Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[Alain Sepeda]

because the know they are wrong, and they have to protect their certainty
to be right...
That is not logic, but it is logical; for a brain which defend it's mental
asset.
http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20Slides%20for%20Posting_s.pdf
http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%207p%20paper.pdf

Another need is to save victims (hero symptom). Sure we are not so
different on that point... if we were rational, like Fat Tony of Taleb, we
should just try to exploit the delusion of others, not try to educate them.
Some work on that rational scenario.
Best education is to screw the delusioned.


2013/6/27 John Berry 

> Question: If skeptics really do not believe that something is possible,
> then why must they fight so hard to defend reality from such an ill
> conceived notion?
>
> Especially when something like cold fusion clearly could not be believed
> for long if funded and embraced and it turned out to be entirely without
> merit.
> If they really believe it can not possibly have merit they should support
> genuine research to answer the question once and for all, put the nail in
> the coffin.
>
> The same could be said of most provable and falsifiable fringe subjects.
>
> Really the only way fringe notions remain plausible is because they have
> not had enough investigation done to rule them out (or in).
>
> Therefore I do not really think that they are really so certain that it
> isn't possible, at least subconsciously they are scared it is true.
>
> And they are fighting against that ever being proven.
> At least that is my shot at it, but consciously and outwardly they are
> very certain.
>
> John
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Brussels LENR meeting presentations in pdf

[Axil Axil]

Analysis by germanium gamma detectors revealed presence of 100 billion
atoms of Ag, Pd, Rh, and (one) Ru isotopes having ratios unlike those from
bombardment by high-energy deuteron or proton beams.

http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1124-EPRI-Skeptic-Finds-Heavy-Element-Transmutation-Cold-Fusion-Experiment!-Hidden-3-years
.

Science should be done on the basis of experimental results.


On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:48 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CirilloDtransmutat.pdf
>
>
> Transmutation of metal at low energy in a confined plasma in water
> *
>
> Conclusions
> *
>
> The plasma is able to initiate transmutation reactions. Future studies are
> underway to understand the mechanism of these reactions. We propose that
> these reactions are the main source of measured excess energy.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
>> Twelve days ago I wrote:
>>
>>  Presumably the experiment ran for a while, but nonetheless one gets the
>>> impression that the tritium is more than simply the result of some side
>>> reaction, and it looks like the main daughter in this case.
>>>
>>
>> This was in connection with a slide presented by Michael McKubre at the
>> meeting in Brussels convened to take a look at work on the Fleischmann and
>> Pons effect.  The slide summarized a replication by SRI of an experiment by
>> Arata and Zhang using a unique "DS" cathode, where a palladium outer shell
>> was filled with palladium black and then the whole thing electrolyzed in
>> LiOD and LiOH.  I thought the slide was very interesting because it
>> indicated that SRI had measured 10^15 atoms of tritium, and I wondered
>> whether it was the main daughter in that reaction.
>>
>> I have since read more about that replication in an appendix to a review
>> paper that was prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy review in 2004.
>>  It seems the 10^15 atoms of tritium were generated over a period of 86
>> days.  The amount was very significant -- the original amount was about
>> 0.05 percent of the final amount.  But the final amount was not at a level
>> to produce the excess heat SRI saw, and it was not even at a level to be
>> measured in their calorimeter.  In that replication, they did not find the
>> daughter product that was causing the heat; they found no 4He, and the 3He
>> was at levels and in a spatial distribution consistent with tritium decay.
>>  So the source of the excess heat in that replication was unaccounted for.
>>
>> The appendix to the DoE paper mentions three possible sources of the
>> excess heat, and the last one is that the heat was produced by 4He
>> formation at the surface of the cathode, rather than within it, and, as a
>> consequence, the 4He vented into the atmosphere.  This possibility is an
>> interesting one, because it is consistent with the hypothesis that the
>> tritium was also produced at the cathode surface and then migrated (as
>> hydrogen can be expected to) into the cathode under the voltage that was
>> applied during the electrolysis.  In this scenario, one source of the
>> tritium would be from 6Li(d,t)5Li reactions from prompt d's shooting into
>> the electrolyte.  (Ed has mentioned another possibility -- a d+e+p
>> reaction.)
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Brussels LENR meeting presentations in pdf

[Axil Axil]

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


Transmutation of metal at low energy in a confined plasma in water
*

Conclusions
*

The plasma is able to initiate transmutation reactions. Future studies are
underway to understand the mechanism of these reactions. We propose that
these reactions are the main source of measured excess energy.






On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> Twelve days ago I wrote:
>
> Presumably the experiment ran for a while, but nonetheless one gets the
>> impression that the tritium is more than simply the result of some side
>> reaction, and it looks like the main daughter in this case.
>>
>
> This was in connection with a slide presented by Michael McKubre at the
> meeting in Brussels convened to take a look at work on the Fleischmann and
> Pons effect.  The slide summarized a replication by SRI of an experiment by
> Arata and Zhang using a unique "DS" cathode, where a palladium outer shell
> was filled with palladium black and then the whole thing electrolyzed in
> LiOD and LiOH.  I thought the slide was very interesting because it
> indicated that SRI had measured 10^15 atoms of tritium, and I wondered
> whether it was the main daughter in that reaction.
>
> I have since read more about that replication in an appendix to a review
> paper that was prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy review in 2004.
>  It seems the 10^15 atoms of tritium were generated over a period of 86
> days.  The amount was very significant -- the original amount was about
> 0.05 percent of the final amount.  But the final amount was not at a level
> to produce the excess heat SRI saw, and it was not even at a level to be
> measured in their calorimeter.  In that replication, they did not find the
> daughter product that was causing the heat; they found no 4He, and the 3He
> was at levels and in a spatial distribution consistent with tritium decay.
>  So the source of the excess heat in that replication was unaccounted for.
>
> The appendix to the DoE paper mentions three possible sources of the
> excess heat, and the last one is that the heat was produced by 4He
> formation at the surface of the cathode, rather than within it, and, as a
> consequence, the 4He vented into the atmosphere.  This possibility is an
> interesting one, because it is consistent with the hypothesis that the
> tritium was also produced at the cathode surface and then migrated (as
> hydrogen can be expected to) into the cathode under the voltage that was
> applied during the electrolysis.  In this scenario, one source of the
> tritium would be from 6Li(d,t)5Li reactions from prompt d's shooting into
> the electrolyte.  (Ed has mentioned another possibility -- a d+e+p
> reaction.)
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Brussels LENR meeting presentations in pdf

[Eric Walker]

Twelve days ago I wrote:

Presumably the experiment ran for a while, but nonetheless one gets the
> impression that the tritium is more than simply the result of some side
> reaction, and it looks like the main daughter in this case.
>

This was in connection with a slide presented by Michael McKubre at the
meeting in Brussels convened to take a look at work on the Fleischmann and
Pons effect.  The slide summarized a replication by SRI of an experiment by
Arata and Zhang using a unique "DS" cathode, where a palladium outer shell
was filled with palladium black and then the whole thing electrolyzed in
LiOD and LiOH.  I thought the slide was very interesting because it
indicated that SRI had measured 10^15 atoms of tritium, and I wondered
whether it was the main daughter in that reaction.

I have since read more about that replication in an appendix to a review
paper that was prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy review in 2004.
 It seems the 10^15 atoms of tritium were generated over a period of 86
days.  The amount was very significant -- the original amount was about
0.05 percent of the final amount.  But the final amount was not at a level
to produce the excess heat SRI saw, and it was not even at a level to be
measured in their calorimeter.  In that replication, they did not find the
daughter product that was causing the heat; they found no 4He, and the 3He
was at levels and in a spatial distribution consistent with tritium decay.
 So the source of the excess heat in that replication was unaccounted for.

The appendix to the DoE paper mentions three possible sources of the excess
heat, and the last one is that the heat was produced by 4He formation at
the surface of the cathode, rather than within it, and, as a consequence,
the 4He vented into the atmosphere.  This possibility is an interesting
one, because it is consistent with the hypothesis that the tritium was also
produced at the cathode surface and then migrated (as hydrogen can be
expected to) into the cathode under the voltage that was applied during the
electrolysis.  In this scenario, one source of the tritium would be from
6Li(d,t)5Li reactions from prompt d's shooting into the electrolyte.  (Ed
has mentioned another possibility -- a d+e+p reaction.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[John Berry]

Question: If skeptics really do not believe that something is possible,
then why must they fight so hard to defend reality from such an ill
conceived notion?

Especially when something like cold fusion clearly could not be believed
for long if funded and embraced and it turned out to be entirely without
merit.
If they really believe it can not possibly have merit they should support
genuine research to answer the question once and for all, put the nail in
the coffin.

The same could be said of most provable and falsifiable fringe subjects.

Really the only way fringe notions remain plausible is because they have
not had enough investigation done to rule them out (or in).

Therefore I do not really think that they are really so certain that it
isn't possible, at least subconsciously they are scared it is true.

And they are fighting against that ever being proven.
At least that is my shot at it, but consciously and outwardly they are very
certain.

John

Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

For the MFMP calorimeters currently being used, with the glass and the SB
> equation, I suspect it will not be that convincing for people until they
> see 10-20 W excess heat (integrated excess power, including periods of
> endotherm).
>

Sorry, typo.  I meant to say that it would be nice to see 10-20 W excess
power, and that the integrated power, including endotherm, be significant.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:electron integration does not cause LENR

[Axil Axil]

Try this site, it has references.

http://www.jlab.org/highlights/phys.html


On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:10 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:40:10 -0400:
> Hi,
> >http://www.kph.uni-mainz.de/eng/index.php
> [snip]
>
> >This site contains many papers describing research into electron proton
> >scattering. It looks like the experiments are still ongoing.
>
> IOW, you based your analysis on the article, not on a specific paper.
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:05 PM, H Veeder  wrote:

Both the EU Cells and the US Cells were switched on and BOTH indicated
> excess energy as the cells came to equilibrium at higher temperatures than
> during the calibration tests.  The EU cell with the active wire was
> indicating up to 2.5W of excess power over the 30.4W input power (~6%
> excess).  That is well above the 95% confidence limits for that cell
> (~0.25W).  The US Cell was indicating approximately 1.4 watts excess,
> again, well above the ~0.5W confidence interval.   Very exciting to see
> something positive and especially simultaneous.
>

It is encouraging to hear that MFMP are seeing excess heat.  But we should
not get too excited yet; 2.5 W and 1.4 W are small values, and 95 percent
confidence is only two standard deviations from noise.  I have heard that
scientists often look for 5 standard deviations (5 sigma).  For the MFMP
calorimeters currently being used, with the glass and the SB equation, I
suspect it will not be that convincing for people until they see 10-20 W
excess heat (integrated excess power, including periods of endotherm).  I
recall Paul Hunt saying they needed very convincing results with the glass
assemblies for them to be convincing to anyone.

