Re: [Vo]:NiH NAE Synopsis?
I just relay what I've understood from following DFT claims: - From what says Defkalion, it is at least Debye temp. the higher the better. - Defkalion in his paper at ICCF17, like ENEA in ICCF15 and recent papers, more talk of crystallography properties. It seems micrometric sizing is enough. Foam claimed by DGT is above micrometer. Oxyde filling is not detailed - they talk of 1Hydrogen my curiosity is raised by the Debye temperature, which seems to be the minimum temperature for non-elastic phonons to transport heat... Can someone explain us what is changing at Debye temperature ? 2013/7/31 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com Nickel nanoparticles heated to Ni's Debay temperature and infused with hydrogen -- the mixture being triggered to a NAE by ionizing the hydrogen. Areas of clarification needed: - Should Ni's Debay temperature read instead at least Ni's Debay temperature? - Is there a technical name that can be given to the geometry of the nanoparticles that would, for example, tell us where in the nano range the size of these particles should sit? - Should hydrogen read protium (ie: Hydrogen-1)? - Should there be some characteristic of the ionizing energy specified so that the infused hydrogen is properly ionized?
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
That demo is not clearly bulletproof, however there are many details that let no real doubt of reality. The fact that they ignored steam enthalpy show that they don't want to overstate the COP, since they accept to understate it. They just wanted to prove reality, while a COP of 160 seems credible after more engineering. There are two possibilities, with no intermediate. Either it is a fraud. in that case their allowance to let uncontrolled observer lurk the pipes and wires, to let him dismantle the wires, shows that the tricks is not in the wires or the pipes... An oscilloscope allowed to enter the room eliminate also anything about RF. Their body language, and the loose security opposed to observers close all realistic options for fraud. If you add the Nelson test report (the human part is enough ) it confirms that. My analysis is that this hypothesis does not hold facing the evidence, the behaviors. It is comfortable to stay skeptical, it is good to avoid personal critics by extremists, but it is not supported by the mesh of evidences. I prefer to be insulted as believers, but there is a moment when doubting is a delusion, and complicity of delusion. Call me a whistleblower, it is fashion today. the alternative is that they are sincere, at least like a corporate (letting room for optimism, bias). If they are sincere, they have done many similar test (which explain their low-tech protocol, adapted to demo and to engineering), and this test was done for a communication purpose, mainly toward the scientific community at ICCF18. It seems the community is quite skeptic, negative , about Defkalion, and that maybe their purpose. Being sincere they have to avoid claiming false things that could be opposed later to hurt them. Unlike some industriels or science domain, they know that any error or manipulation won't be forgiven. Red Herring or errors are very dangerous (Rossi shows that). This is why I analyse that their scientific claims (Magnetic field, Debye temp...) are simply sincere. I don't say true, I say sincere. That let room for errors, artifacts, bias, optimism. about their business claims, all which could be checked afterward is normally true, except for communication errors (misunderstanding). For the loose claims which are hard to check (like interested corps, application development), there is room for exaggeration. anyway for the future, sincerity does not prevent to be wrong, to change strategy afterward, to be surprised by the environments,... Given the tendency in cold fusion domain to be skeptical, I estimate that Defkalion claims are more reliable that the equivalent claims from green-energy startup. They know their abuse won't be forgiven, they checked all before, they control claims. More reliable, does not meant perfect... and Green-energy startup, like most startup, do exaggerates, make errors, change strategy, and crash often... About the science, given their visible desire to seduce LENR science community, I assume that their claim are simply sincere. Too much risk else. 2013/7/31 H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com maybe the steam was just hot air? *ducks* harry On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On 07/29/2013 05:52 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com mailto:jabow...@gmail.com wrote: There is no video of the steam output. Are you sure? Someone told me there is. Have your reviewed the full 8 hours? I watched it all, and though I may have missed a moment or two, they did not show the steam output. Mats Lewan did observe that there was NO water in the steam during the hot part of the run. Craig
[Vo]:Re: NiH NAE Synopsis?
Alain Sepeda wrote: my curiosity is raised by the Debye temperature, which seems to be the minimum temperature for non-elastic phonons to transport heat... Can someone explain us what is changing at Debye temperature ? In order to tackle your question, let us first come to an agreement on what the Debye Temperature[1] is. As far as I understand it, the Debye Temperature can be thought of as roughly the temperature at which the very highest frequency/energy phonon mode is excited in a material/crystal. Thus at/above T(Debye), all possible Phonon Modes in the material/crystal are being excited, thermally. In other words, if one wants to excite a material/crystal in every possible way (in terms of The Debye Model), then raise the temperature of the material/crystal above the Debye Temperature. I believe the Debye Temperature for pure Nickel is roughly 450 K at/near Absolute Zero (I've seen values of 375 K, but that is the Temperature Dependent Phenomenological Debye Temperature as one moves away from Absolute Zero towards Room Temperature and higher[2], and the Debye Model is less accurate). So subtract 273.15 K and one obtains the Debye Temperature of Nickel to be approximately 177 C, hence the value of 179 C stated by John H during the demo. As one increases the temperature above the Debye Temperature, the amplitudes of all the phonon vibrations/modes continue to increase. I don't believe there is anything else really magical about the Debye Temperature than this, but I could be wrong! FYI: When Protium (Hydrogen-1) is incorporated into Nickel, the Debye Temperature will change! [1] Debye model -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye_model [2] Lattice Mechanical Properties of Pd, Pt and Ni - A Model Potential Approach -- http://www.kps.or.kr/home/kor/journal/library/downloadPdf.asp?articleuid=%7B244F63AB-595B-4070-A7B7-6EB7FC293C68%7D - Mark Jurich
RE: [Vo]:Re: NiH NAE Synopsis?
