[Vo]:ABOUT SOME PARADOXES OF LENR
Dear Friends, With this: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/07/a-day-under-sign-of-paradox-for-lenr.html I am continuing to support the Technology First approach. Axil says important things, well. Rossi's revelation- the E-cat can work beyond the melting temperature of nickel can be a game changing fact, if LENR takes place indeed in molten metal. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Is the new MFMP test flawed from the start?
@Jones We tested the Aramco coating in our experiments at HUG in February 2015. It was moderately effective but was found to degrade over time at 900°C. See the image at https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxxJkjesxe4kUUJubGlNaEZ1VVU You can also see in that image the effect of long-term heating on alumina-based cement, probably due to non-reversible phase change in the crystal structure. I agree that these kinds of problems make IR temperature measurement difficult, and I use it in combination with thermocouples as a check measurement. Regarding the possibility of UV secondary emission, alumina appears to be opaque at such wavelengths. See the graph from reference 4 in Bob Higgins paper: http://tinyurl.com/ltq8kvf So to fit your hypothesis, any UV emission from quantum dots in a GlowStick reactor would have to occur at the outer (cooler) surface to add to the radiated energy. Otherwise the UV would simply be thermalized in the bulk material. AlanG / MFMP On 7/27/2015 3:34 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Is the new MFMP test flawed from the start? I wasn’t aware of“photon multiplication”as apotential hindrancetoIRtesting(in the context ofthermometry)until recently, butit is a hot topic inOptics journals these days. Was it even mentioned wrt Lugano? Doubtit.For instance - with quantum dotsas thereceptor, 7newvisiblephotons can be emitted from everyUVphotonentering the dot.This would change the blackbody curve of thethermalemittershould it also be a UV emitter.Does the glow stick contain quantum dotsand doesthe gain involveUV?The would greatly alter assumptions. Much was made of thealumina emissivityproblem,but that is a different subject than photon multiplication(whichrelates to anotherunderlying assumption–that the thermal emitter is not anintrinsic lightsource). Thus, emissivityisdifferentfrommultiplication-and both can cause errors.Bob Higgins revised thesuspected Luganotemperaturedownto1100C,from the original1410C-based onanemissivitycorrection, but if photon multiplicationwashappeningat the same time,andtheE-Catisan intrinsicUVemitter -there could beeven lessenergygainthan the thermal calculation indicates. The sad thing is that in both cases, the simple expedient of aspecialtyblack coatingcouldsolve the problem.Surely MFMP are now aware of the necessity ofsucha coating.Here is one of manycompanieswhich provides them. _http://www.aremco.com/high-emissivity-coatings/_ According to E-Cat World, a newglow-sticktest is underway.The plan is to use a non-contactthermometry again, including anIR thermometer rather than the thermocouple that was used with the Padua test.Boththe IR thermometer and theOptris Pi 160will give incorrect readingsifIRphotons aremultipliedin the range in which they operate…unlesscoated. Personally, I do not believe thatK-type thermocouples will be accurateeither,so the black coating is a must.Type K may be used up to 1260C in non-oxidizing or inert atmospheres.According toexperts, inmarginally oxidizing atmosphere,such as coated withaceramiccementand operating in air,the situation is different. As low as800Cthe chromel wireof the pairwill start tocorrode in a phenomenon known as green rot. Anyway, if it’s not too late – please paint the reactor with high emissivity paint and use aplatinum thermocouple. Otherwise – expect to hear the same complaints from skeptics as before.
[Vo]:lithium from an exploding star
Interesting... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150729085920.htm
RE: [Vo]:Is the new MFMP test flawed from the start?