The control cells in each location are performing at or below calibration
> values.
>

Perhaps someone here knows -- is it a problem if a control cell performs
below the calibration values?

The internal cell temperatures seem to be slowly degrading, but the
> external cell temperatures are holding steady.
>

Another weird thing to try to understand.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[mixent]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:46:24 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>He got that wrong. Most of the time, most people are inclined to stop
>progress. As Martin said: "People do not want progress. It makes them
>uncomfortable. They don’t want it, and they shan’t have it."

I don't thinks that's quite right. They are not opposed to progress, it's the
uncertainty of change that they don't like. If it can be shown that progress is
indeed progress (i.e. that they will be better off as a consequence), then Joe
Sixpack will usually accept it with open arms. This of course excludes those
with a vested interest in the failure of any specific thing.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:electron integration does not cause LENR

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:40:10 -0400:
Hi,
>http://www.kph.uni-mainz.de/eng/index.php
[snip]

>This site contains many papers describing research into electron proton
>scattering. It looks like the experiments are still ongoing.

IOW, you based your analysis on the article, not on a specific paper. 
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[Jed Rothwell]

Akira Shirakawa  wrote:


> I think it's important to note that this is still preliminary data and
> that unexpected measurement artifacts might lurk somewhere.
>

Yes.

I don't like to be a wet blanket, but over the years I have seen dozens of
results like this come and go. The percent of excess heat here is small,
and the absolute value of the heat in watts is small compared to the
capacity of the calorimeter. You really have to be cautious with something
on this scale.

>From the first message, this is "2.5 W of excess power over the 30.4 W
input power (~6% excess)." 2.5 W would be a huge signal if this were
McKubre's calorimeter, or one of Storms', but in a calorimeter with a
minimum threshold of 0.25 W this is not much.

This is FAR less than Rossi's power levels or input to output ratio. That
makes it much easier to believe his results, as measured by Levi, simply
because they are so big.

This illustrates the fact that there is no single "best method" that
applies to all experiments. It would be impossible to measure the
difference between 30.4 W and 32.9 W with something like an IR camera.
That's unthinkable. The errors are 10% (albeit conservatively) so 6% would
be in the noise. Levi's method is crude but it is ideal for 300 W in 900 W
out. It would be ridiculous to try it with this.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[John Berry]

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> John Berry  wrote:
>
>
>>  When will they finally realize that Rossi may have something?
>>>
>>
>> They always knew he might . . .
>>
>
> I doubt that. I cannot read minds, but I get a sense that Shanahan, Nate
> Lewis or Robert Park are certain they are right. It has never crossed their
> minds cold fusion might exist. (I don't take seriously Park's equivocations
> from years ago.) They are as certain that cold fusion does not exist as I
> am certain of the conservation of energy or the Theory of Evolution.
>

I guess I was giving them too much credit.
But deep down they must know that something outside of their belief system
could be true.
Still I guess you are right, but in a way this makes it even harder to
convince them and even more pointless in trying.

And if so they may change their belief either after it has been available
in stores for a few years, or never, in the same way that some people deny
the holocaust etc...


>
> Mary Yugo may have some slight belief in cold fusion, but I am sure she
> thinks that Rossi is nothing but a scam artist. She dismisses the report
> from Levi.
>
>
> . . . but they are skeptics and will always oppose any advancement or
>> change until it is over one way or the other.
>>
>
> Always opposed, period.
>

Yes , but few skeptics remained for flight once it was publicly available
for a decade or so surely?
But many were not immediately convinced either.

This then leads one to wonder how it must have felt for those ardent
skeptics to slowly come round.
And I wonder if any would have spoken honestly about it, or merely covered
it up with technicalities or claiming that they really thought of it first
etc...


> That's how these people are, and have been at all times, in all cultures.
> People actually in favor of progress or change are always a minority,
> usually a despised minority.
>

Maybe we should call them retarded, in a sense differing from the
politically incorrect sense of course.
Retarding progress, truth and intelligence.
At least the stigma of such a label might reduce the attractiveness of such
close minded thought patterns which the label skeptic does not.

John

Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[James Bowery]

More to the point, what is important to note is that the amount is less
important than the reproducibility.

The experimental protocol here is open -- unlike Rossi -- and the
simultaneous appearance of two "successes" by two separate teams points to
the possibility that they have, indeed, found an experimental protocol with
high reproducibility of the phenomenon.

As I understand it, we'll have to wait for about 6 days to see if the
effect goes away as it did with Celani.  If so, and if it happens with both
current experiments, we'll have more evidence that this protocol will
vastly accelerate the science.


On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Akira Shirakawa
wrote:

> On 2013-06-27 02:33, Mark Gibbs wrote:
>
>> So, as I understand from the data [1] over the test runs the US cell saw
>> a gain of about 4.9% (1.49W/30.25W) and the EU Cell saw about 6.1%
>> (1.82W/30.05W).
>>
>
> That's about what they've written in the 18:15 UTC update here:
> http://www.quantumheat.org/**index.php/en/follow/follow-2/**
> 295-simultaneous-test-runs-eu-**us
>
>
>  Both the EU Cells and the US Cells were switched on and BOTH indicated
>> excess energy as the cells came to equilibrium at higher temperatures than
>> during the calibration tests.  The EU cell with the active wire was
>> indicating up to 2.5W of excess power over the 30.4W input power (~6%
>> excess).  That is well above the 95% confidence limits for that cell
>> (~0.25W).  The US Cell was indicating approximately 1.4 watts excess,
>> again, well above the ~0.5W confidence interval.   Very exciting to see
>> something positive and especially simultaneous.
>>
>> The indicated excess seems to be corroborated by several cell
>> temperatures higher than calibration values.  The control cells in each
>> location are performing at or below calibration values.
>>
>> The internal cell temperatures seem to be slowly degrading, but the
>> external cell temperatures are holding steady.
>>
>> The resistance of the active wires is slowly rising as, presumably, the
>> hydrogen is leaving into the vacuum.
>>
>> The EU cell has been cycled already, leading to the the active wire
>> "unloading" and rising up to a higher resistance than the wire had
>> originally.
>>
>
> I think it's important to note that this is still preliminary data and
> that unexpected measurement artifacts might lurk somewhere.
>
> For example, it's still not clear whether or not hydrogen loading affects
> the way infrared radiation (thermal radiation is the main heat transfer
> mode in these vacuumed cells) from the heated wires and other internal
> components is thermalized by the transparent borosilicate glass tube, from
> whose external temperature, output power calculations get computed.
>
> Cheers,
> S.A.
>
>

[Vo]:EM drive and NiH synergy?

[francis]

 

 

 

I have speculated previously that the EM drive is a form of Puthoff vacuum
engineering and Sawyers' claim that it is based on SR is in agreement with
my relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect which casts fractional
hydrogen as Lorentzian contractions. I am suggesting the focused microwave
fields inside the EM device can oppose large virtual particle pairs similar
to Casimir effect and opposite the Paradox twins where the wavelengths
instead get longer from our perspective as the remote twin approaches C. The
obvious test here is to marry the experiments, I think the EM drive would
benefit from hydrogen loading and a sputtered inner coat of Ni tubules -
perhaps an additional Ni plated probe extending inward from the small end
along the axis of thrust for maximum linkage to the focused microwaves -like
an antenna feed except the intention is to push fractional hydrogen along
the axis - if I am correct f/h2 opposes motion between fractional values and
this has a vector that is 90 degrees to 3 space [the relativistic
connection/Lorentzian contraction] - any Pythagorean opposition to an axis
90 degrees displaced can result in propelantless drive at the expense of
time dilation..something gets older or colder. 

Likewise we should be able to design a reactor that is also a tapered
microwave cavity and utilize the EM tech as another form of controlling the
reaction - I can imagine Rossi's resistor dropped down on the short end to
remain parallel to the new tapered reactor to keep heating evenly
distributed while also using a microwave feed as an additional control
mechanism to quickly add and subtract energy from the reaction. I know Jones
could offer some microwave frequencies that would be likely to interact
better with the environment. 

Fran

 

 

 

Alan Fletcher
  Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:32:25 -0700
  

Seems David Hambling / Wired UK broke the new story :
 
EmDrive: China's radical new space drive
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/06/emdrive-and-cold-fusion
 
..
The latest research comes from a team headed by  Yang Juan, Professor of 
Propulsion Theory and Engineering of Aeronautics and Astronautics at the 
Northwestern Polytechnic University in Xi'an. Titled "Net thrust measurement
of 
propellantless microwave thruster," it was published last year in the
academic 
journal Acta Physica Sinica, now translated into English.
...
 
Yuang Paper : http://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdf
(Criticised by Costella, below)

 

Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2013-06-27 02:33, Mark Gibbs wrote:

So, as I understand from the data [1] over the test runs the US cell saw
a gain of about 4.9% (1.49W/30.25W) and the EU Cell saw about 6.1%
(1.82W/30.05W).


That's about what they've written in the 18:15 UTC update here:
http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-2/295-simultaneous-test-runs-eu-us


Both the EU Cells and the US Cells were switched on and BOTH indicated excess 
energy as the cells came to equilibrium at higher temperatures than during the 
calibration tests.  The EU cell with the active wire was indicating up to 2.5W 
of excess power over the 30.4W input power (~6% excess).  That is well above 
the 95% confidence limits for that cell (~0.25W).  The US Cell was indicating 
approximately 1.4 watts excess, again, well above the ~0.5W confidence 
interval.   Very exciting to see something positive and especially simultaneous.

The indicated excess seems to be corroborated by several cell temperatures 
higher than calibration values.  The control cells in each location are 
performing at or below calibration values.

The internal cell temperatures seem to be slowly degrading, but the external 
cell temperatures are holding steady.

The resistance of the active wires is slowly rising as, presumably, the 
hydrogen is leaving into the vacuum.

The EU cell has been cycled already, leading to the the active wire "unloading" 
and rising up to a higher resistance than the wire had originally.


I think it's important to note that this is still preliminary data and 
that unexpected measurement artifacts might lurk somewhere.


For example, it's still not clear whether or not hydrogen loading 
affects the way infrared radiation (thermal radiation is the main heat 
transfer mode in these vacuumed cells) from the heated wires and other 
internal components is thermalized by the transparent borosilicate glass 
tube, from whose external temperature, output power calculations get 
computed.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[Mark Gibbs]

So, as I understand from the data [1] over the test runs the US cell saw a
gain of about 4.9% (1.49W/30.25W) and the EU Cell saw about 6.1%
(1.82W/30.05W).