Thanks you for this comment and information, Mark. To put things into perspective, the Curie point and not the Debye temperature of nickel seems to be the most important parameter for gain in Ni-H. Arata/Zhang discovered this, Ahern and several other prestigious groups replicated - and all were scientific papers - and none of them found much significance to the Debye temperature. In contrast, the DGT results are based on a convincing demo but not scientific nor vetted - and are clearly part fact and part fiction. The fiction part is troubling and self-serving. From: Mark Jurich .As far as I understand it, the Debye Temperature can be thought of as roughly the temperature at which the very highest frequency/energy phonon mode is excited in a material/crystal. Thus at/above T(Debye), all possible Phonon Modes in the material/crystal are being excited, thermally. In other words, if one wants to excite a material/crystal in every possible way (in terms of The Debye Model), then raise the temperature of the material/crystal above the Debye Temperature. I believe the Debye Temperature for pure Nickel is roughly 450 K at/near Absolute Zero (I've seen values of 375 K, but that is the Temperature Dependent Phenomenological Debye Temperature as one moves away from Absolute Zero towards Room Temperature and higher[2], and the Debye Model is less accurate). So subtract 273.15 K and one obtains the Debye Temperature of Nickel to be approximately 177 C, hence the value of 179 C stated by John H during the demo. As one increases the temperature above the Debye Temperature, the amplitudes of all the phonon vibrations/modes continue to increase. I don't believe there is anything else really magical about the Debye Temperature than this, but I could be wrong! FYI: When Protium (Hydrogen-1) is incorporated into Nickel, the Debye Temperature will change! [1] Debye model -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye_model [2] Lattice Mechanical Properties of Pd, Pt and Ni - A Model Potential Approach -- http://www.kps.or.kr/home/kor/journal/library/downloadPdf.asp?articleuid=%7B 244F63AB-595B-4070-A7B7-6EB7FC293C68%7D - Mark Jurich
Re: [Vo]:Re: NiH NAE Synopsis?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: In contrast, the DGT results are based on a convincing demo but not scientific nor vetted – and are clearly part fact and part fiction. The fiction part is troubling and self-serving. That is a bold claim. What do you mean? What part is fiction, and how can you tell it is fiction? I agree that demo is no substitute for a test. It is inherently less convincing. I welcome this demo and I learned a lot from it, but it is not a test. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Re: NiH NAE Synopsis?
From: Jed Rothwell In contrast, the DGT results are based on a convincing demo but not scientific nor vetted - and are clearly part fact and part fiction. The fiction part is troubling and self-serving. That is a bold claim. What do you mean? What part is fiction, and how can you tell it is fiction? The claim of testing isotopes to determine that only Ni61 is inactive - is IMO clearly fiction. There are others but this is the most blatant. This is a company which has been on the verge of financial collapse until recently and these isotopes cost at least $20,000 per ounce, and several ounces of each would be needed to determine activity. This works out to about half a million to test them all for potency and at a time when most of the staff of DGT had been let off, due to the move to Canada and lack of funds. You may not agree, but to me this is clearly a self-serving fabrication - which was invented to counter the suggestion that DGT had copied Rossi's technology - and could be in violation of any patent which would be granted to Rossi (assuming that one is granted). Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Re: NiH NAE Synopsis?
Correction - the cost of isotopes listed in previous posting is per gram, not per ounce. _ From: Jed Rothwell In contrast, the DGT results are based on a convincing demo but not scientific nor vetted - and are clearly part fact and part fiction. The fiction part is troubling and self-serving. That is a bold claim. What do you mean? What part is fiction, and how can you tell it is fiction? The claim of testing isotopes to determine that only Ni61 is inactive - is IMO clearly fiction. There are others but this is the most blatant. This is a company which has been on the verge of financial collapse until recently and these isotopes cost at least $20,000 per ounce, and several ounces of each would be needed to determine activity. This works out to about half a million to test them all for potency and at a time when most of the staff of DGT had been let off, due to the move to Canada and lack of funds. You may not agree, but to me this is clearly a self-serving fabrication - which was invented to counter the suggestion that DGT had copied Rossi's technology - and could be in violation of any patent which would be granted to Rossi (assuming that one is granted). Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Re: NiH NAE Synopsis?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The claim of testing isotopes to determine that only Ni61 is inactive - is IMO clearly fiction. There are others but this is the most blatant. This is a company which has been on the verge of financial collapse until recently and these isotopes cost at least $20,000 per [gram], and several ounces of each would be needed to determine activity. Ah, I see your point. I suppose an investor or someone in a joint venture with them might have provided the materials. I cannot judge whether it is blatant fiction but I agree this calls for clarification. That's why I said they should list the weight and the source of the monoisotopic materials in a paper. They do seem to be short of money. They owe me some! You may not agree, but to me this is clearly a self-serving fabrication - I can't agree or disagree without access to the facts. I agree it is a little strange. I took note of it myself, the moment they said it. When I was in Mizuno's lab I copied a price list for monoisotopic samples that was in the nuclear research lab. The prices are mind boggling. There are some other fishy things about them. Mary Yugo has some valid points over at Peter's blog. They talked about tests performed in the Greek government but they never revealed the test results. They talked about having ~30 highly effective reactors yet the ones they have demonstrated so far seem crude. They have a lot of explaining to do if they wish to clear up the doubts and confusion about their earlier statements. But things often seem complicated and inexplicable until you see the facts. And after all, this is their business. They are under no obligation to explain it to anyone. On the other hand, as a matter of good public relations (PR) I suggest that if you do not intend to explain something to the public, you should not talk about in the first place. Keep it secret. (PR has an unsavory tinge to it but it is something that any businessman should pay attention to. It is an honorable necessary part of managing a business.) They say that independent experts have performed tests of their devices under NDA's. I recently suggested to them that they publish one of these tests. They declined, saying it would not be in their best interests. I told them I disagree, but I added that it is their business and their decision, so I have no objection. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: NiH NAE Synopsis?