AlanG, Thanks for the complete explanation. I guess the most obvious follow-on is that since the Williamson two-frequency pyrometer, recommended to Bob Greenyer by industry experts as the most accurate technique available (the one which has been used successfully in this older testing)- then why not also include it now in the new test? Is it not available? Assuming that the Williamson is not available where the present test is to take place, can we assume that even so --- with the longer wavelength IR testing, since the coating does have a smaller effect (less than when a pyrometer is used) it will be applied in the spirit of achieving the best possible result ? Even if the coating is only a PR gesture, the numerous comments from experts on the lack of a black coating would make one think that an uncoated tube will be not acceptable. -Original Message- From: AlanG @Jones According to Aremco, their spec was based only on anecdotal information. We proposed to do formal testing for them and they provided a sample for that purpose. Our testing was done with a Williamson two-frequency pyrometer, recommended to Bob Greenyer by industry experts as the most accurate technique available. We leased the instrument specifically for this test. Our data can be seen at: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxxJkjesxe4kSkVlZEhRS251Sk0 Note that the measured emissivity values are for the pyrometer sensing range 2.5-5 um and are somewhat lower than the corresponding values for the 6-12 um range of IR cameras. The emissivity values are thus relative to the wavelengths measured. Nevertheless, the measurements show a clear decline of emissivity from 0.73 at 920°C to 0.62 at 1128°C (thermocouple temperatures), the range over which the color change was observed. Of further interest is the increase in measured emissivity of the bare high-alumina tube surface. We attributed this to the shorter wavelength of emitted IR as the temperature increased. We did further measurements with the alumina tube in a furnace, to eliminate possible error from heater coil IR transmitted through the alumina, and got temperature readings very close to the furnace set point. We concluded that the shorter wavelength measurements used by the pyrometer would benefit from the coating by eliminating near-visible IR for which the alumina is partially transparent. This phenomenon has a smaller effect on measurements made typical IR instruments in the 6-12 um range where alumina is opaque. On 7/29/2015 11:46 AM, Jones Beene wrote: This image appears to shows a bleaching of the coating, but it is not clear if this actually changes the emissivity - and that situation would be strongly at odds with the information on the suppliers website. Is it possible you chose the wrong product (# 840-C is for one for ceramic surfaces)? At any rate, it would be a huge mistake not to apply a high emissivity coating prior to testing. The worst that could happen with such a coating is highly preferable to doing nothing at all. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Is the new MFMP test flawed from the start?
Jones, this issue has been discussed at great length, here and elsewhere. My conclusions based on my own research and Bob Higgins' excellent paper are that the emissivity of high-purity alumina at 6-12 um is reasonably constant at ~0.92 over the range of temperatures the GlowStick operates, and that alumina is opaque to any IR at those wavelengths originating from an internal heater coil. Both the Optris camera and the Voltcraft IR2000-50D (used by myself and me356) measure over 6-12 um and will yield accurate temperature data from bare alumina if that emissivity is used. Calibration against thermocouples has found this to be true within 1% or so. Using a coating would require recalibration and testing, and would make comparison with prior test data open to question. The Williamson pyrometer was useful for independent measurement of emissivity, and the accuracy I referred to applied to this use only. We found it was unacceptably affected by near-visible IR to use as a primary temperature sensor. Such instruments are meant mainly for measurement of metals and other near-IR-opaque materials. On 7/29/2015 1:38 PM, Jones Beene wrote: AlanG, Thanks for the complete explanation. I guess the most obvious follow-on is that since the Williamson two-frequency pyrometer, recommended to Bob Greenyer by industry experts as the most accurate technique available (the one which has been used successfully in this older testing)- then why not also include it now in the new test? Is it not available? Assuming that the Williamson is not available where the present test is to take place, can we assume that even so --- with the longer wavelength IR testing, since the coating does have a smaller effect (less than when a pyrometer is used) it will be applied in the spirit of achieving the best possible result ? Even if the coating is only a PR gesture, the numerous comments from experts on the lack of a black coating would make one think that an uncoated tube will be not acceptable.
RE: [Vo]:lithium from an exploding star
From Francis: Interesting. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150729085920.htm I was hoping for dilithium myself. My recent stock purchases in a Gobi Desert dilithium mining operation seems to have gone belly up. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Is the new MFMP test flawed from the start?
@Jones According to Aremco, their spec was based only on anecdotal information. We proposed to do formal testing for them and they provided a sample for that purpose. Our testing was done with a Williamson two-frequency pyrometer, recommended to Bob Greenyer by industry experts as the most accurate technique available. We leased the instrument specifically for this test. Our data can be seen at: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxxJkjesxe4kSkVlZEhRS251Sk0 Note that the measured emissivity values are for the pyrometer sensing range 2.5-5 um and are somewhat lower than the corresponding values for the 6-12 um range of IR cameras. The emissivity values are thus relative to the wavelengths measured. Nevertheless, the measurements show a clear decline of emissivity from 0.73 at 920°C to 0.62 at 1128°C (thermocouple temperatures), the range over which the color change was observed. Of further interest is the increase in measured emissivity of the bare high-alumina tube surface. We attributed this to the shorter wavelength of emitted IR as the temperature increased. We did further measurements with the alumina tube in a furnace, to eliminate possible error from heater coil IR transmitted through the alumina, and got temperature readings very close to the furnace set point. We concluded that the shorter wavelength measurements used by the pyrometer would benefit from the coating by eliminating near-visible IR for which the alumina is partially transparent. This phenomenon has a smaller effect on measurements made typical IR instruments in the 6-12 um range where alumina is opaque. On 7/29/2015 11:46 AM, Jones Beene wrote: This image appears to shows a bleaching of the coating, but it is not clear if this actually changes the emissivity - and that situation would be strongly at odds with the information on the suppliers website. Is it possible you chose the wrong product (# 840-C is for one for ceramic surfaces)? At any rate, it would be a huge mistake not to apply a high emissivity coating prior to testing. The worst that could happen with such a coating is highly preferable to doing nothing at all. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Is the new MFMP test flawed from the start?