[mg]

[1] http://data.hugnetlab.com/


On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 4:43 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

> Hi MarkG,
>
> No, you’re not missing anything… a control cell producing some small
> amount of heat would result in a **conservative** (i.e., lower) estimate
> of power generated in the test cell… assuming that the test cell is at
> least several sigma above the control cell so experimental uncertainty was
> not a reasonable explanation for the excess.
>
> -Mark I
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* mark.gi...@gmail.com [mailto:mark.gi...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Mark
> Gibbs
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 26, 2013 4:31 PM
>
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of
> excess heat
>
> ** **
>
> Am I missing something here? Surely if the control cell is producing some
> small amount of energy from an LENR process due to contamination but it's
> less than that being produced by the experimental cell then while a
> baseline might be hard or even impossible to establish wouldn't a
> significant power gain be detectable and verifiable?
>
> ** **
>
> [mg]
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:55 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
> wrote:
>
> Jones' point about ANY exposure to H is acknowledged...
>
> That being said, does anyone know the exact procedure by which the material
> in the control cell was prepared and the cell assembled??? Obviously, the
> nichrome wire was shipped to them, but was it exposed to air (humid air
> will
> supply plenty of H)?  How were the cells assembled?? I can't imagine that
> they were somehow assembled in a vacuum; perhaps in an inert gaseous
> environment??
>
> -Mark
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Akira Shirakawa [mailto:shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:47 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess
> heat
>
> On 2013-06-27 00:42, Jones Beene wrote:
>
> > Whether or not nickel-hydride with 7% by atomic volume hydrogen will
> > give much net gain is debatable - but the  lack of hydrogen gas in the
> > cell after vacuum purge may not be enough for a good control (if the
> > nichrome was previously alloyed with hydrogen).
>
> The control cells have not been exposed to hydrogen yet. Are you suggesting
> that they might have been, inadvertently?
>
> Cheers,
> S.A.
>
> 
>
> ** **
>

[Vo]:Kanthal A-1

[Jones Beene]

This is nickel free resistance wire.

It is highly preferable as a control in this type of experiment

http://www.amazon.com/Resistance-Heater-Kanthal-A-1-0-005/dp/B00BLBU8EA
http://compare.ebay.com/like/271204910484?var=lv

Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Thus - if there is residual hydrogen in the nichrome wire as well, it is
> very likely to be gainful as a control, possibly strongly gainful - even
> when run at a vacuum... not to mention the possibility of so-called
> "spontaneous" hydrogen.

If Ni62 is the basis for the gain.  :-)

RE: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Hi MarkG,

No, you're not missing anything. a control cell producing some small amount
of heat would result in a *conservative* (i.e., lower) estimate of power
generated in the test cell. assuming that the test cell is at least several
sigma above the control cell so experimental uncertainty was not a
reasonable explanation for the excess.

-Mark I

 

From: mark.gi...@gmail.com [mailto:mark.gi...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mark
Gibbs
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 4:31 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess
heat

 

Am I missing something here? Surely if the control cell is producing some
small amount of energy from an LENR process due to contamination but it's
less than that being produced by the experimental cell then while a baseline
might be hard or even impossible to establish wouldn't a significant power
gain be detectable and verifiable?

 

[mg]

 

 

 

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:55 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
wrote:

Jones' point about ANY exposure to H is acknowledged...

That being said, does anyone know the exact procedure by which the material
in the control cell was prepared and the cell assembled??? Obviously, the
nichrome wire was shipped to them, but was it exposed to air (humid air will
supply plenty of H)?  How were the cells assembled?? I can't imagine that
they were somehow assembled in a vacuum; perhaps in an inert gaseous
environment??

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Akira Shirakawa [mailto:shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:47 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess
heat

On 2013-06-27 00:42, Jones Beene wrote:

> Whether or not nickel-hydride with 7% by atomic volume hydrogen will
> give much net gain is debatable - but the  lack of hydrogen gas in the
> cell after vacuum purge may not be enough for a good control (if the
> nichrome was previously alloyed with hydrogen).

The control cells have not been exposed to hydrogen yet. Are you suggesting
that they might have been, inadvertently?

Cheers,
S.A.



 

RE: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: Akira Shirakawa 

> I haven't asked but as far as I have seen I'm fairly certain that for 
the control cells they used completely fresh materials.



Well, let's face it - like everyone else in LENR they are severely
underfunded. 

Therefore it is not a given that they would use new nichrome instead of
salvaging from previous runs. 

And it is a big deal if they were showing 4% gain against an active control,
instead of much more if nichrome had been fresh.

To be clear - I am not saying that there could be a difference, but nichrome
is 80% nickel and there is probably four times more Ni-62 in that wire than
in the constantan ! 

Thus - if there is residual hydrogen in the nichrome wire as well, it is
very likely to be gainful as a control, possibly strongly gainful - even
when run at a vacuum... not to mention the possibility of so-called
"spontaneous" hydrogen. 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2013-06-26 22:37, Jones Beene wrote:


If you are in contact with them – please ask if they are still using
nichrome as a control.


Both cells (Activated [A] and Control [B] - there is one of each both in 
EU and in the US, so four in total) have a NiCr wire (for 
passive/indirect heating purposes) and a treated Constantan wire from 
Celani.


The only difference between the control and the activated cells is that 
since yesterday in the activated cells several hydrogen loading cycles 
have been performed and are now apparently showing some excess heat 
under passive heating. It is expected that they will produce even more 
[apparent?] excess heat when the Celani wires will be directly heated 
(by applying current to them). Once Celani wires get loaded it seems 
that they will keep producing excess heat under vacuum for some amount 
of time (days) even when heated passively/indirectly.


They are planning to activate the control cells at a later time.

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[Mark Gibbs]

Am I missing something here? Surely if the control cell is producing some
small amount of energy from an LENR process due to contamination but it's
less than that being produced by the experimental cell then while a
baseline might be hard or even impossible to establish wouldn't a
significant power gain be detectable and verifiable?

[mg]




On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:55 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

> Jones' point about ANY exposure to H is acknowledged...
>
> That being said, does anyone know the exact procedure by which the material
> in the control cell was prepared and the cell assembled??? Obviously, the
> nichrome wire was shipped to them, but was it exposed to air (humid air
> will
> supply plenty of H)?  How were the cells assembled?? I can't imagine that
> they were somehow assembled in a vacuum; perhaps in an inert gaseous
> environment??
>
> -Mark
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Akira Shirakawa [mailto:shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:47 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess
> heat
>
> On 2013-06-27 00:42, Jones Beene wrote:
>
> > Whether or not nickel-hydride with 7% by atomic volume hydrogen will
> > give much net gain is debatable - but the  lack of hydrogen gas in the
> > cell after vacuum purge may not be enough for a good control (if the
> > nichrome was previously alloyed with hydrogen).
>
> The control cells have not been exposed to hydrogen yet. Are you suggesting
> that they might have been, inadvertently?
>
> Cheers,
> S.A.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2013-06-27 01:09, Jones Beene wrote:


No - I was suggesting that in previous experiments to this one - the same
nichrome wire could have been used. Did they start out with a virgin wire
for this experiment or not? Often experimenters cut corners and reuse items
from previous runs.


I haven't asked but as far as I have seen I'm fairly certain that for 
the control cells they used completely fresh materials.



It is a common misunderstanding to think that all the hydrogen can be pumped
out of nickel by vacuum or a combination of heat and vacuum - and the Hunt
group simply may not have known how tightly the "last" proton is bound to 14
nickel atoms in a FCC crystal. The alloyed proton will not come out even at
2700 degree F.

IOW you can load nickel with hydrogen up to a 1:1 ratio, but you cannot
unload the last proton in the FCC crystal without melting it.


I don't think they are expecting to achieve *complete* hydrogen 
desorption; even Celani warned them that it's not an easy job at all to 
achieve that. It can be pumped out for the most part, but as you say 
there could be a remaining tiny amount virtually impossible to get out 
without destroying the wire.


Cheers,
S.A.

RE: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: Akira Shirakawa 

> Whether or not nickel-hydride with 7% by atomic volume hydrogen will give
> much net gain is debatable - but the  lack of hydrogen gas in the cell
after
> vacuum purge may not be enough for a good control (if the nichrome was
> previously alloyed with hydrogen).

The control cells have not been exposed to hydrogen yet. Are you 
suggesting that they might have been, inadvertently?


Akira,

No - I was suggesting that in previous experiments to this one - the same
nichrome wire could have been used. Did they start out with a virgin wire
for this experiment or not? Often experimenters cut corners and reuse items
from previous runs.

It is a common misunderstanding to think that all the hydrogen can be pumped
out of nickel by vacuum or a combination of heat and vacuum - and the Hunt
group simply may not have known how tightly the "last" proton is bound to 14
nickel atoms in a FCC crystal. The alloyed proton will not come out even at
2700 degree F.

IOW you can load nickel with hydrogen up to a 1:1 ratio, but you cannot
unload the last proton in the FCC crystal without melting it.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2013-06-27 00:55, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

Jones' point about ANY exposure to H is acknowledged...

That being said, does anyone know the exact procedure by which the material
in the control cell was prepared and the cell assembled??? Obviously, the
nichrome wire was shipped to them, but was it exposed to air (humid air will
supply plenty of H)?  How were the cells assembled?? I can't imagine that
they were somehow assembled in a vacuum; perhaps in an inert gaseous
environment??


The cells have *not* been assembled in a vacuum or in an inert gaseous 
environment as far as I know. They have all been calibrated with a 
vacuum applied for long periods of time, however. This one was the only 
first run alongside the "activated" cells, not the first run ever.


Cheers,
S.A.

RE: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Jones' point about ANY exposure to H is acknowledged...

That being said, does anyone know the exact procedure by which the material
in the control cell was prepared and the cell assembled??? Obviously, the
nichrome wire was shipped to them, but was it exposed to air (humid air will
supply plenty of H)?  How were the cells assembled?? I can't imagine that
they were somehow assembled in a vacuum; perhaps in an inert gaseous
environment??

-Mark 

-Original Message-
From: Akira Shirakawa [mailto:shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:47 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess
heat

On 2013-06-27 00:42, Jones Beene wrote:

> Whether or not nickel-hydride with 7% by atomic volume hydrogen will 
> give much net gain is debatable - but the  lack of hydrogen gas in the 
> cell after vacuum purge may not be enough for a good control (if the 
> nichrome was previously alloyed with hydrogen).

The control cells have not been exposed to hydrogen yet. Are you suggesting
that they might have been, inadvertently?

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2013-06-27 00:42, Jones Beene wrote:


Whether or not nickel-hydride with 7% by atomic volume hydrogen will give
much net gain is debatable - but the  lack of hydrogen gas in the cell after
vacuum purge may not be enough for a good control (if the nichrome was
previously alloyed with hydrogen).