I wrote: I told them I disagree, but I added that it is their business and their decision, so I have no objection. I mean that. I am sincere. I have enough experience in business to know that you don't go around telling other people how to run their business. You have to know about the situation in detail before you can judge what is the best interests of a company. It is my impression, judging from what little I know, that it would be in their best interest to establish credibility, the way Rossi did with the recent Levi study. That is my impression, but without detailed knowledge of their IP, their contracts, business deals, ongoing negotiations and so on, I cannot judge. I know nothing about Defkalion's business, and I do not want to know. I learned long ago to keep my nose out of other people's business. Unless I am paid to know, in which case I say NOTHING. I have also learned that you cannot tell whether a company is legitimate or not without detailed information. Or whether it might be a good investment prospect. That is why I never, ever, tell anyone they should or should not invest in a company. People have asked me from time to time. Not specifically about Defkalion. My answer is always the same: You need to spend a week or two reviewing financial data, business plans, and asking dozens of questions. I would not hazard a guess except in a casual conversation. I have said here, for example, that I personally would not get involved in a business arrangement with Rossi, because he is . . . mercurial. Unpredictable. That's just my impression. I would never make a formal recommendation one way or the other. I have no idea what IP he holds or what he might offer to an investor. I can offer serious opinions about the technical merits of some claims, especially regarding calorimetry. That's my limit. I can describe in some detail why I think the recent Levi paper boosts Rossi's credibility. I can say why Mizuno's recent claims would be improved with more data from the T5 sensor at the cell wall. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Re: NiH NAE Synopsis?
From: Jed Rothwell The claim of testing isotopes to determine that only Ni61 is inactive - is IMO clearly fiction. There are others but this is the most blatant. This is a company which has been on the verge of financial collapse until recently and these isotopes cost at least $20,000 per [gram], and several ounces of each [24 grams minimum] would be needed to determine activity. Ah, I see your point. Other details stand out as a bit fishy, even to supporters of LENR but in the demo - the half-liter+ per minute of water turning into steam is the most troubling. And it is not so much from the lack of visual evidence of steam, as from the lack of sound. This came to mind just now as my teapot was shrieking-out a deafening reminder of what ~500 watts sounds like. Of course the 20+ kilowatts implied by that much water flow (in the DGT demo) would be fabulous on first blush, but .. think about the sound (or lack thereof). When you are driving a moderate speed in an average car - about 20 kilowatts of thermal energy goes out the exhaust pipe - which is typically 2-2.5 inches diameter in the USA. The DGT reactor supposedly was pushing over 20 kilowatts of hot gas though a tube which was 10 times narrower (less diameter) or 100 time less area for the escape of hot gases. The DGT reactor exhaust should have been SCREAMING with an unbearably loud hiss like the equivalent of about forty teapots on full boil. Is this criticism sound or not?
Re: [Vo]:Re: NiH NAE Synopsis?
Can someone tell me the diameter of the steam exhaust tube? If I assume a 1 cm diameter, along with 18 g/mole of H2O and 1000 g/liter and 1000 cc/liter for water and 0.5 liter/minute input flow, then assuming the ideal gas law (22.4 liter/mole at STP) as an approximation for steam at atmospheric pressure I get for the output velocity, v = (0.5 l/minute)(1 minute/60 sec) (1000 g/liter) (1 mole/18 g) (22400 cc/mole)/(pi*1cm*1cm) = 3300 cm/sec = 33 m/sec for the exhaust. This seems quite large although the cooling and back pressure may lead to condensation/slowing-down as the steam proceeds further out of the reactor. Note that this calculation of the exit speed does not rely on any knowledge of the back-pressure but simply on the input flow (water is incompressible) and the assumption that it is all converted to steam. If instead, it is converted to superheated water droplets (wet steam?) due perhaps to back-pressure which raises the boiling temperature, then the exit speed would be much less, and might be more reasonable. Any comments? On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** *From:* Jed Rothwell The claim of testing isotopes to determine that only Ni61 is inactive - is IMO clearly fiction. There are others but this is the most blatant. This is a company which has been on the verge of financial collapse until recently and these isotopes cost at least $20,000 per [gram], and several ounces of each [24 grams minimum] would be needed to determine activity.** ** ** ** Ah, I see your point. ** ** Other details stand out as a bit fishy, even to supporters of LENR but in the demo – the half-liter+ per minute of water turning into steam is the most troubling. And it is not so much from the lack of visual evidence of steam, as from the lack of sound. This came to mind just now as my teapot was shrieking-out a deafening reminder of what ~500 watts sounds like. ** ** Of course the 20+ kilowatts implied by that much water flow (in the DGT demo) would be fabulous on first blush, but …. think about the sound (or lack thereof). ** ** When you are driving a moderate speed in an average car – about 20 kilowatts of thermal energy goes out the exhaust pipe - which is typically 2-2.5 inches diameter in the USA. The DGT reactor supposedly was pushing over 20 kilowatts of hot gas though a tube which was 10 times narrower (less diameter) or 100 time less area for the escape of hot gases. ** ** The DGT reactor exhaust should have been SCREAMING with an unbearably loud hiss like the equivalent of about forty teapots on full boil. ** ** Is this criticism “sound” or not? ** ** ** **
Re: [Vo]:Re: NiH NAE Synopsis?
