourself sitting upon one of the ECATs that has its control system turned off. Even then, you would swear that someone had hidden gasoline inside it prior to your sitting. You are a broken record. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:16 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Dr. Richard L. Garwin is alive and well and will likely live to have his tea. If you believe Rothwell and Roberson, skeptics will never have to concede, because no application of cold fusion is obvious enough to make them believe it. Therefore, there will be no crow, or tea, on the menu. Of course the premise is nonsense. But the last sentence is still almost certainly true.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
So why would you want to buy three tons of coal to generate electricity if only one ton were needed? Rossi has pointed out on several occasions that his device will operate with gas heating. Would you prefer to put out that extra carbon dioxide and pay the extra cost for the coal if you had an ECAT that tripled your energy supply? I prefer the many options that open when the COP is 6, but that does not mean that a COP of 3 is not important. You should know better than to make these kinds of statements. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:19 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: If the device cannotself-power, it is still valuable with a lower COP, the proverbial hot water orspace heater - A COP of 3 is not useful if the electricity was made with fossil fuels at an efficiency of 1/3. That's a wash.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: must be connected to the mains--bingo- if your process requires electrical input you must have a high COP. Where did that graph come from? Did you make it? I have never heard of mechanical work from temperatures below 100 deg C. By the way, I wrote: These [low temperature] devices would reduce electric power consumption by a large margin, and eliminate the use of natural gas for everything but cooking. I meant in household (domestic) applications. These would have to be driven with mains electricity. Or perhaps with a Hot Cat power generator. Energy applications are often divided into domestic, commercial, industrial and transportation sectors. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
That is right Josh, keep raising the bar. There has been sufficient proof shown so far and you and your friends have not accepted it. Why should Rossi think that any additional level of proof would be anything but a waste of his time? He is smarter than you realize. I can hardly wait for the day when you fade away into the woodwork claiming that you were favoring the ECAT all along. Your position is well established at this point. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:21 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: WHY are you so certain that wattmeters do not work?!? You know that's not the objection. There is no chance Rossi can fool one, and if the people doing the test have any doubt about that, they can bring a portable generator. Would that they had. To put it another way, if you do not trust the wattmeter, why would you trust the IR camera or thermocouple? If Rossi can fool a wattmeter he can fool any instrument. What would he fool with an isolated device? And he couldn't fool a mercury thermometer to measure the temperature of a tank of water, if it was brought by a skeptic to a neutral location.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Why don't you review the actual peak input drive levels required Josh? Once you understand how it operates your statement will become non sense even to you. Some form of energy storage will be required as has been said several times. Please try to understand the system. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:22 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Portable generator is also fine and even better, because it leaves very little room for tricks and doubt. But after 10 or so demonstrations we have had only one portable generator and that also was brought by Rossi. And it had the same output as the claimed ecat.
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Cude, I hope that one day you will be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as you love to throw at everyone else. To claim that these men are all scamming is contemptuous. To deny that all the previous replications by various labs is fake or due to ignorance is beyond belief. We would be better served if you returned to your 'moletrap' where you are the king. They bow to you like their God. I suspect that you are here in spades because one of them went crying to you about me proving him wrong. It does not go past my review that you have failed to take me up on the offer of a spice replication attempt. I suspect that spice models are far beyond your area of knowledge, and any EE subjects that you speak to should be disregarded. Josh, you could put your talents to good use instead of wasting them like this. How unfortunate it is that you have a hobby of debunking cold fusion instead of trying to enhance the effort. I have not totally given up on you yet and perhaps one day you will see the light. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:26 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Leading scam hypothesis does assume that Giuseppe Levi is a scammer and he is as bad as Rossi. And he brought most of the instruments. I see. And these other co-authors are so stupid they do not even notice the equipment is not working? Probably. Essen was stupid enough to think a humidity probe could determine steam quality, or that visual inspection of steam was enough. Even though they calibrated the wattmeter with a resistor? Even though they stepped a blank cell through a calibration? Different power regimen. Doesn't count. So you are saying Levi wants to destroy his own reputation for no reason, for no possible benefit. There may be benefit, and he has retained plausible deniability, so the risk is small. Because there is not slightest chance he or Rossi will get away with this. Sooner or later someone will bring an instrument that reveals the scam. Much later is possible though. BLP has gone for 20 years+ with many claims and no product and no revealing of a scam. Also, how did Rossi and Levi manage to make modern integrated circuit instruments work wrong? Watch these videos if you didn't like the cheese video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD7DzTIFJdU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KMLmpC7-Ls http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1eMryiU1ro They're not about faking power, but show some amazing electronics fakes.
RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
I just ripped it off the net. It is just the limiting Carnott efficiency 1-t/T like. Yes there are small Stirlings that can convert down in the sub 100C range fairly efficiently, but with them you would have to go heatmechanical electrical control you cell. Peltiers give you direct heat electrical but you are lucky to get 5% in the real world on those and that would mean a COP of 20 for a self sustaining thing. You also can get heat mechanical via things like NITINOL wire systems and Minto wheels at fairly low temps. [my target for NI is 2 to 3:1 but not self sustaining, I doubt it will be convincing to outsiders- just a start. I do have one sample though that I might can get self heating enough to do mechanical work with a toy Stirling. But, as usual, not at levels to be free from fraud attacks] Jed- do you know who/what is the demo listed for ICCF Monday evening? D2 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:51:00 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: must be connected to the mains--bingo- if your process requires electrical input you must have a high COP. Where did that graph come from? Did you make it? I have never heard of mechanical work from temperatures below 100 deg C. By the way, I wrote: These [low temperature] devices would reduce electric power consumption by a large margin, and eliminate the use of natural gas for everything but cooking. I meant in household (domestic) applications. These would have to be driven with mains electricity. Or perhaps with a Hot Cat power generator. Energy applications are often divided into domestic, commercial, industrial and transportation sectors. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4
Jed, you admit that you haven't read most of his postings so you haven't a clue. He is a liar. His goal is to debunk. That should be obvious. He has violated a number of rules, and we have been quite tolerant. 10% of his verbal diarrhea is useful, but the rest is sweeping generalizations, the repetition of definitive-sounding statements which have been shown to be wrong, and insults. In case anyone missed it, Cude's arrogance is so blatant as expressed in these two comments about people on this forum: On 5/31: Man, this place is crawling with ignoramuses. on 6/1: It's funny how the most vocal advocates for cold fusion shouting that skeptics are not scientific mostly have no scientific background. You and Lomax and Krivit (though not on Rossi), Carat, Wuller, Tyler, and all the engineers on this site. If there were anything to cold fusion, it really wouldn't need a bunch of untrained idiots to promote it. -Mark From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 6:46 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: The guy is a liar. I doubt that. I get a sense he is somewhat innumerate. People who claim that 14,700 tests are all errors do not have a strong grasp of probability, or the basis of experimental science. I am sure he sincerely believes that. No one would go on repeating that all these years if they did not believe it. There is no point to repeating it, especially here, where practically no one else agrees. It is like preaching to atheists. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Heating an Olympic pool to boiling
It occurred to me that if heat energy becomes free enough, you could use it to sterilize a swimming pool by putting the heater in the circulation pump line and boiling, then condensing the water back to its original temperature briefly as it travels through the plumbing. A circulation pump can be on the order of 100 gallons/minute, so it's still lots of power, but most would be recovered during the condensing phase. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 6:39 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Heating an Olympic pool to boiling There has been some discussion here as to whether you could heat an Olympic pool to boiling with a 900 W heater. The answer is no, you cannot. In fact there is no way you could even detect this much heat with that much water. As I mentioned that is the heat from two people swimming. That ...