The control cells have not been exposed to hydrogen yet. Are you 
suggesting that they might have been, inadvertently?


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[Jed Rothwell]

John Berry  wrote:


>  When will they finally realize that Rossi may have something?
>>
>
> They always knew he might . . .
>

I doubt that. I cannot read minds, but I get a sense that Shanahan, Nate
Lewis or Robert Park are certain they are right. It has never crossed their
minds cold fusion might exist. (I don't take seriously Park's equivocations
from years ago.) They are as certain that cold fusion does not exist as I
am certain of the conservation of energy or the Theory of Evolution.

Mary Yugo may have some slight belief in cold fusion, but I am sure she
thinks that Rossi is nothing but a scam artist. She dismisses the report
from Levi.


. . . but they are skeptics and will always oppose any advancement or
> change until it is over one way or the other.
>

Always opposed, period. That's how these people are, and have been at all
times, in all cultures. People actually in favor of progress or change are
always a minority, usually a despised minority.

William Buckley made no bones about his opposition to change:

"A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a
time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those
who so urge it."

He got that wrong. Most of the time, most people are inclined to stop
progress. As Martin said: "People do not want progress. It makes them
uncomfortable. They don’t want it, and they shan’t have it."

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[Jones Beene]

Mark - I did not see your message ahead of posting mine.

However, the point stands that no amount of vacuum pumping will ever remove
the alloyed proton from nickel. That proton remains until the nickel is
melted.

Whether or not nickel-hydride with 7% by atomic volume hydrogen will give
much net gain is debatable - but the  lack of hydrogen gas in the cell after
vacuum purge may not be enough for a good control (if the nichrome was
previously alloyed with hydrogen).

Jones
_
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 

Jones,

you wrote, "but they should probably use neon instead of
helium in control cells"

What makes you think they used helium???  They said, and I
restated, that they operate their control cells in a *VACUUM*, so I take
that to mean that they assemble the cell, and then attach it to a vacuum
pump and pump the INSIDE of the cell down to some level of vacuum... so NO
gases at all inside the cell.

-Mark
_
From: Jones Beene

Well, that is good - but they should probably use neon
instead of helium in control cells and absolutely fresh nichrome (never
exposed to hydrogen),

As mentioned earlier, the first proton in any nickel alloy
will bury itself in the FCC crystal and cannot be removed without actually
melting the wire. It becomes an actual alloy and a strong alloy at that. 

If the nichrome was ever exposed to hydrogen, it should not
be used as a control since it can and probably will be a nickel-hydrogen
alloy in the ratio of 14:1. That low percentage of hydrogen may limit its
excess heat capability, but not eliminate it.

Also helium can be active for Lamb shift manipulation,
according to a few theorists. IIRC helium is mentioned in the Haisch patent.

http://aias.us/documents/uft/paper86.pdf

Therefore a non-active control would consist of virgin
nichrome wire in neon.


From: H Veeder 

Yes they are using nichrome and are aware of
the issues but they are not using H in control cells.

Harry 
*  The US Cell was indicating approximately
1.4 watts excess, again, well above the ~0.5W confidence interval.   Very
exciting to see something positive and especially simultaneous. 
Harry, 
If you are in contact with them - please ask
if they are still using nichrome as a control. 
Nichrome is active for LENR for the same
reason that Celani's wires are active - the wires contain Ni-62. In fact,
they may contain more than constantan. 
There are plenty of good alternatives to
nichrome - resistance wires which contains no nickel.
If Quantum is serious about showing excess
heat - then they must move away from using a control which is also active ! 
Jones

<>

RE: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Jones,

you wrote, "but they should probably use neon instead of helium in control
cells"

What makes you think they used helium???  They said, and I restated, that
they operate their control cells in a *VACUUM*, so I take that to mean that
they assemble the cell, and then attach it to a vacuum pump and pump the
INSIDE of the cell down to some level of vacuum... so NO gases at all inside
the cell.

-Mark
_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:15 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess
heat


Well, that is good - but they should probably use neon instead of helium in
control cells and absolutely fresh nichrome (never exposed to hydrogen),

As mentioned earlier, the first proton in any nickel alloy will bury itself
in the FCC crystal and cannot be removed without actually melting the wire.
It becomes an actual alloy and a strong alloy at that. 

If the nichrome was ever exposed to hydrogen, it should not be used as a
control since it can and probably will be a nickel-hydrogen alloy in the
ratio of 14:1. That low percentage of hydrogen may limit its excess heat
capability, but not eliminate it.

Also helium can be active for Lamb shift manipulation, according to a few
theorists. IIRC helium is mentioned in the Haisch patent.

http://aias.us/documents/uft/paper86.pdf

Therefore a non-active control would consist of virgin nichrome wire in
neon.


From: H Veeder 

Yes they are using nichrome and are aware of the issues but
they are not using H in control cells.

Harry 
*  The US Cell was indicating approximately
1.4 watts excess, again, well above the ~0.5W confidence interval.   Very
exciting to see something positive and especially simultaneous. 
Harry, 
If you are in contact with them - please ask if they are
still using nichrome as a control. 
Nichrome is active for LENR for the same reason that
Celani's wires are active - the wires contain Ni-62. In fact, they may
contain more than constantan. 
There are plenty of good alternatives to nichrome -
resistance wires which contains no nickel.
If Quantum is serious about showing excess heat - then they
must move away from using a control which is also active ! 
Jones

<>

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[John Berry]

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:04 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

>  When will they finally realize that Rossi may have something?
>

They always knew he might, but they are skeptics and will always oppose any
advancement or change until it is over one way or the other.

  Who expects to see Mary, Cude or any of the others apologize when the
> proof finally reaches beyond their bar?  My bet is they will hide away and
> change their fake names to avoid the issue.
>

Correct I'm sure.

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[Jed Rothwell]

Chris Zell  wrote:

This is the era of the NSA.  Have no doubt that everything is being watched.
>

I doubt the NSA has any interest in cold fusion. I wish they would take
notice of it. That might solve our funding problems!

If someone could produce a large bang I am pretty sure we would be rolling
in money.

In the early days Teller had a keen interest in cold fusion, according to
Martin. That led to many spooks following the development of it. Teller was
at the NSF conference, asking spooky questions. He was a spooky guy.

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

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

Well, that is good - but they should probably use neon instead of helium in
> control cells and absolutely fresh nichrome (never exposed to hydrogen),
>

Yes. Better a gas than a vacuum. Heat transfer in a vacuum is a whole
different animal.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[Jones Beene]

Well, that is good - but they should probably use neon instead of helium in
control cells and absolutely fresh nichrome (never exposed to hydrogen),

As mentioned earlier, the first proton in any nickel alloy will bury itself
in the FCC crystal and cannot be removed without actually melting the wire.
It becomes an actual alloy and a strong alloy at that. 

If the nichrome was ever exposed to hydrogen, it should not be used as a
control since it can and probably will be a nickel-hydrogen alloy in the
ratio of 14:1. That low percentage of hydrogen may limit its excess heat
capability, but not eliminate it.

Also helium can be active for Lamb shift manipulation, according to a few
theorists. IIRC helium is mentioned in the Haisch patent.

http://aias.us/documents/uft/paper86.pdf

Therefore a non-active control would consist of virgin nichrome wire in
neon.


From: H Veeder 

Yes they are using nichrome and are aware of the issues but
they are not using H in control cells.

Harry 
*  The US Cell was indicating approximately
1.4 watts excess, again, well above the ~0.5W confidence interval.   Very
exciting to see something positive and especially simultaneous. 
Harry, 
If you are in contact with them - please ask if they are
still using nichrome as a control. 
Nichrome is active for LENR for the same reason that
Celani's wires are active - the wires contain Ni-62. In fact, they may
contain more than constantan. 
There are plenty of good alternatives to nichrome -
resistance wires which contains no nickel.
If Quantum is serious about showing excess heat - then they
must move away from using a control which is also active ! 
Jones

<>

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[David L Babcock]

On 6/26/2013 1:24 PM, Paul Breed wrote:
In normal AC system DC bias is VERY rare.  anytime a transformer is 
involved the dc bias goes to zero.
Any AC powered device with a transformer in the front end of the power 
supply will likely fail in a catastrophic way if any significant DC 
bias is present.
(You drive the transfomrer magnetic material into saturation and it 
stops being a transformer and becomes an air core inductor... with 
poor coupling


If fact, for DC the winding becomes just a wire, with a certain low 
resistance, and the DC voltage rapidly heats it to destruction.  As noted.


Ol' Bab

RE: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Jones,

I was listening to the google chat and their control cells are run under
*vacuum* conditions, so the only chance of any H being present is if some
water (liquid or vapor) was present after evacuating the cell.  I did not
catch what kind of vacuum they pulled, but I think it is safe to say that
very little of any gases are present in the control cells.

 

-Mark

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 1:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess
heat

 

 

 

From: H Veeder 

 

Ø  The US Cell was indicating approximately 1.4 watts excess, again, well
above the ~0.5W confidence interval.   Very exciting to see something
positive and especially simultaneous.

 

Harry,

 

If you are in contact with them – please ask if they are still using
nichrome as a control.

 

Nichrome is active for LENR for the same reason that Celani’s wires are
active – the wires contain Ni-62. In fact, they may contain more than
constantan.

 

There are plenty of good alternatives to nichrome - resistance wires which
contains no nickel.

 

If Quantum is serious about showing excess heat – then they must move away
from using a control which is also active !