Correction: my previous calculation actually assumed a 2 cm diameter (1cm radius). Assuming a 1 cm diameter and pure steam give a 4 times higher value (132 m/sec). On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Franco Talari franco.tal...@gmail.comwrote: Can someone tell me the diameter of the steam exhaust tube? If I assume a 1 cm diameter, along with 18 g/mole of H2O and 1000 g/liter and 1000 cc/liter for water and 0.5 liter/minute input flow, then assuming the ideal gas law (22.4 liter/mole at STP) as an approximation for steam at atmospheric pressure I get for the output velocity, v = (0.5 l/minute)(1 minute/60 sec) (1000 g/liter) (1 mole/18 g) (22400 cc/mole)/(pi*1cm*1cm) = 3300 cm/sec = 33 m/sec for the exhaust. This seems quite large although the cooling and back pressure may lead to condensation/slowing-down as the steam proceeds further out of the reactor. Note that this calculation of the exit speed does not rely on any knowledge of the back-pressure but simply on the input flow (water is incompressible) and the assumption that it is all converted to steam. If instead, it is converted to superheated water droplets (wet steam?) due perhaps to back-pressure which raises the boiling temperature, then the exit speed would be much less, and might be more reasonable. Any comments? On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** *From:* Jed Rothwell The claim of testing isotopes to determine that only Ni61 is inactive - is IMO clearly fiction. There are others but this is the most blatant. This is a company which has been on the verge of financial collapse until recently and these isotopes cost at least $20,000 per [gram], and several ounces of each [24 grams minimum] would be needed to determine activity.* *** ** ** Ah, I see your point. ** ** Other details stand out as a bit fishy, even to supporters of LENR but in the demo – the half-liter+ per minute of water turning into steam is the most troubling. And it is not so much from the lack of visual evidence of steam, as from the lack of sound. This came to mind just now as my teapot was shrieking-out a deafening reminder of what ~500 watts sounds like.*** * ** ** Of course the 20+ kilowatts implied by that much water flow (in the DGT demo) would be fabulous on first blush, but …. think about the sound (or lack thereof). ** ** When you are driving a moderate speed in an average car – about 20 kilowatts of thermal energy goes out the exhaust pipe - which is typically 2-2.5 inches diameter in the USA. The DGT reactor supposedly was pushing over 20 kilowatts of hot gas though a tube which was 10 times narrower (less diameter) or 100 time less area for the escape of hot gases. ** ** The DGT reactor exhaust should have been SCREAMING with an unbearably loud hiss like the equivalent of about forty teapots on full boil. ** ** Is this criticism “sound” or not? ** ** ** **
Re: [Vo]:Re: NiH NAE Synopsis?
Another comment: since the pressure at the *reactor exit* is likely to be significantly higher than 1 atm, then even if there were dry steam at the reactor exit, the velocity at the *reactor exit* might be significantly less (perhaps 10 times less) than my previous calculation. As the steam proceeded down the tube to the tube exit, the speed would be further reduced if the density increased due to condensation. On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Franco Talari franco.tal...@gmail.comwrote: Correction: my previous calculation actually assumed a 2 cm diameter (1cm radius). Assuming a 1 cm diameter and pure steam give a 4 times higher value (132 m/sec). On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Franco Talari franco.tal...@gmail.comwrote: Can someone tell me the diameter of the steam exhaust tube? If I assume a 1 cm diameter, along with 18 g/mole of H2O and 1000 g/liter and 1000 cc/liter for water and 0.5 liter/minute input flow, then assuming the ideal gas law (22.4 liter/mole at STP) as an approximation for steam at atmospheric pressure I get for the output velocity, v = (0.5 l/minute)(1 minute/60 sec) (1000 g/liter) (1 mole/18 g) (22400 cc/mole)/(pi*1cm*1cm) = 3300 cm/sec = 33 m/sec for the exhaust. This seems quite large although the cooling and back pressure may lead to condensation/slowing-down as the steam proceeds further out of the reactor. Note that this calculation of the exit speed does not rely on any knowledge of the back-pressure but simply on the input flow (water is incompressible) and the assumption that it is all converted to steam. If instead, it is converted to superheated water droplets (wet steam?) due perhaps to back-pressure which raises the boiling temperature, then the exit speed would be much less, and might be more reasonable. Any comments? On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netwrote: ** ** *From:* Jed Rothwell The claim of testing isotopes to determine that only Ni61 is inactive - is IMO clearly fiction. There are others but this is the most blatant. This is a company which has been on the verge of financial collapse until recently and these isotopes cost at least $20,000 per [gram], and several ounces of each [24 grams minimum] would be needed to determine activity. ** ** Ah, I see your point. ** ** Other details stand out as a bit fishy, even to supporters of LENR but in the demo – the half-liter+ per minute of water turning into steam is the most troubling. And it is not so much from the lack of visual evidence of steam, as from the lack of sound. This came to mind just now as my teapot was shrieking-out a deafening reminder of what ~500 watts sounds like.