Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

[mixent]

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 25 Sep 2015 21:05:01 -0400:
Hi David,
[snip]
>Robin,
>
>I think we are on the same frequency in this quest.  It appears that any non 
>linear process that can be coaxed into converting the kinetic energy due to 
>thermal motion into potential energy of some type will achieve the goal.

Indeed.

>
>The second law must be based upon linear behavior of gasses, etc. and may fail 
>to cover non linear processes on occasion leading to violations.  

Carnot is very simple. It says that the work done is at most the difference in
kinetic energy of the molecules before and after.

Energy before:- Eb = k * Thigh
Energy after:-  Ea = k * Tlow

(Eb-Ea)/Eb = (k * Thigh - k * Tlow)/(k * Thigh)

the factor "k" cancels out leaving as with the Carnot expression:-

 (Thigh-Tlow)/Thigh.

However this assumes that the only energy available is the initial kinetic
energy of the molecules. IOW it assumes a closed system.

If the system is open, e.g. if external thermal energy can flow into the system
while it is doing work, then more work can be done than would be calculated
according to Carnot.

However the true nature of thermal equilibrium is that heat flows in both
directions. In order to create a temperature differential, you need to introduce
a bias in the flow of energy. Diodes do this for electric current.
Another fairly common example is differing radiation or transparencies at
different wavelengths.

An example of the former is a piece of shiny metal left lying in the sun, which
can become so hot you can fry an egg on it. I.e. a very clear temperature
differential between the metal and the surrounding air.

An example based on differing transparencies, is the greenhouse, where short
wavelength light penetrates the glass easily but longer wavelength infra-red
finds it more difficult to leave, leading to a temperature differential between
inside and outside. 
(I remember one hot summers day, as a child, we had a living room with floor to
ceiling curtains along the full length of a West facing wall. We went out and
left the curtains open and the doors shut. When we got home in the evening the
candles had "wilted" in their candle sticks.)

Both of these are sorts of "optical diode".

In short, spontaneous temperature differentials are actually fairly common, we
just sometimes fail to recognize them for what they are.

Solar cells also do this in essence. They convert incoming light to potential
energy over the diode junction, which we then utilize elsewhere.

Plants do it with photosynthesis.

Both convert photonic energy into potential energy, electrical in the case of
solar cells, chemical in the case of plants.

In each of these cases the thermal equilibrium is destroyed, because energy is
converted into a form from which it either doesn't, or only partially, returns.
I.e. a bias in the flow is created.
[snip]

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

AndyTheGrump?

 

BLP has it in for Grump as well. They filed a law suit against him and others. 

 

http://www.williamslopatto.com/uploads/2/5/8/4/25843913/blacklight_power_inc._complaint.pdf

 

Have no idea if BLP's complaint has managed to get any traction or not. I 
suspect it's gone nowhere. If BLP want's restitution they need to present to 
the public a working prototype that proves OU is occurring. Until then I 
suspect the Grump and all of his cohorts will remain safe as a bug under the 
rug until then... 

 

We're still waiting.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:How Rossi's test may not be definitive

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> My expectation is that the report on the megawatt box, if it actually is a
> complete study which can be independently verified - will severely
> disappoint most of Rossi’s fan base. More likely it will be severely
> edited, data-free, unverified and almost meaningless.
>

Honestly, that is what I expect as well.

Yeah, I know . . . as the SEC puts it, "past performance does not
necessarily predict future results." But as Damon Runyon said: "The race is
not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way
to bet."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:How Rossi's test may not be definitive

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

More likely it will be severely edited, data-free, unverified and almost
> meaningless.


I think we'd be foolish to bet otherwise.  (Still interested in learning
more about the brushed-up details.)

Eric

[Vo]:How Rossi's test may not be definitive

[Jack Cole]

Recently, I was thinking about how Rossi's industrial test could turn out
to be problematic in the end.  Consider the following scenario: the plant
of the customer used conventional heating elements to heat their water
before, but their pipes in their boiler system were not as well insulated
as in Rossi's container.  So, if at the end, the customer saves 50% on
electricity bills, do we know Rossi's reactor works?  Of course there comes
a point where the above scenario could not explain the results (e.g., the
customer's bills are cut by 90%).