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[James Bowery]

Wire Dimensions:
220micron diameter
20micron active layer
100cm

1m*pi*220um*20um?mm^3

([{1 * meter} * pi] * [220 * {micro*meter}]) * (20 * [micro*meter]) ?
(milli*met
er)^3
= 13.823007 mm^3

Excess power:
2.5W

1m*pi*220um*20um;2.5W?W/cm^3

([{(1 * meter) * pi} * {220 * (micro*meter)}] * [20 * {micro*meter}])^-1 *
(2.5
* watt) ? watt / ([centi*meter]^3)
= 180.85789 W/cm^3


On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 2:05 PM, H Veeder  wrote:

> Today (June 26, 2013)...
>
>
>
> http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-2/295-simultaneous-test-runs-eu-us
>
>
> Update 18:15 UTC -
>
> Both the EU Cells and the US Cells were switched on and BOTH indicated
> excess energy as the cells came to equilibrium at higher temperatures than
> during the calibration tests.  The EU cell with the active wire was
> indicating up to 2.5W of excess power over the 30.4W input power (~6%
> excess).  That is well above the 95% confidence limits for that cell
> (~0.25W).  The US Cell was indicating approximately 1.4 watts excess,
> again, well above the ~0.5W confidence interval.   Very exciting to see
> something positive and especially simultaneous.
>
> The indicated excess seems to be corroborated by several cell temperatures
> higher than calibration values.  The control cells in each location are
> performing at or below calibration values.
>
> The internal cell temperatures seem to be slowly degrading, but the
> external cell temperatures are holding steady.
>
> The resistance of the active wires is slowly rising as, presumably, the
> hydrogen is leaving into the vacuum.
>
> The EU cell has been cycled already, leading to the the active wire
> "unloading" and rising up to a higher resistance than the wire had
> originally.
>

Re: [Vo]:electron integration does not cause LENR

[Axil Axil]

http://www.kph.uni-mainz.de/eng/index.php

Research work of the Institute for Nuclear Physics at the Johannes
Gutenberg-University Mainz puts its focus on understanding the phenomenon
and interactions of hadrons, hence on mesons and baryons. According to
present knowledge, these objects are many-body states of quarks and gluons
bound through strong interaction. In the naïve quark model mesons consist
of a quark-antiquark pair whereas baryons are composed of three quarks. It
is known, however, that the mass of the hadrons is far larger than that of
the constituent quarks, which can be described qualitatively by the
dynamics of strong interactions. A quantitative approach has so far not
been possible. The quantum field theoretic description of strong
interactions, quantum chromo dynamics (QCD), is characterized by a weak
coupling-constant at small quark distances or large momentum-transfer
(so-called asymptotic freedom) and was successfully tested in high-energy
physics experiments in this regime. This condition forms a sharp contrast
to the understanding of strong interactions at large distances or small
momentum-transfer. Here, QCD has a strong coupling-constant due to the
self-energy of the color-charged gluons and a perturbative description of
the QCD is not possible. This regime of confinement which leads to
theoretically unexplainable hadron binding, is based on effective field
theories and, recently, with increasing success, also on
ab-initio-calculations according to Lattice Gauge Theory.

At the Institute for Nuclear Physics precision measurements and precision
calculations are performed in order to test the theory of strong
interactions at weak momentum-transfer. To do so, a large number of clearly
defined observables accessible to measurement are studied. These include
form factors, polarizability, polarisation observables, as well as
observables of the flavour structures of hadrons and their symmetry and
there mass spectrum.

Such investigation not only help understand QCD at low energies but are
also important for the standard model of particle physics, in general,
seeing that insufficient knowledge on the subject of strong interaction
cuts down on important precision tests of the electro-weak Standard Model,
thus limiting the search for extensions of the Standard Model. Some
examples for important precision variables of this area include the
anomalous magnetic myons plus the running electromagnetic fine-structure
constant, the theoretical knowledge of which is limited because of the
hadronic vacuum polarization. Also, the extraction of CKM parameters at the
B-factories is significantly limited due to hadronic uncertainties.


This site contains many papers describing research into electron proton
scattering. It looks like the experiments are still ongoing.


On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:29 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:00:27 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Reference:
> >
> >
> http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/04/27/protons-not-as-strange-as-expected
> >
> >
> >
> >There has been a great deal of speculation about the effect of electron
> >penetration into the nucleus, and the hydrogen nucleus (proton) especially
> >those carrying fractional quantum numbers.
> >
> >
> >
> >The G-Zero experiment has shot electrons through the proton for years to
> >probe the internal structure of the proton. This research as found that
> the
> >electrons must be polarized with contra-rotational spin to have any effect
> >and when an effect is observed, the electron produces virtual quark pairs
> >with the extra energy that the electron brings to the proton.
> >
> >
> >
> >The electron probes are scattered in an electric collision with the
> insides
> >of the proton. They don’t stay inside the proton to produce a neutron.
> >
> >
> >
> >The take away, experimentation shows that electron integration with the
> >nucleus does not occur and thus does not cause LENR.
>
> Did you base these conclusions on the article above, or have you read the
> original paper(s)? If the latter, could you post a link to it?
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:electron integration does not cause LENR

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:00:27 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Reference:
>
>http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/04/27/protons-not-as-strange-as-expected
>
>
>
>There has been a great deal of speculation about the effect of electron
>penetration into the nucleus, and the hydrogen nucleus (proton) especially
>those carrying fractional quantum numbers.
>
>
>
>The G-Zero experiment has shot electrons through the proton for years to
>probe the internal structure of the proton. This research as found that the
>electrons must be polarized with contra-rotational spin to have any effect
>and when an effect is observed, the electron produces virtual quark pairs
>with the extra energy that the electron brings to the proton.
>
>
>
>The electron probes are scattered in an electric collision with the insides
>of the proton. They don’t stay inside the proton to produce a neutron.
>
>
>
>The take away, experimentation shows that electron integration with the
>nucleus does not occur and thus does not cause LENR.

Did you base these conclusions on the article above, or have you read the
original paper(s)? If the latter, could you post a link to it?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> If Quantum is serious about showing excess heat – then they must move away
> from using a control which is also active !
>

Or use an absolute method such as flow calorimetry, rather than a
comparative method.

The problem of blanks that are not blank goes way back to the early
experiments of Fleischmann and Pons. As noted here Pons said their control
experiments seemed to be producing heat. He wasn't happy about that, but he
did not hide the fact.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[H Veeder]

Jones,
Yes they are using nichrome and are aware of the issues but they are not
using H in control cells.

Harry


On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* H Veeder 
>
> ** **
>
> **Ø  **The US Cell was indicating approximately 1.4 watts excess, again,
> well above the ~0.5W confidence interval.   Very exciting to see something
> positive and especially simultaneous.
>
> ** **
>
> Harry,
>
> ** **
>
> If you are in contact with them – please ask if they are still using
> nichrome as a control.
>
> ** **
>
> Nichrome is active for LENR for the same reason that Celani’s wires are
> active – the wires contain Ni-62. In fact, they may contain more than
> constantan.
>
> ** **
>
> There are plenty of good alternatives to nichrome - resistance wires which
> contains no nickel.
>
> ** **
>
> If Quantum is serious about showing excess heat – then they must move away
> from using a control which is also active !
>
> ** **
>
> Jones
>

RE: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[Jones Beene]

 

 

From: H Veeder 

 

*  The US Cell was indicating approximately 1.4 watts excess, again, well
above the ~0.5W confidence interval.   Very exciting to see something
positive and especially simultaneous.

 

Harry,

 

If you are in contact with them - please ask if they are still using
nichrome as a control.

 

Nichrome is active for LENR for the same reason that Celani's wires are
active - the wires contain Ni-62. In fact, they may contain more than
constantan.

 

There are plenty of good alternatives to nichrome - resistance wires which
contains no nickel.

 

If Quantum is serious about showing excess heat - then they must move away
from using a control which is also active !

 

Jones

[Vo]:electron integration does not cause LENR

[Axil Axil]

Reference:

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/04/27/protons-not-as-strange-as-expected



There has been a great deal of speculation about the effect of electron
penetration into the nucleus, and the hydrogen nucleus (proton) especially
those carrying fractional quantum numbers.



The G-Zero experiment has shot electrons through the proton for years to
probe the internal structure of the proton. This research as found that the
electrons must be polarized with contra-rotational spin to have any effect
and when an effect is observed, the electron produces virtual quark pairs
with the extra energy that the electron brings to the proton.



The electron probes are scattered in an electric collision with the insides
of the proton. They don’t stay inside the proton to produce a neutron.



The take away, experimentation shows that electron integration with the
nucleus does not occur and thus does not cause LENR.

* *

* *

* *

RE: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[Chris Zell]

In regard to these Cold Fusion adversaries, don't be too naive.  I have 
encountered many incidents in using the internet in which I strongly suspect 
that "sock puppet" shills are used to derail certain topics.

On one site, I offered the latest news on Rossi's device and was suddenly 
inundated by posters whose screen names I had never heard of, together with a 
zeal that is normal to fanatical religion.  It happened again even more 
intensely when I pointed out some basic problems with the 9/11 narrative on one 
site.

I also lost my Yahoo email account and they refused to tell me why after I 
posted an opinion on a different site on  the likelihood of secession in the US 
in coming years.

This is the era of the NSA.  Have no doubt that everything is being watched.

Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[H Veeder]

A live audio/video discussion is happening now on google hangout:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/112746934321590853702/posts/15RhcoJk6de

Harry




On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:05 PM, H Veeder  wrote:

> Today (June 26, 2013)...
>
>
>
> http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-2/295-simultaneous-test-runs-eu-us
>
>
> Update 18:15 UTC -
>
> Both the EU Cells and the US Cells were switched on and BOTH indicated
> excess energy as the cells came to equilibrium at higher temperatures than
> during the calibration tests.  The EU cell with the active wire was
> indicating up to 2.5W of excess power over the 30.4W input power (~6%
> excess).  That is well above the 95% confidence limits for that cell
> (~0.25W).  The US Cell was indicating approximately 1.4 watts excess,
> again, well above the ~0.5W confidence interval.   Very exciting to see
> something positive and especially simultaneous.
>
> The indicated excess seems to be corroborated by several cell temperatures
> higher than calibration values.  The control cells in each location are
> performing at or below calibration values.
>
> The internal cell temperatures seem to be slowly degrading, but the
> external cell temperatures are holding steady.
>
> The resistance of the active wires is slowly rising as, presumably, the
> hydrogen is leaving into the vacuum.
>
> The EU cell has been cycled already, leading to the the active wire
> "unloading" and rising up to a higher resistance than the wire had
> originally.
>

[Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat

[H Veeder]

Today (June 26, 2013)...


http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-2/295-simultaneous-test-runs-eu-us


Update 18:15 UTC -

Both the EU Cells and the US Cells were switched on and BOTH indicated
excess energy as the cells came to equilibrium at higher temperatures than
during the calibration tests.  The EU cell with the active wire was
indicating up to 2.5W of excess power over the 30.4W input power (~6%
excess).  That is well above the 95% confidence limits for that cell
(~0.25W).  The US Cell was indicating approximately 1.4 watts excess,
again, well above the ~0.5W confidence interval.   Very exciting to see
something positive and especially simultaneous.

The indicated excess seems to be corroborated by several cell temperatures
higher than calibration values.  The control cells in each location are
performing at or below calibration values.

The internal cell temperatures seem to be slowly degrading, but the
external cell temperatures are holding steady.

The resistance of the active wires is slowly rising as, presumably, the
hydrogen is leaving into the vacuum.

The EU cell has been cycled already, leading to the the active wire
"unloading" and rising up to a higher resistance than the wire had
originally.