Re: [Vo]: DC Meter Cheat Spice Model to be Replicated
Yes when a pseudoskeptic comes up with a scattershot of arguments in the alternative it is thought crime to take one of them and determine its veracity so as to eliminate a possibility. The pseudoskeptic's purpose is not for you to evaluate the arguments but to be frightened of thinking. On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:21 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have requested that Cude or any others interested in finding the truth construct a similar model and prove me wrong. I never made any claims about dc rectification. I said that the experimental design leaves opportunities for deception, one example of which is the cheese video. There are surely others that talented electrical engineers could design that would fool that cabal of trusting dupes, and would be impossible to deduce from a poorly written account of the experiment. I think it's a mug's game because it assumes that every possible method of deception can be excluded. There are obviously ways to reduce the possibilities of deception, but the best way is to have people *not* selected by Rossi arrange all the input power and its monitoring, make it as simple as possible (2 lines) and preferably from a finite source (generator), and use a method that visually integrates the heat, like heating a volume of water. It's just such nonsense to imagine that Rossi has a technology that will replace fossil fuels, and he can't arrange an unequivocal demonstration. This [cooperative analysis of a particular deception scheme] is the way science should be conducted and I hope that it represents the future of cooperation between all parties concerned. If you think *science* is about second guessing someone's demo, and trying to sleuth whether or not he cheated, then you have no clue. Science at its best is about disclosing discoveries so others can test them. Even if Rossi needs to keep his sauce secret, the need to guess and speculate about what's going on, and to make models to determine something that *someone already knows* is not science. It's idiocy. And yes, I freely participate in this idiocy, but at least I don't call it science.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
I find it interesting that one who avoids any quantitative work would expect others to supply him with that information. josh, it would be a major waste of my time to do as you ask since it would be amazing for you to even take a glance at the data. I do admit that Rossi has done an excellent job of protecting his IP and so I have not choice but to work with models. This should come as not surprise to anyone familiar with this issue. Recheck your calculation of the peak input requirement Josh. I will leave that as an exercise to improve your knowledge. Perhaps after that work you will have a better understanding of the problems facing Rossi. I prefer not to repeat myself as much as some. I have no recall of constant power being inputted during the December test. This would not be a stable condition under normal circumstances. One day you will understand how this puppy operates and I would like to be there when that happens! Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 11:38 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 4:10 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, Model 1 appears to be more in line with what I suspect is happening except for the explanation of the lack of external heat for control issue. You need to consider that the peak heat power being generated inside the core is only about 2 times greater than the resistor heating required to control it at the turn around point. Rossi has stated this on several occasions and it matches my model. But it's not consistent with the December hot cat, in which case the overall COP was 6, and as I've argued, less than half of the input power will reach the core, the rest directly heating the outer ceramic. So, in that case, you probably have at least a peak power in the core at least 10 times larger that the external heat that is controlling it. When such a large percentage of the net power at that node is taken away abruptly, a turn around in temperature direction occurs. This is a complicated positive feedback system where a large fraction of the internally generated heat is being absorbed by the thermal mass of the device. Enough external heat is removed to force the core to be starved. That reverses the temperature path. Once reversed, the positive feedback works in a manner that accelerates the falling core temperature toward room. Could you provide the temperature dependence of the reaction rate and the heat loss that would produce such an effect. And also explain how the December hot cat was stable with constant input power. If you are very good, or lucky, you can reverse the core at just below an optimum point which will allow the temperature to languish there for an extended time before it begins it rapid decent. This is how you achieve a high value of COP. The core has a lot of time during which it puts out large values of heat energy before requiring a refresh drive pulse. The drive remains off for a longer time while the high temperature lingers. Does this help to explain the operation according to my model? Not to me. It's all just hand-waving. Could you quantify things a little? And explain why constant power was used in December.