** ** ** ** Of course the 20+ kilowatts implied by that much water flow (in the DGT demo) would be fabulous on first blush, but …. think about the sound (or lack thereof). ** ** When you are driving a moderate speed in an average car – about 20 kilowatts of thermal energy goes out the exhaust pipe - which is typically 2-2.5 inches diameter in the USA. The DGT reactor supposedly was pushing over 20 kilowatts of hot gas though a tube which was 10 times narrower (less diameter) or 100 time less area for the escape of hot gases. ** ** The DGT reactor exhaust should have been SCREAMING with an unbearably loud hiss like the equivalent of about forty teapots on full boil. ** ** Is this criticism “sound” or not? ** ** ** **
[Vo]:Rossi and LENR to Electric conversion
Greetings Vortex-L, I just saw this, and is this the route that Rossi will use to generate electricity from the LENR plasma reactions..website: lenrnews.eu http://www.enr.eu I merely am an old friend of Gene M and follow Rossi et al. Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex Clueless of LENR...my disclaimer.
Re: [Vo]:Re: NiH NAE Synopsis?
Mats said he saw now condensation at the output. On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Franco Talari franco.tal...@gmail.comwrote: Another comment: since the pressure at the *reactor exit* is likely to be significantly higher than 1 atm, then even if there were dry steam at the reactor exit, the velocity at the *reactor exit* might be significantly less (perhaps 10 times less) than my previous calculation. As the steam proceeded down the tube to the tube exit, the speed would be further reduced if the density increased due to condensation. On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Franco Talari franco.tal...@gmail.comwrote: Correction: my previous calculation actually assumed a 2 cm diameter (1cm radius). Assuming a 1 cm diameter and pure steam give a 4 times higher value (132 m/sec). On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Franco Talari franco.tal...@gmail.comwrote: Can someone tell me the diameter of the steam exhaust tube? If I assume a 1 cm diameter, along with 18 g/mole of H2O and 1000 g/liter and 1000 cc/liter for water and 0.5 liter/minute input flow, then assuming the ideal gas law (22.4 liter/mole at STP) as an approximation for steam at atmospheric pressure I get for the output velocity, v = (0.5 l/minute)(1 minute/60 sec) (1000 g/liter) (1 mole/18 g) (22400 cc/mole)/(pi*1cm*1cm) = 3300 cm/sec = 33 m/sec for the exhaust. This seems quite large although the cooling and back pressure may lead to condensation/slowing-down as the steam proceeds further out of the reactor. Note that this calculation of the exit speed does not rely on any knowledge of the back-pressure but simply on the input flow (water is incompressible) and the assumption that it is all converted to steam. If instead, it is converted to superheated water droplets (wet steam?) due perhaps to back-pressure which raises the boiling temperature, then the exit speed would be much less, and might be more reasonable. Any comments? On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netwrote: ** ** *From:* Jed Rothwell The claim of testing isotopes to determine that only Ni61 is inactive - is IMO clearly fiction. There are others but this is the most blatant. This is a company which has been on the verge of financial collapse until recently and these isotopes cost at least $20,000 per [gram], and several ounces of each [24 grams minimum] would be needed to determine activity. ** ** Ah, I see your point. ** ** Other details stand out as a bit fishy, even to supporters of LENR but in the demo – the half-liter+ per minute of water turning into steam is the most troubling. And it is not so much from the lack of visual evidence of steam, as from the lack of sound. This came to mind just now as my teapot was shrieking-out a deafening reminder of what ~500 watts sounds like.* *** ** ** Of course the 20+ kilowatts implied by that much water flow (in the DGT demo) would be fabulous on first blush, but …. think about the sound (or lack thereof). ** ** When you are driving a moderate speed in an average car – about 20 kilowatts of thermal energy goes out the exhaust pipe - which is typically 2-2.5 inches diameter in the USA. The DGT reactor supposedly was pushing over 20 kilowatts of hot gas though a tube which was 10 times narrower (less diameter) or 100 time less area for the escape of hot gases. ** ** The DGT reactor exhaust should have been SCREAMING with an unbearably loud hiss like the equivalent of about forty teapots on full boil. ** ** Is this criticism “sound” or not? ** ** ** **
[Vo]:Re: NiH NAE Synopsis?