The savings data will have to be backed up by data on the energy balance of
the system (energy output/input).

Jack

[Vo]:GLOBAL RESARCH PLAN FOR LENR (II)

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/09/sep-25-2015-sketch-of-global-research.html

We will continue with discussing details and specifics, your ideas are
welcome! Thanks!

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

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

[David Roberson]

Jones,

Hopefully more information will become available concerning this effect in the 
future.   I agree that it is becoming possible to place very large numbers of 
devices of this small size on a chip that might make the effect very visible 
and useful.

I would assume that with the cooling would come mechanical engines that utilize 
that sink for the low temperature side of the requirement.  And, direct 
electrical conversion might become useful as well.

My original question concerning the operation of photocells within a constant 
temperature sink led me to an interesting Wikipedia article.  I found that the 
efficiency equation for those types of cells includes a product term that is 
equal to the Carnot equation to handle Thermodynamic effects.  If true, then 
the actual output from an internal photocell would go to zero if it is 
surrounded by a fixed temperature heat sink.  That would explain why no 
electrical work could be generated from the sink thermal energy itself.  It is 
not clear why this Carnot term appears, but it is of the correct level to 
nullify the effect I was seeking to understand.

One interesting though has come to my attention.  In electronics thermal noise 
power has long been associated with resistors and is equal to KTB at a given 
temperature.  In this equation K is the Boltzmann constant, T is in Kelvin, and 
B is the bandwidth.   If you construct a series LC network from this resistor 
to ground AC current will flow through those 3 devices.The magnetic field 
emitted by the coil can then be seen outside of a highly insulated box holding 
the network.  I would suspect that radiation leaving the coil would be emitted 
into a lower temperature spacial sink.  This might well lead to a very gradual 
cooling of the interior of the box.

The clue to the above system and the LED one we are discussing is that heat due 
to thermal movement of atoms is able to excite resonate systems that can then 
release that energy in a narrow bandwidth electromagnetic form that escapes the 
local environment.  On the other hand, engines that use heat to perform their 
operations tend to be connected directly to the local environment.  The heat to 
radiation conversion leads to the apparent violation of the thermodynic laws in 
these cases.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Sep 25, 2015 4:23 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP 
ENERGY ENGINES



Dave,
 
This is not exactly a Maxwell’s demon, since there is no discretionary 
filtering. I like your suggestion about thermal peaks being involved and there 
is undoubtedly some kind of resonance. The LED was notably in the IR range to 
begin with. Possibly the Boltzmann tail of the thermal distribution was trimmed 
and captured.
 
I have been unable to find important update details on this LED. Here is the 
website of the Russian Institute which made the LED:
http://www.ibsg-st-petersburg.com/index.html
 
It is only ~70 picowatts light equivalent. Perhaps no more was said about it – 
due to either finding an error in measurement– or the project becoming “black” 
due to military significance. But otherwise it would be crazy not to pursue 
this with massive effort.
 
It is worth noting that LEDs are simple diodes and presumably quite a few can 
be put on a chip. A picowatt is one trillionth of a watt, so if one could etch 
one trillion diodes on a semiconductor, then it would be rather impressive – 
with about 40 watts of net gain which is in the form of cooling.
 
How many discrete devices can be put on a chip these days? My guess is that it 
is in excess of a trillion. 
 
From: David Roberson 
 
This discussion is interesting.  Perhaps the existing thermodynamic laws apply 
mainly to black body types of interactions when radiation is associated.   
Clearly the light emitted by an LED is not of that nature.   It is narrow band 
radiation at a level that is much higher in these bands than would be expected 
according to the temperature of the device.

Also, the DC input power contributes a significant portion of the net radiation 
output in a direct conversion process.  This behavior is very unlike most of 
the systems used to derive the thermodynamic laws.  Perhaps there really does 
exist at least this one loophole that can be breached.