Re: [Vo]: DC Meter Cheat Spice Model to be Replicated
I recall you taking up the DC cheating issue from your friend. You are searching for straws and wishing to throw as much non sense into the fray as possible. This is your technique to confuse people who are monitoring the site. They will not realize that you do not have a clue since all they detect is a lot of words that appear knowledgeable. Your statements are never backed up by any facts, just speculation. The only hole left for you and the others to crawl into involves scams and you know it. Now that the DC issue has been proven wrong, you back away from it. Why did you not earlier acknowledge that it was a red herring if you knew that to be true? This represents more deception on your behalf. Were you afraid to use your real knowledge to set a fellow skeptic straight? Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 11:38 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: DC Meter Cheat Spice Model to be Replicated On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:21 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have requested that Cude or any others interested in finding the truth construct a similar model and prove me wrong. I never made any claims about dc rectification. I said that the experimental design leaves opportunities for deception, one example of which is the cheese video. There are surely others that talented electrical engineers could design that would fool that cabal of trusting dupes, and would be impossible to deduce from a poorly written account of the experiment. I think it's a mug's game because it assumes that every possible method of deception can be excluded. There are obviously ways to reduce the possibilities of deception, but the best way is to have people *not* selected by Rossi arrange all the input power and its monitoring, make it as simple as possible (2 lines) and preferably from a finite source (generator), and use a method that visually integrates the heat, like heating a volume of water. It's just such nonsense to imagine that Rossi has a technology that will replace fossil fuels, and he can't arrange an unequivocal demonstration. This [cooperative analysis of a particular deception scheme] is the way science should be conducted and I hope that it represents the future of cooperation between all parties concerned. If you think *science* is about second guessing someone's demo, and trying to sleuth whether or not he cheated, then you have no clue. Science at its best is about disclosing discoveries so others can test them. Even if Rossi needs to keep his sauce secret, the need to guess and speculate about what's going on, and to make models to determine something that *someone already knows* is not science. It's idiocy. And yes, I freely participate in this idiocy, but at least I don't call it science.
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Josh, back to the same type of arguments. A long list that would be exhaustive to anyone reading is not the way to sort this out. I refuse to react to this non sense. Why do you not understand my explanation as to how heat can be used in a positive feedback system as a control? It is pretty elementary to me, but then again, I design things instead of retard their introduction. So you find it educational to ask cab drivers, etc. how to handle physics problems? Now we know where you get those wild ideas. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 11:53 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is apparent that Mr. Cude does not have a valid case and is not willing to discuss the issues. I've written a lot of words, so obviously I'm willing to discuss. I'm kind of outnumbered here, so it's not possible to respond to everything promptly. I'm sorry if you felt neglected in the last round, but Rothwell spewed forth so much nonsense, that was nevertheless more comprehensible than your non-explanation explanations (which are really just assertions), that it took higher priority. As for the weekend, well, I do unfortunately have a life. I insisted to others who are part of it that there were more people than usual wrong on the internet, and it was really important that I straighten them out, but it was my anniversary, and my wife was having none of it. But on our little weekend, I asked everyone who would listen if they thought adding heat was a logical way to regulate positive thermal feedback, and everyone from the concierge to the waiter to the lifeguard at the pool said that while it might be possible in some contrived situation, it's the stupidest thing they ever heard of. Of course, I had to explain that it was like using an electric space heater to regulate the output of a fireplace. Only the cab driver hesitated, and said he'd get back to me after he checked with his dispatcher -- I'm still waiting. We can show that every one of his positions is nothing more than speculation with absolutely no substantiation. With only a paper to go on describing an experiment that we cannot test, that's true of every position, and in particular the position that it involves cold fusion. There are alternative explanations, and to the smart people, cold fusion is the least likely. You have made no argument to change that view. He refuses to acknowledge errors I've acknowledged several errors that true believers have made. that he continues to present as fact when he knows that they have no basis. I have presented as fact only things that are facts. Like the fact that they said they used 3-phase power. The idea that the purpose of the 3-phase is to obfuscate and make deception easier is, I have admitted, speculation, just as is the idea that there's any cold fusion going on. 