Good points brought up by Jones Jed, and the steam/water issue, also! Re: Ni Isotopes Cost, etc.. One way around this issue (and I’m sure many of us realize this) is to enrich the Nickel partially in some isotope and do an experiment or set of experiments. For example, let’s say one halves or slightly manipulates the 61Ni abundance (This should drop the cost.). Then one looks to see what happens. One does this again (cost permitting), and takes a look at say, 1/4th the concentration ... We do this for some of the other isotopes (cost permitting) ... I’m not saying that DGT has done this, just that with some clever tests/experiments, one could go about showing a rather convincing situation, perhaps on the cheap!... ... Also, I just want to state something rather obvious here about odd/even nuclei, which I don’t believe has actually been said at this site... Odd nuclei are Fermions and even nuclei are Bosons. I realize the odd/even nuclei point has been brought up, but not the Fermion/Boson part (half-integral/integral total nuclear spin) ... If indeed 61Ni is not partaking in the reaction and the rest are (all the remaining stable Ni isotopes are even), then this is a very powerful bit of info ... It may be that only bosonic nuclei work in some pairing/condensate/spectator way... It may be worthwhile to attempt an experiment with another odd Ni isotope (the only ones left are unstable!) ... How to go about this, is another story, which may not be possible!... ... It may also be true that the reason AR has mentioned just 62Ni in his intellectual property, is that it is the only practical even isotope (based on cost, abundance and ease of enrichment, etc.), and that patenting the other even/stable isotopes is really not practical for a device, in his mind (shear speculation). ... Just getting back briefly to James’ Initial Thread and Alain’s Question... I interpret John H’s Debye Temperature comment in the demo simply as something like this (and my apologies to John H if I’m getting it wrong!): Hey Guys/Gals, we have to get protium/protons in/on this stuff, we increased the gas pressure and we need to jostle things about a bit to drive it in, so we’re going to raise the temperature to help us out, here. In any case, what John has said or meant to say about the Debye Temperature, has opened up our eyes a bit in regards to Ni Pd Loading, etc.. Perhaps looking at it simplistically (as James initially pointed out), it’s somewhat a two-step process (Oh how we wish there were only 2 steps in this!) ... 1) Drive or hammer the Hydrogen in/on [the Nuclear Active Environment (NAE)] (and keep doing this), and 2) excite it (with the High Voltage (HV)) to quickly achieve the gain (without further additional heating). The Debye Temperature is perhaps more important for the first step... ... I’m really digressing/speculating here, sorry ... ... Just another tidbit of info (perhaps relevant here): ... If I recall correctly, John H mentioned in the demo that the DGT Experiment could be totally driven by just the HV by backing off the power to the heaters completely... perhaps because the HV could supply the necessary heat to keep 1) occurring/continuing (not John’s statement). That was not part of this demo protocol, however ... I realize this is obvious to some of you, but I am summarizing it here to perhaps stimulate more thought if anyone wants to chime in... - Mark Jurich
Re: [Vo]:Re: NiH NAE Synopsis?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Other details stand out as a bit fishy, even to supporters of LENR but in the demo – the half-liter+ per minute of water turning into steam is the most troubling. And it is not so much from the lack of visual evidence of steam, as from the lack of sound. Yes, that does seem odd. Here is what I think these objections point out. They point out the difference between a demonstration and a test, and they show that you need a test to establish deep credibility. A test would be something like what Levi et al. recently did. A group of scientists spends a week at Defkalion. They use their own instruments; they measure different parameters; they use their own video camera to make a long duration recording. They go home, think about it, and come back, improving the test. They take their time and do it thoroughly. This group would probably address the questions we have raised. They would probably sparge the steam to measure total enthalpy. (If they were to consult with me I would recommend this. They might consult with me!) These questions we have raised are not triggered by distrust of Defkalion. Not on my part, anyway. I have raised similar questions about Mizuno's recent experiment, even though he is a close friend and I have worked with him for years. Axil wrote what I assume is a joke: You are beginning to sound like Mary Yugo, such mistrust of your fellow LENR enthusiasts does not become you. Faith, faith, you need faith. As we all know, you never need faith in science. On the contrary, you need to be skeptical. Trust no one. Demand rigorous proof of everything. Quoting the web site for the Royal Society: The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba' roughly translates as 'take nobody's word for it'. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment. (They do not live up to those standards, but they darn well should.) A demonstration of this nature cannot provide rigorous proof. It is too short and it is not independent enough. You have to take their word for too many things. A demonstration can be a good learning experience. It can be impressive and helpful. What it cannot do is establish credibility. This is not a matter of good will, or trusting people. This is how science works. If you want credibility you *must* have an independent test. It would be best to perform this test a laboratory outside of Defkalion. The Levi test of Rossi's device would also be enhanced if it were taken to another lab where Rossi is not present. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: NiH NAE Synopsis?