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[H Veeder]

I am going to link to this on facebook
Harry


On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Berke Durak  wrote:

> Allow me to summarize the DC injection hypothesis:
>
> - It is theoretically possible to add DC to provide ~3kW of power that
> would be invisible to the PCE-830.
>
> However:
>
> - Given the size of the wires, I guess that amperage would need to be
> below 50 A.  Otherwise the wires would heat up too much and this would
> show on the thermal camera.
> - This means that a DC offset of >60 V is required for 3kW injection.
> - This means that the scammer must be confident that any instrument or
> device connected would tolerate a >60V DC offset.  This is a large
> offset.  As the DC resistance of the primary winding of transformers
> is small compared to their reactance at 50 Hz, the extra DC would
> probably destroy any attached transformers.
> - The use of any electrical instrument capable of detecting DC would
> need to be prohibited.  A 5$ multimeter can detect DC.  So do
> oscilloscopes, or Fluke power analyzers.  These would have to be
> prohibited.
> - Any significant DC current will produce a significant DC magnetic
> field nearby.  Such a field is easily detectable by most recent
> smartphones or a simple compass.
> - Temporarily switching the extra DC power off when DC-capable
> instrumentation is used wouldn't be possible, as the temperature would
> drop rapidly and this would immediately show on the IR video / temp
> curve.
>
> --
> Berke Durak
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[Jed Rothwell]

Berke Durak  wrote:

Allow me to summarize the DC injection hypothesis:
>

Thanks!



> - It is theoretically possible to add DC to provide ~3kW of power that
> would be invisible to the PCE-830.
>

That would be in the first test, where the cell melted. Much less power is
needed in the other two tests.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[Berke Durak]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 2:18 PM, H Veeder  wrote:
> Even if fraud is highly unlikely, didn't Essen make a technically erroneous
> claim?

Essen does seem to infer that the symmetry of the displayed waveform
implies no DC offset, which would be a false conclusion IF the
instrument's alleged DC-insensitivity is established; at this point
it's only some blogger's single sentence report of what a (sales guy?)
claimed to him.  A proper characterization of the instrument would be
needed.

Now Essen et al's wording is sufficiently vague that they might have
checked for DC offsets using other means.
-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[Berke Durak]

Allow me to summarize the DC injection hypothesis:

- It is theoretically possible to add DC to provide ~3kW of power that
would be invisible to the PCE-830.

However:

- Given the size of the wires, I guess that amperage would need to be
below 50 A.  Otherwise the wires would heat up too much and this would
show on the thermal camera.
- This means that a DC offset of >60 V is required for 3kW injection.
- This means that the scammer must be confident that any instrument or
device connected would tolerate a >60V DC offset.  This is a large
offset.  As the DC resistance of the primary winding of transformers
is small compared to their reactance at 50 Hz, the extra DC would
probably destroy any attached transformers.
- The use of any electrical instrument capable of detecting DC would
need to be prohibited.  A 5$ multimeter can detect DC.  So do
oscilloscopes, or Fluke power analyzers.  These would have to be
prohibited.
- Any significant DC current will produce a significant DC magnetic
field nearby.  Such a field is easily detectable by most recent
smartphones or a simple compass.
- Temporarily switching the extra DC power off when DC-capable
instrumentation is used wouldn't be possible, as the temperature would
drop rapidly and this would immediately show on the IR video / temp
curve.

-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[H Veeder]

Even if fraud is highly unlikely, didn't Essen make a technically erroneous
claim?

Harry


On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 2:04 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> It is like a bad nightmare; it keeps coming back again and again.  I
> suppose this is what the skeptics are left hanging on too since all the
> evidence is strongly against them.  When will they finally realize that
> Rossi may have something?  Who expects to see Mary, Cude or any of the
> others apologize when the proof finally reaches beyond their bar?  My bet
> is they will hide away and change their fake names to avoid the issue.
>
> Dave
>  -Original Message-
> From: Jones Beene 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Jun 26, 2013 1:55 pm
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open
> letter]
>
>
>  *From:* Paul Breed**
>
>   Ø  In past jobs I've both designed and used power meters and I would
> have to agree that if one is attempting to do fraud then putting DC bias on
> an AC wall socket would be one possible way to do this… This fraud is
> easily detected ... so it would be a risky thing to do
>
> Yes - I think this highlights the major issue. A fraudster could have
> fooled experts if the risk of getting caught was ignored. But even then …
> why? Rossi can never benefit to any great degree unless the device works.
> He has already sold licenses including the US license and several others.
> There is nothing to gain by a fraud now - other than a few extra months of
> a “data holiday”.
>
> Sooner or later, his licensees will demand real data, or someone will call
> in the FBI, as happened in the Rohner Papp engine fraud. It pretty simple.
>
> Either Rossi is a twisted ego-maniac willing to risk everything, including
> his personal freedom- on a scam, or else there is something extremely
> important to be had in understanding this device.
>
> We have beat this dead horse into a pink slime and 4 horse-shoes, no?
>
> Jones
>

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> about Clamp and DC, there are 2 kind of clamp.
>>
>
> There is only one clamp on my Radio Shack ammeter.
>

I take that back. The old one did not. Modern ones apparently do,
presumably with the Hall effect. See:

http://www.amazon.com/home-improvement/dp/B001VGND88

My old one was a Micronta 7-Range AC Volt-Ammeter Catalog No. 22-161. I
think I gave it away.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[David Roberson]

It is like a bad nightmare; it keeps coming back again and again.  I suppose 
this is what the skeptics are left hanging on too since all the evidence is 
strongly against them.  When will they finally realize that Rossi may have 
something?  Who expects to see Mary, Cude or any of the others apologize when 
the proof finally reaches beyond their bar?  My bet is they will hide away and 
change their fake names to avoid the issue.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Jun 26, 2013 1:55 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open 
letter]



 

From:Paul Breed
 


Ø  Inpast jobs I've both designed and used power meters and I would have to 
agreethat if one is attempting to do fraud then putting DC bias on an AC wall 
socket would beone possible way to do this… Thisfraud is easily detected ...so 
it would be a risky thing to do 
 
Yes - I think thishighlights the major issue. A fraudster could have fooled 
experts if the riskof getting caught was ignored. But even then … why? Rossi 
can neverbenefit to any great degree unless the device works. He has already 
soldlicenses including the US license and several others. There is nothing to 
gainby a fraud now - other than a few extra months of a “data holiday”.
 
Sooner or later, hislicensees will demand real data, or someone will call in 
the FBI, as happenedin the Rohner Papp engine fraud. It pretty simple. 
 
Either Rossi is a twistedego-maniac willing to risk everything, including his 
personal freedom- on ascam, or else there is something extremely important to 
be had in understandingthis device.
 
We have beat this deadhorse into a pink slime and 4 horse-shoes, no?
 
Jones

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[David Roberson]

I agree Paul.  The DC scam source would have to offer a way for the current 
from that source to both enter the blue box and return without disrupting the 
normal AC pathways.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Paul Breed 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Jun 26, 2013 1:49 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open 
letter]


I will also add that adding DC bias to 3 phase power without blowing up the 
step down transformer on the input side of this circuit 
is an engineering effort in its own right... it would require skills in power 
engineering and is not real simple...


 




On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Paul Breed  wrote:

In normal AC system DC bias is VERY rare.  anytime a transformer is involved 
the dc bias goes to zero.
Any AC powered device with a transformer in the front end of the power supply 
will likely fail in a catastrophic way if any significant DC bias is present.
(You drive the transfomrer magnetic material into saturation and it stops being 
a transformer and becomes an air core inductor... with poor coupling)


Most precision AC power meters use an inductive current measurement and 
probably an AC only  voltage step down transformer to measure voltage.
This  will not sense any DC voltage/current in the circuit.


The hall effect clamp on sensors that will measure DC have bias problems and 
are generally far less accurate than clamp on transformers in AC circuits.


In past jobs I've both designed and used power meters and I would have to agree 
that if one is attempting to do fraud then putting DC bias on an
AC wall socket would be one possible way to do this.


This fraud is easily detected with a simple DC voltmeter or DC coupled 
oscilloscope... so it would be a risky thing to do it is however given the 
details of the
Rossi independent verification a possible fraud that would not have been caught 
with the instrumentation used in this test.




Paul







On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Alain Sepeda  wrote:

I express badly...


It is only different models of clamp...
you seems to have the Hall effect clamp, which measure DC and not to high 
frequency AC.


Essen seems to have used inductive clamp. Moreover it seems the PCE830 
filter-out DC anyway, for current and voltage.


I don't know why expensive instruments use "inductive" clamps instead. maybe to 
have better precision, bandwidth, calibration...
Why the don't measure DC voltage is also not clear...









2013/6/26 Jed Rothwell 

Alain Sepeda  wrote:



about Clamp and DC, there are 2 kind of clamp.




There is only one clamp on my Radio Shack ammeter.


I suppose it is not good for very low current.


(I can't find it . . . I may have thrown it out or given it away, but anyway 
there was only one clamp.)


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[Jones Beene]

 

From: Paul Breed

 

*  In past jobs I've both designed and used power meters and I would have to
agree that if one is attempting to do fraud then putting DC bias on an AC
wall socket would be one possible way to do this. This fraud is easily
detected ... so it would be a risky thing to do 

 

Yes - I think this highlights the major issue. A fraudster could have fooled
experts if the risk of getting caught was ignored. But even then . why?
Rossi can never benefit to any great degree unless the device works. He has
already sold licenses including the US license and several others. There is
nothing to gain by a fraud now - other than a few extra months of a "data
holiday". 

 

Sooner or later, his licensees will demand real data, or someone will call
in the FBI, as happened in the Rohner Papp engine fraud. It pretty simple. 

 

Either Rossi is a twisted ego-maniac willing to risk everything, including
his personal freedom- on a scam, or else there is something extremely
important to be had in understanding this device.

 

We have beat this dead horse into a pink slime and 4 horse-shoes, no?

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[Paul Breed]

I will also add that adding DC bias to 3 phase power without blowing up the
step down transformer on the input side of this circuit
is an engineering effort in its own right... it would require skills in
power engineering and is not real simple...