A clear understanding of exactly how the random thermal motion within the LED 
can be converted into light at this level of efficiency would be desirable.  
Could it be that the random peaks in thermal energy that follow a Gaussian 
distribution are the key?  Near the thermal peak one might find that a little 
help from the DC source is sufficient to cause electrons to jump into higher 
orbitals.  If enough of these occur in a short period of time a population 
inversion may come into existance which would then drain the excess energy by 
positive feedback and subsequent 

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[MJ]

So, if the problem was the software, why they didn't fix it?

Mark Jordan


On 25-Sep-15 16:29, Jed Rothwell wrote:

This is somewhat off-topic but . . .

I have had trouble understanding the news reports about the Volkswagen 
scandal. I have not found a clear technical description of what 
happened. I think the reporters do not understand.


The gist of it is that when someone plugs a computer into the 
automobile onboard computer, something changes. Press reports seem to 
indicate that either the actual performance changes, or that the 
onboard computer begins to generate fake data. It turns out to be the 
former. When you disengage from the onboard computer, NOx emissions 
increase to a level ~40 times above US allowed standards. Furthermore, 
fixing this problem will probably degrade the performance or fuel 
efficiency of the car.


Here is a short but clear explanation:

http://www.businessinsider.com/volkswagens-cheating-engines-cant-be-easily-fixed-2015-9

Zoom into the graphic box, "how Volkswagens defeat device works."

The article says they are thinking of installing a Urea injection 
system to fix the problem. Piss on it, in other words. Bringing to 
mind the saying, "If you was on fire I wouldn't bother to . . ."



The people at Volkswagen were unbelievably stupid thinking they could 
get away with this indefinitely.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Lennart Thornros]

I agree with you David.
However, one cannot make laws / rules that are violating what is practical
if one is not prepared to pay the price.
Maybe this problem is only related to diesel motors but if not I can almost
guarantee that other manufacturers have similar systems in place. We will
soon hear about that I think.

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 Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 1:07 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> This type of deception makes me angry.  Also, how stupid are they to
> assume that this will not be uncovered?   All of those guys in management
> associated with this decision should be terminated.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Fri, Sep 25, 2015 3:43 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details
>
> The EPA test was detected by the VW if the rear wheels weren't spinning. A
> while back, Cadillac did the same thing but used a open hood as a indicator
> that a EPA test was underway.
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> This is somewhat off-topic but . . .
>>
>> I have had trouble understanding the news reports about the Volkswagen
>> scandal. I have not found a clear technical description of what happened. I
>> think the reporters do not understand.
>>
>> The gist of it is that when someone plugs a computer into the automobile
>> onboard computer, something changes. Press reports seem to indicate that
>> either the actual performance changes, or that the onboard computer begins
>> to generate fake data. It turns out to be the former. When you disengage
>> from the onboard computer, NOx emissions increase to a level ~40 times
>> above US allowed standards. Furthermore, fixing this problem will probably
>> degrade the performance or fuel efficiency of the car.
>>
>> Here is a short but clear explanation:
>>
>>
>> http://www.businessinsider.com/volkswagens-cheating-engines-cant-be-easily-fixed-2015-9
>>
>> Zoom into the graphic box, "how Volkswagens defeat device works."
>>
>> The article says they are thinking of installing a Urea injection system
>> to fix the problem. Piss on it, in other words. Bringing to mind the
>> saying, "If you was on fire I wouldn't bother to . . ."
>>
>>
>> The people at Volkswagen were unbelievably stupid thinking they could get
>> away with this indefinitely.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

>
> However, one cannot make laws / rules that are violating what is practical
> if one is not prepared to pay the price.
>

The people who draft these rules are industry experts, recruited from the
leading companies. In the U.S., regulatory agencies *never* pass rules that
have not be vetted by industry experts, and recommended by them. That is
not to suggest that regulators are always captives of the industries they
regulate, although in some cases they are! I am saying that regulations are
always passed with cooperation and advance knowledge of the corporations
being regulated. They reflect the best practices of responsible companies.

In many cases, the corporations themselves ask for and pay for the
regulations. In the past this was sometimes done to prevent competition by
making it hard for new companies to enter the field, in a subtle but
effective violation of anti-trust laws. That happens less often today.