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. No. You really haven't. You have only said that you could explain it. I have asked for your proposed temperature dependence of the reaction rate and heat loss, and you haven't supplied it. He fails to understand how the DC component … I have made no specific argument about dc. You are arguing with someone else. I have said that the meter they use is inadequate because it has a limited frequency range, and clampons measure only net ac current. Therefore power at a frequency outside the range of the meter would not be detected, or concealed conductors could produce zero net current through a clampon, while nevertheless delivering power to the load, as in cheese power. I'm no EE, but if you want to exclude tricks, you should measure the input in detail. There is no indication the connections were removed and checked carefully, or of any use of a scope. That makes it suspicious. One method of deception has been identified. I hardly think it's the only one, given the confusing wiring, and the even more confusing description of the wiring and the measurements. We can't even agree on where the measurements were made in some instances. I didn't follow the dc discussion you're talking about, and I don't follow what you're saying about it. But one thing that I've not seen excluded (in addition to the cheese power) is that the 3 power lines are all floating on a dc level because of tampering with the line itself. The clampons would not detect that, and neither would the interline voltage measurements, which is all that is reported. But if there's a neutral line in to the box, power can be generated from the dc component above that indicated by the meter. Hartman says he considered a dc bias of all the input lines, but that it would require a return
Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4
Scientific background's can be manufactured on the spot. Big deal! Ruby Carat Bachelor's in Physics Master's in Math Free jazz musician (All true) Best credential? No afraid to ask questions and admit ignorance. But I sure don't want to confuse Cude with my booklearnin... On 6/4/13 8:23 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Jed, you admit that you haven't read most of his postings so you haven't a clue. He is a liar. His goal is to debunk. That should be obvious. He has violated a number of rules, and we have been quite tolerant. on 6/1: It's funny how the most vocal advocates for cold fusion shouting that skeptics are not scientific mostly have no scientific background. You and Lomax and Krivit (though not on Rossi), Carat, Wuller, Tyler, and all the engineers on this site. If there were anything to cold fusion, it really wouldn't need a bunch of untrained idiots to promote it. -Mark -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Dennis, please look at the many descriptions that have been written about why the COP must be beyond a certain level to supply itself without having problems. A COP of 2 to 1 could not make enough electricity to supply the drive by any means. Electronic control required electrical energy and that must be available for stable operation of the device. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 11:58 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... must be connected to the mains--bingo- if your process requires electrical input you must have a high COP. The conversion from heat back into electrical power places restrictions on you ability to make it self sustaining. IF you can get heat out at around 300C you theoretically could self sustain at somewhere just over 2:1 but that would require closely matching the conversion device and the rate of heat extraction. When you down in the sub 100C range (where I always seem to end up) for extraction, then you have to be at over 5:1 if you are perfect and more like 10 to 1 for a real world device when you have to also make electrical conversion, fight heat losses, power to the controlling units, and such. Also, you have to have a way to balance heat extraction rates with keeping the unit above its desired working temperature. You just about have to have a variable heat conductive path of some kind. [ a few here might be interested- I am presently trying to make a variable heat path device using a concentric tube around a heat pipe with a ferro fluid between- but then I am a much lower COP ] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:46:26 -0400 Wrong again Cude. No one has ever claimed that an ECAT has run in SSM without connection to the power mains. Read what Rossi has written. His definition of SSM is restricted to a brief period of time during which the device is slowly cooling off but generating internal heat. Controlled cooling has not been proven to work yet and may not work with the present design. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:06 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not high wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs. That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the reactor to melt, or explode, so it is not an option. That's the excuse anyway, but it makes no sense. If controlled cooling were used to regulate the temperature, I see no reason that the necessary temperature could not be maintained without it running away. And in the 2012 reports, Rossi, or Penon claim more than 100 hours of self-sustained running. And if it ever proves to have practical value, it will have to be possible to make it self-sustain, since it will have to be able to make more electrical power than it consumes, or more heat than you can make with the fuel that produced the electricity to begin with.