From: AlanG We tested the Aramco coating in our experiments at HUG in February 2015. It was moderately effective but was found to degrade over time at 900°C. See the image at https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxxJkjesxe4kUUJubGlNaEZ1VVU Alan, This image appears to shows a bleaching of the coating, but it is not clear if this actually changes the emissivity - and that situation would be strongly at odds with the information on the suppliers website. Is it possible you chose the wrong product (# 840-C is for one for ceramic surfaces)? At any rate, it would be a huge mistake not to apply a high emissivity coating prior to testing. The worst that could happen with such a coating is highly preferable to doing nothing at all. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:ABOUT SOME PARADOXES OF LENR
I think you bringing up the *Theory of Management in broad sense is the new Philosophy *is of great importance. We have abilities we do not explore. The understanding of that our limitation often is determined by our knowledge is a great observation in my mind. I have often experienced that in life in all fields I have operated. I call it the competence of incompetence. One reason that competence exists is that when we do not understand what is true we can ask stupid questions, which question the truth. There are many schools of management and leadership development and I think they basically say the same. Just as most religions has the same message of love as a center piece. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Friends, With this: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/07/a-day-under-sign-of-paradox-for-lenr.html I am continuing to support the Technology First approach. Axil says important things, well. Rossi's revelation- the E-cat can work beyond the melting temperature of nickel can be a game changing fact, if LENR takes place indeed in molten metal. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Is the new MFMP test flawed from the start?
Have you done a spectroscopic analysis of all the radiation produced by the reactor including x-rays, extreme ultraviolet(aka black light), and RF radio frequencies? On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 1:03 PM, AlanG a...@magicsound.us wrote: @Jones We tested the Aramco coating in our experiments at HUG in February 2015. It was moderately effective but was found to degrade over time at 900°C. See the image at https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxxJkjesxe4kUUJubGlNaEZ1VVU You can also see in that image the effect of long-term heating on alumina-based cement, probably due to non-reversible phase change in the crystal structure. I agree that these kinds of problems make IR temperature measurement difficult, and I use it in combination with thermocouples as a check measurement. Regarding the possibility of UV secondary emission, alumina appears to be opaque at such wavelengths. See the graph from reference 4 in Bob Higgins paper: http://tinyurl.com/ltq8kvf So to fit your hypothesis, any UV emission from quantum dots in a GlowStick reactor would have to occur at the outer (cooler) surface to add to the radiated energy. Otherwise the UV would simply be thermalized in the bulk material. AlanG / MFMP On 7/27/2015 3:34 PM, Jones Beene wrote: I wasn’t aware of “photon multiplication” as a potential hindrance to IR testing (in the context of thermometry) until recently, but it is a hot topic in Optics journals these days. Was it even mentioned wrt Lugano? Doubt it. For instance - with quantum dots as the receptor, 7 new visible photons can be emitted from every UV photon entering the dot. This would change the blackbody curve of the thermal emitter should it also be a UV emitter. Does the glow stick contain quantum dots and does the gain involve UV? The would greatly alter assumptions. Much was made of the alumina emissivity problem, but that is a different subject than photon multiplication (which relates to another underlying assumption – that the thermal emitter is not an intrinsic light source). Thus, emissivity is different from multiplication - and both can cause errors. Bob Higgins revised the suspected Lugano temperature down to 1100C, from the original 1410C - based on an emissivity correction, but if photon multiplication was happening at the same time, and the E-Cat is an intrinsic UV emitter - there could be even less energy gain than the thermal calculation indicates. The sad thing is that in both cases, the simple expedient of a specialty black coating could solve the problem. Surely MFMP are now aware of the necessity of such a coating. Here is one of many companies which provides them. *http://www.aremco.com/high-emissivity-coatings/* http://www.aremco.com/high-emissivity-coatings/ According to E-Cat World, a new glow-stick test is underway. The plan is to use a non-contact thermometry again, including an IR thermometer rather than the thermocouple that was used with the Padua test. Both the IR thermometer and the Optris Pi 160 will give incorrect readings if IR photons are multiplied in the range in which they operate… unless coated. Personally, I do not believe that K-type thermocouples will be accurate either, so the black coating is a must. Type K may be used up to 1260C in non-oxidizing or inert atmospheres. According to experts, in marginally oxidizing atmosphere, such as coated with a ceramic cement and operating in air, the situation is different. As low as 800C the chromel wire of the pair will start to corrode in a phenomenon known as green rot. Anyway, if it’s not too late – please paint the reactor with high emissivity paint and use a platinum thermocouple. Otherwise – expect to hear the same complaints from skeptics as before.