If the government were to try to force through regulations without industry
consent, there would be a hue and cry.

One of the purposes of regulations is to keep dishonest people from taking
over an industry sector. For example, if food inspections are reduced you
can be sure more vendors will sell peanuts tainted by salmonella. Stewart
Parnell was sentenced to 28 years in prison for doing this. Responsible
peanut suppliers do not want thousands of consumers poisoned and killed by
salmonella because they know that people will stop buying peanuts if that
happens. Criminals such as Parnell don't care how many people they kill. It
is not enough to have general laws against poisoning people. You must have
to have inspections and standards with a host of specifics about peanuts.



> Maybe this problem is only related to diesel motors but if not I can
> almost guarantee that other manufacturers have similar systems in place.
>

I think the chances of that are zero to none. The other automobile
companies are probably not run by blithering idiots who do things that will
destroy the company. I expect experts are checking to be sure though.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[David Roberson]

Jed, you mention Mr. Parnell and his case.  I hope and believe that he did not 
think that the peanut butter he was producing would lead to any deaths.   I 
suspect that he was of the opinion that this sort of issue has been around for 
many years and did not reflect any significant danger to the public.

I have read that a very large portion of chicken is infected during production 
as well.  Surely, he assumed that this was business as usual and did not make a 
conscious decision to cause additional loss of life in a callous way.  Does 
anyone really believe that only peanut butter was dangerous during that time 
frame?  How many other foods were equally or more dangerous?

Perhaps I am underestimating his level of criminality, but to put a businessman 
in jail for making a mistake in judgement is going a little too far.  People 
make similar errors in judgement all the time.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Sep 25, 2015 5:10 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details




Lennart Thornros  wrote:
 

However, one cannot make laws / rules that are violating what is practical if 
one is not prepared to pay the price.



The people who draft these rules are industry experts, recruited from the 
leading companies. In the U.S., regulatory agencies never pass rules that have 
not be vetted by industry experts, and recommended by them. That is not to 
suggest that regulators are always captives of the industries they regulate, 
although in some cases they are! I am saying that regulations are always passed 
with cooperation and advance knowledge of the corporations being regulated. 
They reflect the best practices of responsible companies.



In many cases, the corporations themselves ask for and pay for the regulations. 
In the past this was sometimes done to prevent competition by making it hard 
for new companies to enter the field, in a subtle but effective violation of 
anti-trust laws. That happens less often today.


If the government were to try to force through regulations without industry 
consent, there would be a hue and cry.



One of the purposes of regulations is to keep dishonest people from taking over 
an industry sector. For example, if food inspections are reduced you can be 
sure more vendors will sell peanuts tainted by salmonella. Stewart Parnell was 
sentenced to 28 years in prison for doing this. Responsible peanut suppliers do 
not want thousands of consumers poisoned and killed by salmonella because they 
know that people will stop buying peanuts if that happens. Criminals such as 
Parnell don't care how many people they kill. It is not enough to have general 
laws against poisoning people. You must have to have inspections and standards 
with a host of specifics about peanuts.


 


Maybe this problem is only related to diesel motors but if not I can almost 
guarantee that other manufacturers have similar systems in place.



I think the chances of that are zero to none. The other automobile companies 
are probably not run by blithering idiots who do things that will destroy the 
company. I expect experts are checking to be sure though.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

[Jones Beene]

Dave,

 

This is not exactly a Maxwell’s demon, since there is no discretionary 
filtering. I like your suggestion about thermal peaks being involved and there 
is undoubtedly some kind of resonance. The LED was notably in the IR range to 
begin with. Possibly the Boltzmann tail of the thermal distribution was trimmed 
and captured.

 

I have been unable to find important update details on this LED. Here is the 
website of the Russian Institute which made the LED:

http://www.ibsg-st-petersburg.com/index.html

 

It is only ~70 picowatts light equivalent. Perhaps no more was said about it – 
due to either finding an error in measurement– or the project becoming “black” 
due to military significance. But otherwise it would be crazy not to pursue 
this with massive effort.