RE: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4
... at what point does this incessant (IMO) kind posting behavior considered a nuisance and hindrance to on-going Vortex discussions? Now, if Cude is genuinely making a good contribution I'll have nothing more to say on this matter. But it would be interesting to hear a consensus on how much of a genuine contribution Cude is allegedly making - from other Vort members. Now that I am subscribed to the list, I have the ability to filter people such as Cude directly. However, there is no reasonable means of filtering the large volume of useless responses to his postings. So, as when I read the vortex web archives only, I am left to scan for names I recognize that I suspect may have something to contribute through the noise. This is tedious and fundamentally error-prone. The result is that I typically delete en masse the majority of related discussions. I don't Because I quickly elected to simply ignore pseudo-skeptics such as Cude, I cannot make specific claims as to the contents of his posts, only that I do not care to read them. However, I can claim that his posts are in fact quite disruptive to the flow of discussion and hence to the purpose of this list. If I were moderating this list, I would not tolerate it. -Robert
Re: [Vo]:Heating an Olympic pool to boiling
electricity is more efficient for that: Adamant Technologies SA have developed a technology to clean water with electrolysis and doped diamond coated electrodes. http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapid=32571440 It is under chapter11 because they could not find their market, and real application like water for baby was too disruptive for the big players like Danone... they step back to organic pool cleaning, but it was not enough... some patent may be sold http://www.patentstorm.us/assignee-patents/_Adamant_Technologies_SA/601041/1.html you can see there what happen to a technology that could change the world by giving easily save water to babies... Big players helped much by cowardliness and desire not to cut easy sales. 2013/6/4 Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.net It occurred to me that if heat energy becomes free enough, you could use it to sterilize a swimming pool by putting the heater in the circulation pump line and boiling, then condensing the water back to its original temperature briefly as it travels through the plumbing. A circulation pump can be on the order of 100 gallons/minute, so it's still lots of power, but most would be recovered during the condensing phase. ** ** Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US ** ** ** ** *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, June 4, 2013 6:39 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* [Vo]:Heating an Olympic pool to boiling ** ** There has been some discussion here as to whether you could heat an Olympic pool to boiling with a 900 W heater. The answer is no, you cannot. In fact there is no way you could even detect this much heat with that much water. As I mentioned that is the heat from two people swimming. That ...* *** ** **
Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4
Robert, Please forgive me for responding to Cude and perhaps allowing his non sense to escape the filter. I will restrict that situation from this point forth. I feel badly for how I have contributed to this mess, but he was directly attacking me and I hated to just stand by and let his inputs escape rebuttal. My responses to Cude are hereby reduced to near zero since he offers little to the discussions. Dave -Original Message- From: Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 12:17 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4 ... at what point does this incessant (IMO) kind posting behavior considered a nuisance and hindrance to on-going Vortex discussions? Now, if Cude is genuinely making a good contribution I’ll have nothing more to say on this matter. But it would be interesting to hear a consensus on how much of a genuine contribution Cude is allegedly making - from other Vort members. Now that I am subscribed to the list, I have the ability to filter people such as Cude directly. However, there is no reasonable means of filtering the large volume of useless responses to his postings. So, as when I read the vortex web archives only, I am left to scan for names I recognize that I suspect may have something to contribute through the noise. This is tedious and fundamentally error-prone. The result is that I typically delete en masse the majority of related discussions. I don't Because I quickly elected to simply ignore pseudo-skeptics such as Cude, I cannot make specific claims as to the contents of his posts, only that I do not care to read them. However, I can claim that his posts are in fact quite disruptive to the flow of discussion and hence to the purpose of this list. If I were moderating this list, I would not tolerate it. -Robert
RE: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4