Re: [Vo]:Is the new MFMP test flawed from the start?
@Axil The gamma spectrum was monitored continuously during the GS3 tests, covering the range ~80 KeV to over 1 MeV, and nothing above background was seen. An animation of the 1-hour samples can be seen at: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxxJkjesxe4kT3FOcmtkUnoydkk A GC320+ geiger counter was also used throughout the test, and no significant events were detected. RF emission was checked occasionally with a loop antenna attached to a 100 MHz scope, and nothing above background was seen. A more formal test in a Faraday cage with an RF spectrum analyzer would be needed to find anything below ambient RF. MFMP's resources are limited, and UV spectrographic measurement is not possible with our budget. We would gratefully accept donations of equipment for such testing. More casual measurement with a UV meter can be done at reasonable cost, but that will not show the short-wavelength UV I suspect is of interest to you. Typical UV spectrophotometers in the $3-5k range only show down to 200 nm. Below that, extreme UV is absorbed by oxygen in air and is very difficult to detect. AlanG On 7/29/2015 10:33 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Have you done a spectroscopic analysis of all the radiation produced by the reactor including x-rays, extreme ultraviolet(aka black light), and RF radio frequencies? On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 1:03 PM, AlanG a...@magicsound.us mailto:a...@magicsound.us wrote: @Jones We tested the Aramco coating in our experiments at HUG in February 2015. It was moderately effective but was found to degrade over time at 900°C. See the image at https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxxJkjesxe4kUUJubGlNaEZ1VVU You can also see in that image the effect of long-term heating on alumina-based cement, probably due to non-reversible phase change in the crystal structure. I agree that these kinds of problems make IR temperature measurement difficult, and I use it in combination with thermocouples as a check measurement. Regarding the possibility of UV secondary emission, alumina appears to be opaque at such wavelengths. See the graph from reference 4 in Bob Higgins paper: http://tinyurl.com/ltq8kvf So to fit your hypothesis, any UV emission from quantum dots in a GlowStick reactor would have to occur at the outer (cooler) surface to add to the radiated energy. Otherwise the UV would simply be thermalized in the bulk material. AlanG / MFMP On 7/27/2015 3:34 PM, Jones Beene wrote: I wasn’t aware of“photon multiplication”as apotential hindrancetoIRtesting(in the context ofthermometry)until recently, butit is a hot topic inOptics journals these days. Was it even mentioned wrt Lugano? Doubtit.For instance - with quantum dotsas thereceptor, 7newvisiblephotons can be emitted from everyUVphotonentering the dot.This would change the blackbody curve of thethermalemittershould it also be a UV emitter.Does the glow stick contain quantum dotsand doesthe gain involveUV?The would greatly alter assumptions. Much was made of thealumina emissivityproblem,but that is a different subject than photon multiplication(whichrelates to anotherunderlying assumption–that the thermal emitter is not anintrinsic lightsource). Thus, emissivityisdifferentfrommultiplication-and both can cause errors.Bob Higgins revised thesuspected Luganotemperaturedownto1100C,from the original1410C-based onanemissivitycorrection, but if photon multiplicationwashappeningat the same time,andtheE-Catisan intrinsicUVemitter -there could beeven lessenergygainthan the thermal calculation indicates. The sad thing is that in both cases, the simple expedient of aspecialtyblack coatingcouldsolve the problem.Surely MFMP are now aware of the necessity ofsucha coating.Here is one of manycompanieswhich provides them. _http://www.aremco.com/high-emissivity-coatings/_ According to E-Cat World, a newglow-sticktest is underway.The plan is to use a non-contactthermometry again, including anIR thermometer rather than the thermocouple that was used with the Padua test.Boththe IR thermometer and theOptris Pi 160will give incorrect readingsifIRphotons aremultipliedin the range in which they operate…unlesscoated. Personally, I do not believe thatK-type thermocouples will be accurateeither,so the black coating is a must.Type K may be used up to 1260C in non-oxidizing or inert atmospheres.According toexperts, inmarginally oxidizing atmosphere,such as coated withaceramiccementand operating in air,the situation is different. As low as800Cthe chromel wireof the pairwill start tocorrode in a phenomenon known as green rot. Anyway, if it’s not too late – please paint the reactor with high emissivity paint and use aplatinum thermocouple. Otherwise – expect to hear the same complaints from skeptics as before.