Mark Jurich jur...@hotmail.com wrote: One way around this issue (and I’m sure many of us realize this) is to enrich the Nickel partially in some isotope and do an experiment or set of experiments. For example, let’s say one halves or slightly manipulates the 61Ni abundance (This should drop the cost.). You can put isotopes in, enhancing the level of one or another. But you cannot take them out, as far as I know. The people at Los Alamos or whoever isolates the monoisotopes are the only ones who can remove an isotope. The price list I saw in Japan said the source of the monoisotopic samples was a U.S. National Lab. I do not recall which one. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Rossi and LENR to Electric conversion
Hello Ron, I had a look on the frenglish video. I can't see what is special in this video. If the guy replaces the electrolysis cell with a film resistor (without deep inductance), the magnet will be bouncing as well inside the coil. In other words, it is the current from the grid which makes the magnet bouncing, not a pseudo current from the cell. Arnaud _ From: Ron Kita [mailto:chiralex.k...@gmail.com] Sent: mercredi 31 juillet 2013 19:44 To: vortex-l Subject: [Vo]:Rossi and LENR to Electric conversion Greetings Vortex-L, I just saw this, and is this the route that Rossi will use to generate electricity from the LENR plasma reactions..website: lenrnews.eu http://www.enr.eu I merely am an old friend of Gene M and follow Rossi et al. Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex Clueless of LENR...my disclaimer.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and LENR to Electric conversion
does somone have something written about that... Not clear for me. 2013/7/31 Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com Greetings Vortex-L, I just saw this, and is this the route that Rossi will use to generate electricity from the LENR plasma reactions..website: lenrnews.eu http://www.enr.eu I merely am an old friend of Gene M and follow Rossi et al. Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex Clueless of LENR...my disclaimer.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: It seems the community is quite skeptic, negative , about Defkalion . . . I do not think so. I did not get a sense of this at ICCF18. People were no more skeptical -- or accepting -- of Defkalion's claims than any other. That was a group of 220 people who are sure that cold fusion exists. They had no reason to doubt these claims. Some, including me, have reservations because this is not a rigorous test in the conventional sense, and because we never give a free pass to anyone. I do mean no one. Martin Fleischmann told me in person that he saw the cathode that melted and went into the floor at U. Utah. I still have my doubts, because he took no photos and preserved no evidence. (He admitted it was stupid not to do that.) , and that maybe their purpose. Being sincere they have to avoid claiming false things that could be opposed later to hurt them. Unlike some industriels or science domain, they know that any error or manipulation won't be forgiven. Red Herring or errors are very dangerous (Rossi shows that). You should not try to judge this based on people's sincerity or their motives. Those are not valid criteria for judging a scientific claim. In some cases we are forced to resort to speculation about people's motives because there is no better evidence available. We had to do this with Rossi for a long time in some ways. That is regrettable. At best it produces an approximate answer to questions which should be answered by rigorous physical proof and textbook laws. It is even more absurd to try to judge the validity of a scientific claim by placing bets or by a public opinion poll that includes people who have no knowledge of the claim. If you tried the opposite technique, people would agree you are crazy. Suppose an election is coming up and you ask me who I predict will win. I say: To answer that we must first need to check the calibration curves for the thermocouples and then we need to ask whether their mass spectrometer is the correct type for this analysis . . . You would conclude that I am stark staring crazy. Those are the wrong tools for predicting elections. Betting and money are equally absurd tools for trying to predict whether an experiment will work, or did work. Some people are under the impression that I have judged Rossi in the past strictly by subjective evidence regarding his motivation, the fact that he works 12 hours a day, the fact that person trying to sell or fraud would not have to work at all, and so on. I have pondered such evidence, and published it here. We should not dismiss that sort of thing even though it is speculative. It is valid but far weaker than experimental data. Let me point out again however, that I did not rely only on this. Rossi allowed independent testing of his devices in 2009. I have the data and photos right here. I have had this data for a long time. For some reason the people doing these tests and Rossi himself wish to keep these results confidential. I cannot imagine why, but I feel I should honor their desires. I better! As the librarian at LENR-CANR.org I will get into trouble if I start uploading stuff like this without permission. People will stop sending me information. However the tests have been widely reported so I see no harm in mentioning them. I also have photos and descriptions of the EON factory Rossi device, described by Focardi in Italian TV, and in the patent. Again, I can't imagine why Rossi wants to keep this secret, but he does. Naturally I cannot expect other people to believe this since the data has not been made public. If you have trouble believing me I won't take that personally. If I am free to doubt Martin Fleischmann I can't fault anyone for doubting me. Defkalion has said they have definitive information in reports compiled by experts under NDA's. They recently told me they do not wish to publish any of this, for the time being, because they feel it is not in their interests. I disagree. In any scenario I can think of, for any business, it is best to enhance your credibility. That makes it easier to borrow money and sell products. Perhaps there is something about Defkalion's situation that overrules this, and makes secrecy more valuable than enhanced credibility. Who knows? There is no point to speculating. (Strictly speaking, I cannot be sure Defkalion has such reports, but I suppose they do. It seems reasonable that they would.) - Jed
[Vo]:brian ahern comment on defkalion and thermacore (matslewen blog)
http://matslew.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/comments-on-defkalion-reactor-demo-in-milan/#comment-1064 Includes some history on thermacore that I (newbie) haven't seen before.
Re: [Vo]:brian ahern comment on defkalion and thermacore (matslewen blog)
You can look up Thermacore at LENR-CANR.org, in the Google search box at the top right. By the way, that Google search box is limited to this site plus the ads Google throws in. It says Custom search in the box before you enter the search terms. I thought everyone knew that is how a Custom search works, but apparently not. I shall have to add some text explaining this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: NiH NAE Synopsis?