Vorl: You haven't a clue either... When it comes to LENR, there is overwhelming evidence, and most of the people on this forum who 'appear' as TBs, have read the literature, so to call them TBs is in error; they are basing their decision on having read the evidence themselves. To someone who hasn't read it, or only skimmed it, I'm sure we look like TBs. Like Dr. Rob Duncan said at the end of the 60-Minutes story on CF, Read the publications, talk to the [CF] scientists, visit their labs... DON'T LET OTHERS DO YOUR THINKING FOR YOU. Many here have... have you? When it comes to Rossi, I see plenty of rational criticism and concern as well in most regular contributors on this forum; I think we all have some level of concern and are not 100% convinced. That is not the definition of a TB. If Rossi was the lone claimant of excess heat and other anomalous observations, then perhaps TB would be appropriate. But that is not that case. So we can either sit here and bad-mouth Rossi, and think of all manner of ways that it could be a scam (which serves no useful purpose other than self-gratification), OR, we can assume he's onto something, which due to much evidence outside of Rossi is reasonable, and try to help progress by discussing reasonable concerns and possible mechanisms. There are some experimentalists on the forum and perhaps it'll help their efforts; which is the more honorable use of our time? It should be obvious... At least this forum has a level of respect for the individual and those who might be onto some discovery that could benefit all, and the planet. Cude has no respect for the people on this forum, and probably in general... his arrogance is so blatant, even you should be able to see it. -Mark -Original Message- From: Vorl Bek [mailto:vorl@antichef.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 6:23 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4 On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 07:35:47 -0500 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Mr. Beaty, When I opened up my mail box this morning I was flooded with over 40 posted messages from Joshua Cude. And it's only 7:10 AM in the morning. I know of no one within the Vort Collective besides Cude that has displayed this amount of excessive and obsessive posting behavior. How many more Cude posts can we expect, today alone? Cude is one sane person in a nest of True Believers. He has every right to point out the nonsense the TBs are spouting. Others on this list post far more often than Cude, but you have nothing to say about them; it seems to me you just want to shut Cude up because you do not like what he says.
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Onze helden zijn terug! (Our heroes are back!)
There are bad ones too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHyug2PvpB8
RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
that is why I said: if your process requires electrical input you must have a high COP. for a real world device when you have to also make electrical conversion, fight heat losses, power to the controlling units, and such. You may want to re read my post. But also realize that Ecats are just one of many paths in the area of CF. D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 12:17:10 -0400 Dennis, please look at the many descriptions that have been written about why the COP must be beyond a certain level to supply itself without having problems. A COP of 2 to 1 could not make enough electricity to supply the drive by any means. Electronic control required electrical energy and that must be available for stable operation of the device. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 11:58 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... must be connected to the mains--bingo- if your process requires electrical input you must have a high COP. The conversion from heat back into electrical power places restrictions on you ability to make it self sustaining. IF you can get heat out at around 300C you theoretically could self sustain at somewhere just over 2:1 but that would require closely matching the conversion device and the rate of heat extraction. When you down in the sub 100C range (where I always seem to end up) for extraction, then you have to be at over 5:1 if you are perfect and more like 10 to 1 for a real world device when you have to also make electrical conversion, fight heat losses, power to the controlling units, and such. Also, you have to have a way to balance heat extraction rates with keeping the unit above its desired working temperature. You just about have to have a variable heat conductive path of some kind. [ a few here might be interested- I am presently trying to make a variable heat path device using a concentric tube around a heat pipe with a ferro fluid between- but then I am a much lower COP ] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:46:26 -0400 Wrong again Cude. No one has ever claimed that an ECAT has run in SSM without connection to the power mains. Read what Rossi has written. His definition of SSM is restricted to a brief period of time during which the device is slowly cooling off but generating internal heat. Controlled cooling has not been proven to work yet and may not work with the present design. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:06 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not high wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs. That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the reactor to melt, or explode, so it is not an option. That's the excuse anyway, but it makes no sense. If controlled cooling were used to regulate the temperature, I see no reason that the necessary temperature could not be maintained without it running away. And in the 2012 reports, Rossi, or Penon claim more than 100 hours of self-sustained running. And if it ever proves to have practical value, it will have to be possible to make it self-sustain, since it will have to be able to make more electrical power than it consumes, or more heat than you can make with the fuel that produced the electricity to begin with.