[Vo]:From the Kiplinger Letter: Energy Alerts - Nuclear Woes
From the July 29, 2015 edition. Interesting juxtapositions of traditional and emerging energy sources: http://tinyurl.com/ntcnabl Hope the URL works. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Warren Buffett and Elon Musk are about to make one periodic element the hottest commodity in the world
http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-and-elon-musk-are-about-to-make-one-periodic-element-the-hottest-commodity-in-the-world-2015-7
[Vo]:on radio Friday 12 pm pacific time
I will be on the Richard C. Hoagland has a new show dedicated to space exploration exotic propulsion entitled “The Other Side Of Midnight”, tonight. tune in. I hope it goes well. Frank Znidarsic
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Scientists Confirm 'Impossible' EM Drive Propulsion
Kevin, The ZPE perspective conserves miracles making vacuum engineering the underlying bootstrap of both anomalies. Puthoff coined the phrase vacuum engineering, ..You have Shawyer at the macro scale DRIVING the vacuum to relativistic conditions with microwaves to segregate and unbalance the radiation pressure in a closed resonant chamber—and then you have Naudt’s at the nano scale who utilizes geometry that is INSTEAD, DRIVEN by the vacuum to create segregated regions of vacuum density that makes plain old hydrogen relativistic as it passes thru these regions. IMHO both rely on segregating vacuum density into local breaches that balance out to zero but afford the opportunity to react asymmetrically between inertial frames and unbalance COE via exchanges between space and time. My guess is the radiation pressure on the EM is unbalanced by the angle of the reflecting surface wrt to these segregated regions being set up [standing waves?] by the microwaves. Fran From: Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 4:44 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Scientists Confirm 'Impossible' EM Drive Propulsion Thanks for posting this. I was going to post it as well. This can only help LENR because, if something that was deemed impossible becomes a reality, there is more willingness to look at other supposedly impossible technologies. On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.commailto:janap...@gmail.com wrote: Scientists Confirm 'Impossible' EM Drive Propulsion https://hacked.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Xenon_hall_thruster-750x500.jpg Later today, July 27, German scientists will present new experimental results on the controversial, impossible EM Drive, at the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics' Propulsion and Energy Forum in Orlando. The presentation is titled Direct Thrust Measurements of an EmDrive and Evaluation of Possible Side-Effects. Beware of the hacked web site. I got a bad site security warning on it. http://www.examiner.com/article/german-scientists-confirm-nasa-results-of-propellentless-impossible-em-drive also see http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-07/24/emdrive-space-drive-pluto-mission
[Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
Mizuno informed me that the Japanese government agency NEDO has issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for projects in cold fusion. The date is 2015, title Energy / Environment New Technology Program http://www.nedo.go.jp/content/100754489.pdf Item D4 on p. 13 here apparently refers to cold fusion: Phenomenon analysis and methods of control of the new thermal energy source from metal hydrides. Mizuno thinks it is a day late and a dollar short. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Is the new MFMP test flawed from the start?
Hi, On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 4:32 PM, AlanG a...@magicsound.us wrote: Using a coating would require recalibration and testing, and would make comparison with prior test data open to question. I'm sure you've thought through this. Commenting only on the tactical merits and not on the technical ones, judging from previous discussion over the last few years I think it would be a mistake to omit the refractory paint. It would perhaps be too much effort to do two sets of trial runs, one without the paint and another with it? That would allow the comparison to historical data as well as allay any concerns about emissivity, of which we can be guaranteed there will be. Eric