On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Paul Breed  wrote:

> In normal AC system DC bias is VERY rare.  anytime a transformer is
> involved the dc bias goes to zero.
> Any AC powered device with a transformer in the front end of the power
> supply will likely fail in a catastrophic way if any significant DC bias is
> present.
> (You drive the transfomrer magnetic material into saturation and it stops
> being a transformer and becomes an air core inductor... with poor coupling)
>
> Most precision AC power meters use an inductive current measurement and
> probably an AC only  voltage step down transformer to measure voltage.
> This  will not sense any DC voltage/current in the circuit.
>
> The hall effect clamp on sensors that will measure DC have bias problems
> and are generally far less accurate than clamp on transformers in AC
> circuits.
>
> In past jobs I've both designed and used power meters and I would have to
> agree that if one is attempting to do fraud then putting DC bias on an
> AC wall socket would be one possible way to do this.
>
> This fraud is easily detected with a simple DC voltmeter or DC coupled
> oscilloscope... so it would be a risky thing to do it is however given
> the details of the
> Rossi independent verification a possible fraud that would not have been
> caught with the instrumentation used in this test.
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>
>> I express badly...
>>
>> It is only different models of clamp...
>> you seems to have the Hall effect clamp, which measure DC and not to high
>> frequency AC.
>>
>> Essen seems to have used inductive clamp. Moreover it seems the PCE830
>> filter-out DC anyway, for current and voltage.
>>
>> I don't know why expensive instruments use "inductive" clamps instead.
>> maybe to have better precision, bandwidth, calibration...
>> Why the don't measure DC voltage is also not clear...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/6/26 Jed Rothwell 
>>
>>> Alain Sepeda  wrote:
>>>
>>> about Clamp and DC, there are 2 kind of clamp.

>>>
>>> There is only one clamp on my Radio Shack ammeter.
>>>
>>> I suppose it is not good for very low current.
>>>
>>> (I can't find it . . . I may have thrown it out or given it away, but
>>> anyway there was only one clamp.)
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hotcat Spice Simulation -- Nearly Done

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Teslaalset" 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 1:25:56 AM
> 
> Very nice work!
> Alan, as I understand, you apply natural convection and no forced
> (controlled) cooling. Right?

That's correct. The model has a linear resistor for "CONVECT" and non-linear 
for "RADIATE".

In my "Toy" control model you'd have to force-cool a run-away hotcat to get it 
to stop.

Re: [Vo]:Mole Penon Simulation

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "MarkI-ZeroPoint" 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 8:38:53 AM
> Alan:
> 
> Both you and the Penon doc mention inner and outer tubes being steel…
> 
> The recent ‘semi-independent’ test clearly stated that the outer
> cylinder was ceramic, not metallic. The only metallic tube was the
> stainless steel inner-most one… Is the Penon doc using an earlier
> eCat test?

> -Mark

December : The E-Cat HT-type device in this experiment was a cylinder having a 
*** silicon nitride ceramic *** outer shell, 33 cm in length, and 10 cm in 
diameter.

March : Externally, the device appears as a *** STEEL *** cylinder, 9 cm in 
diameter, and 33 cm in length, with a steel circular flange at one end 20 cm in 
diameter and 1 cm thick. 

I'm only analysing the March case.

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[Paul Breed]

In normal AC system DC bias is VERY rare.  anytime a transformer is
involved the dc bias goes to zero.
Any AC powered device with a transformer in the front end of the power
supply will likely fail in a catastrophic way if any significant DC bias is
present.
(You drive the transfomrer magnetic material into saturation and it stops
being a transformer and becomes an air core inductor... with poor coupling)

Most precision AC power meters use an inductive current measurement and
probably an AC only  voltage step down transformer to measure voltage.
This  will not sense any DC voltage/current in the circuit.

The hall effect clamp on sensors that will measure DC have bias problems
and are generally far less accurate than clamp on transformers in AC
circuits.

In past jobs I've both designed and used power meters and I would have to
agree that if one is attempting to do fraud then putting DC bias on an
AC wall socket would be one possible way to do this.

This fraud is easily detected with a simple DC voltmeter or DC coupled
oscilloscope... so it would be a risky thing to do it is however given
the details of the
Rossi independent verification a possible fraud that would not have been
caught with the instrumentation used in this test.


Paul



On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

> I express badly...
>
> It is only different models of clamp...
> you seems to have the Hall effect clamp, which measure DC and not to high
> frequency AC.
>
> Essen seems to have used inductive clamp. Moreover it seems the PCE830
> filter-out DC anyway, for current and voltage.
>
> I don't know why expensive instruments use "inductive" clamps instead.
> maybe to have better precision, bandwidth, calibration...
> Why the don't measure DC voltage is also not clear...
>
>
>
>
> 2013/6/26 Jed Rothwell 
>
>> Alain Sepeda  wrote:
>>
>> about Clamp and DC, there are 2 kind of clamp.
>>>
>>
>> There is only one clamp on my Radio Shack ammeter.
>>
>> I suppose it is not good for very low current.
>>
>> (I can't find it . . . I may have thrown it out or given it away, but
>> anyway there was only one clamp.)
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:Mole Penon Simulation

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Alan:

Both you and the Penon doc mention inner and outer tubes being steel…

The recent ‘semi-independent’ test clearly stated that the outer cylinder was 
ceramic, not metallic. The only metallic tube was the stainless steel 
inner-most one… Is the Penon doc using an earlier eCat test?

 

-Mark

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 6:59 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mole Penon Simulation

 

> My current "best fit" for the waveforms is an almost-trapezoid

> Rise=20 Hold=130 Fall=30

> 

>   
> http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_spice/130625_spice_01.png

 

And for that waveform, these are the temperatures at the inner and outer steel 
cylinders.

 

  
http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_spice/130625_spice_02.png

 

There's only a 55C difference between the two. I expected it to be much higher.

(The reason is that corundum is a good thermal conductor).

 

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[Alain Sepeda]

I express badly...

It is only different models of clamp...
you seems to have the Hall effect clamp, which measure DC and not to high
frequency AC.

Essen seems to have used inductive clamp. Moreover it seems the PCE830
filter-out DC anyway, for current and voltage.

I don't know why expensive instruments use "inductive" clamps instead.
maybe to have better precision, bandwidth, calibration...
Why the don't measure DC voltage is also not clear...




2013/6/26 Jed Rothwell 

> Alain Sepeda  wrote:
>
> about Clamp and DC, there are 2 kind of clamp.
>>
>
> There is only one clamp on my Radio Shack ammeter.
>
> I suppose it is not good for very low current.
>
> (I can't find it . . . I may have thrown it out or given it away, but
> anyway there was only one clamp.)
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[David Roberson]

I once used clamp on current meters to measure the DC current being drawn by 
high power solid state amplifiers.  It was easier than breaking the leads and 
placing in shunts at high current levels.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Jun 26, 2013 11:02 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open 
letter]


Alain Sepeda  wrote:



about Clamp and DC, there are 2 kind of clamp.



There is only one clamp on my Radio Shack ammeter.


I suppose it is not good for very low current.


(I can't find it . . . I may have thrown it out or given it away, but anyway 
there was only one clamp.)


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[David Roberson]

The answer is yes.  The meter reads the AC component if it can not read both.  
Some clamp on current meters read both.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: John Berry 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Jun 26, 2013 8:47 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open 
letter]


I am not 100% sure, but I think an AC meter would read a current from such 
fluctuating DC, I might be wrong, easy to test, but I am moving house soon so 
my equipment is packed away, but some AC meters such as clamp meters should 
still give an AC reading, as for an AC volt meter I am unsure, maybe, maybe not.




On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

As long as it does reverse, it is AC and the meter would detect it. It would 
see it as AC with a huge bias. Meters have to be able to see this because a DC 
bias is a common problem.




It depends on the meter, but many don't have correction for such Bias I 
believe, maybe better quality ones do. 
 
As I have said, those predisposed to opposition to advancement will always find 
some argument, it is futile trying to counter them all, merely warm those who 
are not aware to be careful of undue and irrational skepticism.


Let's just admit that Rossi might just be a magician, and that seems like only 
a very very remote possibility with little apparent motive. A very distant 
remote possibility.


Anything less then him almost certainly faking is enough certainly to warrant 
investigation and replication and interest in his research.


John

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[David Roberson]

Jed,


The DC and AC act independently of each other in this case.  Even thought the 
net flow might be one direction, the time varying portion (AC) reads the 
correct value.  You can think of DC as being very low frequency AC and the 
power delivered by each component can be calculated separately.


Take the RMS voltage of the AC source and multiply it by the RMS current at the 
fundamental frequency of that source and you get the true power delivered.  Of 
course the phase difference between them needs to be taken into account.  For 
DC, it is just the DC voltage multiplied by the DC current that matters.  Add 
these numbers together and you get the total power absorbed by the load.  The 
only time DC power is delivered by the source is when a DC supply is connected 
in series with the AC that is normal.  Of course, anything of that nature would 
be a scam and easy to detect.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Jun 26, 2013 8:10 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open 
letter]


I am pretty sure they did bring other instruments. I can ask. As I mentioned, 
in previous studies Levi brought a small $20 wattmeter, similar to a 
Kill-a-watt. (A European brand; I have forgotten the name. I have a photo of it 
somewhere.)


John Berry  wrote:


It depends of the magnitude of the DC in relation to the AC.


If the DC bias was equal to the AC peak voltage, then the current would not 
reverse.
And the peak voltage in the biased direction would have doubled.



Okay, bear in mind it has been 40 years since I learned anything about 
electricity . . . Let me see if I understand.


You are saying than when current does not reverse it is DC. It is by definition 
-- rapidly fluctuating but all positive. The meter would suddenly see no 
electricity.


As long as it does reverse, it is AC and the meter would detect it. It would 
see it as AC with a huge bias. Meters have to be able to see this because a DC 
bias is a common problem.


In this actual case, the power appears to be on one-third of the time and off 
two-thirds. In the "extra DC" scenario it would actually be on the whole time, 
and at a higher level when the AC seems to be off (to prevent it from going 
negative). In that case the temperature would not track the power input. It 
would not fall when the power goes off.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[Daniel Rocha]

There is a reason (this is not about scam) that Rossi did not allow DC
measurement.


2013/6/26 Jed Rothwell 

> Alain Sepeda  wrote:
>
> about Clamp and DC, there are 2 kind of clamp.
>>
>
> There is only one clamp on my Radio Shack ammeter.
>
> I suppose it is not good for very low current.
>
> (I can't find it . . . I may have thrown it out or given it away, but
> anyway there was only one clamp.)
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[Jed Rothwell]

Alain Sepeda  wrote:

about Clamp and DC, there are 2 kind of clamp.
>

There is only one clamp on my Radio Shack ammeter.

I suppose it is not good for very low current.

(I can't find it . . . I may have thrown it out or given it away, but
anyway there was only one clamp.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[Alain Sepeda]

about Clamp and DC, there are 2 kind of clamp.
some are pure AC transformers, with good AC bandwidth (up to MHz).
some are hall effect, with DC sensibility, but moderate bandwidth (few
kHz), and very expensive.

it seems the PCE830 clamps are AC only...
maybe a bad choice for that test... I have never seen the model of the
current clamps.
The specification of the PCE-830 depend on the clamp used.
anyway if you don't fear an unusual main AC power this would be a very good
instrument.