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: These questions we have raised are not triggered by distrust of Defkalion. Not on my part, anyway. If a company wants observers to take their statements at face value, establishing trust and credibility is important. It is straightforward to earn trust -- behave in a trustworthy manner. It is fine if someone at a company is excited about something they think has been discovered (a Debye temperature threshold, a fantastically large magnetic field, unreactive 61Ni, the evolution of an enormous amount of dry steam, an effect relating to Rydberg hydrogen, a basic process driven by nanoplasmonics or HENI, etc.). But statements about these things should either be carefully made in the context of a sufficient of supporting evidence, or there should be a clear caveat that this is all conjecture at this point, but we think that maybe ..., or the matter should not be disclosed. The caveat approach is still risky, but it is better than just making an offhand claim or dropping it willy nilly into a paper. This is basic PR skill that any young company has to pick up at some point, I suppose. In its absence, a company can give impression that they're trying to pull a fast one on observers (presumably to protect IP). This may or may not be a bad thing -- Rossi made many unguarded statements early on and appears to have gotten away with it. But neither should Defkalion be surprised if unguarded statements made to the public have the consequence of harming their brand a little. If a company wants to, it can learn to manage the challenges of sharing exciting news with the public while maintaining trust. Many companies do this very well. Eric
[Vo]:Speculations on why Rossi and Defkalion don't seem to enhance their credibility - to our satisfaction
Regarding Rossi, Jed recently posted: Rossi allowed independent testing of his devices in 2009. I have the data and photos right here. I have had this data for a long time. For some reason the people doing these tests and Rossi himself wish to keep these results confidential. I cannot imagine why, but I feel I should honor their desires. Side comment.. Back in 2009? Is that the correct year? Seems awfully early to me, particularly since Rossi didn't really didn't start making noises till 2011. Regarding Defkalion, Jed also posted: Defkalion has said they have definitive information in reports compiled by experts under NDA's. They recently told me they do not wish to publish any of this, for the time being, because they feel it is not in their interests. I disagree. In any scenario I can think of, for any business, it is best to enhance your credibility. That makes it easier to borrow money and sell products. Perhaps there is something about Defkalion's situation that overrules this, and makes secrecy more valuable than enhanced credibility. Who knows? There is no point to speculating. Ah, but Jed HAS openly speculated on this very matter in the past! See: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg56388.html ...where back in March 2011, Jed stated: [Rossi] does not want to say outright I do not want too much credibility because that will encourage competition but I suspect that is the strategy. Other people, such as Patterson, have used the same strategy. Patterson himself told me this. Following up on this train of thought... While I basically agree with Jed's assumption (and experience) that increased credibility ought to make it easier to borrow money and sell products, it seems to me that neither Rossi nor Defkalion need to borrow money right now. I'm under the impression that both Rossi and Defkalion currently have sufficient cash reserves infused from private investors to carry on with their very private RD work. If that truly is the case, they have absolutely no need to enhance their credibility particularly when they are still in an extremely vulnerable RD stage of trying to enhance the reliability and stability of the reaction. While good progress has been made, I'm still under the impression that the reaction is still highly unstable. That would mean their prototypes aren't ready for commercialization plans on any kind of a large scale. If so. best to stay under the radar of public scrutiny and continue tinkering. While I may not necessarily agree 100% with the following conclusion, it does seem to me that maintaining tepid credibility in the public eye IS a sound strategic maneuver. It helps keep potential competition from meddling in their private affairs. Too much outside meddling inevitably translates into losing control of the current business goal strategy where I would imagine they envision themselves situated at the top of the financial pyramid. Granted, many of us in the peanut gallery honestly wish a few more potential outside competitors would begin to meddle in their affairs more aggressively - to quicken the RD pace. I especially think this would be a useful state of affairs considering the fiasco that recently happened when Rossi attempted to demonstrate his device to NASA officials - with less than stellar results. When one hears about botched demonstrations like that happening, all at NASA's beckoning, and it seems pretty obvious to me that Rossi still has a highly temperamental fickle device that is not prone to sing on queue in a very reliable manner. Setting my own wishes aside, one has to understand how Rossi or Defkalion are likely perceive themselves in the big scheme of things. The point being they want to STAY in the big picture. Under the circumstances, if I was vying for a big slice of the future energy business I sure wouldn't be interested in enhancing my public credibility either... not just yet. After the reaction has been stabilized... when the prototype can reliably generate enough steam to run a generator and produce enough juice to both self-sustain AND power many outside devices, THEN it's time to increase one's public credibility. I've gotten the impression that when it comes to product development much of the strategic positioning involved is based on the fine art of bluffing. I suspect few have ever won at poker by openly attempting to sell an impression to poker players at the table that they are holding four-of-a-kind, particularly if they really are. Under the circumstances, the best way to increase potential earnings is to market an impression that one is gullible, stupid, or perhaps even a habitual cheater, and then give out as much circumstantial evidentiary rope as can be ravenously consumed by pseudo-skeptics so that they eventually hang themselves with it. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:brian ahern comment on defkalion and thermacore (matslewen blog)
http://e-catsite.com/2011/12/07/ahern-cancels-citi5-appearance/ -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jul 31, 2013 8:37 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:brian ahern comment on defkalion and thermacore (matslewen blog) You can look up Thermacore at LENR-CANR.org, in the Google search box at the top right. By the way, that Google search box is limited to this site plus the ads Google throws in. It says Custom search in the box before you enter the search terms. I thought everyone knew that is how a Custom search works, but apparently not. I shall have to add some text explaining this. - Jed
[Vo]:OT: Jack Shows Meg his Tesla Coil
Jack Shows Meg his Tesla Coil http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL9bq3YmHJo One of eleven short stories featuring actors drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes from the film Coffee and Cigarettes (2003) by Jim Jarmusch. harry