2013/6/26 Jed Rothwell 

>  Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:
>
>
>> First of all, the clamp-on probes used with the PCE-830 cannot measure DC
>> current
>
>
>  I don't know about this one, but my 30-year-old analog Radio Shack
> clip-on ammeter sure can measure DC. You turn the knob to DC and it works
> fine.
>
>
>
>> They operate through sensing the changing magnetic fields from changing
>> current in the wires. DC, no change.
>>
>
>  My point is that as long as it reverses it is AC and will be detected.
> Adding DC voltage just adds a bias. It does not make the AC go away.
> Unless, as noted, you add so much that it stays positive.
>
>
>
>> Secondly, the PCE meter not being designed to measure DC power -- no DC
>> current sensors -- . . .
>
>
>  If it cannot read a DC bias it is useless. I am sure it can. They all
> could 40 years ago.
>
>
>
>> (You are assuming a single solid-state "switch" in the control box, so
>> that AC and DC turn on and off together. But the AC and DC could be
>> isolated, separated, essentially a DC bypass.)
>>
>
>  It is one wire. How do you keep them separated?!?
>
>
>
>> This makes the second such failure to understand test equipment on the
>> part of Essen. The first was the humidity meter. Did you ever understand
>> that one?
>>
>
>  Sure. I looked at the manual and contacted the manufacturer, and they
> said that meter with that probe works fine for that purpose. It says it
> measures the enthalpy of steam. I don't know why you think it doesn't when
> the manual and brochure clearly state that it does.
>
>  I admit, I tend to take for granted whatever the manufacturers' say. If
> they say "this meter measures the enthalpy of steam" (the wetness) I assume
> they are right. The PCE company would not stay in business long if any high
> school kid could find a way to fool their meters, or if the meter indicated
> a wire is dead when it is alive.
>
>  Recently, Shanahan said that IR cameras do not measure temperatures
> correctly. He gave a long list of theoretical reasons. I pointed out that
> the manufacturer sells these things to measure temperature, and millions of
> engineers use them for that purpose, plus Levi compared this one to a
> thermocouple, so I am sure Shanahan is wrong.
>
>  - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com>> 
wrote:


   First of all, the clamp-on probes used with the PCE-830 cannot
   measure DC current


I don't know about this one, but my 30-year-old analog Radio Shack 
clip-on ammeter sure can measure DC. You turn the knob to DC and it 
works fine.


   They operate through sensing the changing magnetic fields from
   changing current in the wires. DC, no change.


My point is that as long as it reverses it is AC and will be detected. 
Adding DC voltage just adds a bias. It does not make the AC go away. 
Unless, as noted, you add so much that it stays positive.


   Secondly, the PCE meter not being designed to measure DC power -- no
   DC current sensors -- . . .


If it cannot read a DC bias it is useless. I am sure it can. They all 
could 40 years ago.


   (You are assuming a single solid-state "switch" in the control box,
   so that AC and DC turn on and off together. But the AC and DC could
   be isolated, separated, essentially a DC bypass.)


It is one wire. How do you keep them separated?!?

   This makes the second such failure to understand test equipment on
   the part of Essen. The first was the humidity meter. Did you ever
   understand that one?


Sure. I looked at the manual and contacted the manufacturer, and they 
said that meter with that probe works fine for that purpose. It says it 
measures the enthalpy of steam. I don't know why you think it doesn't 
when the manual and brochure clearly state that it does.


I admit, I tend to take for granted whatever the manufacturers' say. If 
they say "this meter measures the enthalpy of steam" (the wetness) I 
assume they are right. The PCE company would not stay in business long 
if any high school kid could find a way to fool their meters, or if the 
meter indicated a wire is dead when it is alive.


Recently, Shanahan said that IR cameras do not measure temperatures 
correctly. He gave a long list of theoretical reasons. I pointed out 
that the manufacturer sells these things to measure temperature, and 
millions of engineers use them for that purpose, plus Levi compared this 
one to a thermocouple, so I am sure Shanahan is wrong.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[Alain Sepeda]

the AC powermeter and other AC instruments will see faster enough
fluctuating DC, as a kind of AC...
however they will miss the DC average, or the very slow changes...

If Essen&all did not measure DC, they forget something.

however Rossi was not sure they did not bring a grandpa DC voltmeter lik I
have, so sure the DC component was null, or negligible.

Since it was a parameter that the tester could have tested, it cannot be
the key of a fraud.

If you look at fraud, look what Rossi  forbid access... only that.
forget what was tested, just what was allowed to be tested.


2013/6/26 John Berry 

> I am not 100% sure, but I think an AC meter would read a current from such
> fluctuating DC, I might be wrong, easy to test, but I am moving house soon
> so my equipment is packed away, but some AC meters such as clamp meters
> should still give an AC reading, as for an AC volt meter I am unsure,
> maybe, maybe not.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> As long as it does reverse, it is AC and the meter would detect it. It
>> would see it as AC with a huge bias. Meters have to be able to see this
>> because a DC bias is a common problem.
>>
>
> It depends on the meter, but many don't have correction for such Bias I
> believe, maybe better quality ones do.
>
> As I have said, those predisposed to opposition to advancement will always
> find some argument, it is futile trying to counter them all, merely warm
> those who are not aware to be careful of undue and irrational skepticism.
>
> Let's just admit that Rossi might just be a magician, and that seems like
> only a very very remote possibility with little apparent motive. A very
> distant remote possibility.
>
> Anything less then him almost certainly faking is enough certainly to
> warrant investigation and replication and interest in his research.
>
> John
>

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[Berke Durak]

Quoting from a previous mail:

> Consider two circuits connected by a pair of wires.  Assuming circuits
do not accumulate charge nor radiate, whatever current goes in must
eventually go out, therefore it is sufficient to specify the
instantaneous current I(t) in one wire.  If we take one of the wires
as a voltage reference then let U(t) be the instantaneous voltage
difference between the two.  The instantaneous power exchanged between
the two circuits circuits is then P(t) = U(t) * I(t).  Assuming again
that the system is stationary, each quantity has a DC component and an
AC component: U(t) = U_DC + U_AC(t) and I(t) = I_DC + I_AC(t).  It
then follows that

>  P(t) = (U_DC + U_AC(t))*(I_DC + I_AC(t))
 = U_DC * I_DC + U_DC * I_AC(t) + U_AC(t) * I_DC + U_AC(t) * I_AC(t)

> We have a power meter that measures voltage and current separately to
calculate instantaneous power.  If it cannot measure DC currents NOR
voltages, the meter will only be using U_AC(t) and I_AC(t) and the
estimated power will be

>  P_est_1(t) = U_AC(t) * I_AC(t)

> and the error will be

>  P(t) - P_est_1(t) = U_DC * I_DC + U_DC * I_AC(t) + I_DC * U_AC(t).

But U_DC * I_AC(t) and I_DC * U_AC(t) have no net integrals over time,
so the error is:

>  U_DC * I_DC.

In other words DC times AC cross-products do not contribute net power.
-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[John Berry]

I am not 100% sure, but I think an AC meter would read a current from such
fluctuating DC, I might be wrong, easy to test, but I am moving house soon
so my equipment is packed away, but some AC meters such as clamp meters
should still give an AC reading, as for an AC volt meter I am unsure,
maybe, maybe not.


On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> As long as it does reverse, it is AC and the meter would detect it. It
> would see it as AC with a huge bias. Meters have to be able to see this
> because a DC bias is a common problem.
>

It depends on the meter, but many don't have correction for such Bias I
believe, maybe better quality ones do.

As I have said, those predisposed to opposition to advancement will always
find some argument, it is futile trying to counter them all, merely warm
those who are not aware to be careful of undue and irrational skepticism.

Let's just admit that Rossi might just be a magician, and that seems like
only a very very remote possibility with little apparent motive. A very
distant remote possibility.

Anything less then him almost certainly faking is enough certainly to
warrant investigation and replication and interest in his research.

John

Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]

[Jed Rothwell]

I am pretty sure they did bring other instruments. I can ask. As I
mentioned, in previous studies Levi brought a small $20 wattmeter, similar
to a Kill-a-watt. (A European brand; I have forgotten the name. I have a
photo of it somewhere.)

John Berry  wrote:

It depends of the magnitude of the DC in relation to the AC.
>
> If the DC bias was equal to the AC peak voltage, then the current would
> not reverse.
> And the peak voltage in the biased direction would have doubled.
>

Okay, bear in mind it has been 40 years since I learned anything about
electricity . . . Let me see if I understand.

You are saying than when current does not reverse it is DC. It is by
definition -- rapidly fluctuating but all positive. The meter would
suddenly see no electricity.

As long as it does reverse, it is AC and the meter would detect it. It
would see it as AC with a huge bias. Meters have to be able to see this
because a DC bias is a common problem.

In this actual case, the power appears to be on one-third of the time and
off two-thirds. In the "extra DC" scenario it would actually be on the
whole time, and at a higher level when the AC seems to be off (to prevent
it from going negative). In that case the temperature would not track the
power input. It would not fall when the power goes off.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hotcat Spice Simulation -- Nearly Done

[Teslaalset]

Very nice work!
Alan, as I understand, you apply natural convection and no forced
(controlled) cooling. Right?


Op woensdag 26 juni 2013 schreef Alan Fletcher (a...@well.com) het volgende:

> (I posted some of these in the Penon topic -- I have to redo all the
> pictures for the web version).
>
> My current "best fit" for the waveforms is an almost-trapezoid Rise=20
> Hold=130 Fall=30
>
> http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_spice/130625_spice_01.png
>
> I've done a "good enough" digitization of the original waveform.
>
> Note that the amount of ripple in the waveform is fully accounted for by
> the input square-wave pulse. Any other ripple is additive.
>
> The only other explanation is that there's more "RC" in the circuit than
> in my model, which would cause the signal to "hold" longer at the tail.
>  There is some RC in the flange and the ends .. but they also provide a
> path for pulling it down.
>
> http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_spice/130625_spice_03.png
>
> And for that waveform, these are the temperatures at the inner and outer
> steel cylinders.
>
> http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_spice/130625_spice_02.png
>
> There's only a 55C difference between the two. I expected it to be much
> higher.
> (The reason is that corundum is a good thermal conductor).
>
>
> The following is an ILLUSTRATION of a "Toy" control system, in which the
> Hotcat requires a threshold center temperature before it fires (150C),
> increases linearly up to 350C and then stays constant (and therefore won't
> increase exponentially).
>
> It shows how the addition of the "pulse" heat allows the reaction to
> continue, but withdrawing it causes it to stop.
>
> http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_spice/130625_spice_10_12.png
>
> (I don't attempt to explain how the pulses of Hotcat energy are formed, or
> are synchronized with the heater pulse).
>
>