 

It is worth noting that LEDs are simple diodes and presumably quite a few can 
be put on a chip. A picowatt is one trillionth of a watt, so if one could etch 
one trillion diodes on a semiconductor, then it would be rather impressive – 
with about 40 watts of net gain which is in the form of cooling.

 

How many discrete devices can be put on a chip these days? My guess is that it 
is in excess of a trillion. 

 

From: David Roberson 

 

This discussion is interesting.  Perhaps the existing thermodynamic laws apply 
mainly to black body types of interactions when radiation is associated.   
Clearly the light emitted by an LED is not of that nature.   It is narrow band 
radiation at a level that is much higher in these bands than would be expected 
according to the temperature of the device.

Also, the DC input power contributes a significant portion of the net radiation 
output in a direct conversion process.  This behavior is very unlike most of 
the systems used to derive the thermodynamic laws.  Perhaps there really does 
exist at least this one loophole that can be breached.

A clear understanding of exactly how the random thermal motion within the LED 
can be converted into light at this level of efficiency would be desirable.  
Could it be that the random peaks in thermal energy that follow a Gaussian 
distribution are the key?  Near the thermal peak one might find that a little 
help from the DC source is sufficient to cause electrons to jump into higher 
orbitals.  If enough of these occur in a short period of time a population 
inversion may come into existance which would then drain the excess energy by 
positive feedback and subsequent radiation pulses.  The excess energy would 
have to come from that random thermal motion that was tapped leading to cooling 
of the device.

Is this an example of an atomic Maxwell's demon?

There may be some interesting concepts hidden within this effect.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-leds

Notice that this LED has a COP of 2.3… or 230 percent overunity. That implies 
“perpetual motion”.

“However, while MIT's diode puts out more than twice as much energy in photons 
as it's fed in electrons, it doesn't violate the conservation of energy because 
it appears to draw in heat energy from its surroundings instead.” 

When it gets more than 100 percent efficient, it begins to cool down, stealing 
energy from ambient, which is exactly what must happen in any OU device, unless 
there is nuclear reaction pathway or another “supra-chemical” way to convert 
mass into energy.

BTW - If photocells could be obtained which are ~70% efficient, then in 
principle, yjey could be mated to the LED for the proverbial “eternal light” … 
but the output is so low you would need a few million of them to be useful… but 
you get free air conditioning as a fringe benefit J

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Jed Rothwell]

MJ  wrote:


> So, if the problem was the software, why they didn't fix it?
>

The problem is not software. Software was used to cover up the problem. The
problem is that when they run the motor in a mode that reduces NOx to
levels allowed by the U.S. regulations, fuel efficiency and performance
decrease, and wear and tear on the motor increases. It is an engineering
trade-off. In this case they selected a trade-off option that happens to be
against the law.

They can easily adjust the software now to tell cars to produce less NOx. I
expect they will. However the cars will get lower MPGs and they will have
other problems.

Here is another example of a performance trade-off you are not allowed to
make. You can improve the performance of a motor vehicle by removing the
muffler. That is why fire engines motors make such a loud noise. They are
optimized for high performance. Fire engines are allowed to make lots of
noise, with sirens and with the motor. However, if you do this with an
ordinary car, you violate noise pollution laws.

- Jed

[Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Jed Rothwell]

This is somewhat off-topic but . . .

I have had trouble understanding the news reports about the Volkswagen
scandal. I have not found a clear technical description of what happened. I
think the reporters do not understand.

The gist of it is that when someone plugs a computer into the automobile
onboard computer, something changes. Press reports seem to indicate that
either the actual performance changes, or that the onboard computer begins
to generate fake data. It turns out to be the former. When you disengage
from the onboard computer, NOx emissions increase to a level ~40 times
above US allowed standards. Furthermore, fixing this problem will probably
degrade the performance or fuel efficiency of the car.

Here is a short but clear explanation:

http://www.businessinsider.com/volkswagens-cheating-engines-cant-be-easily-fixed-2015-9

Zoom into the graphic box, "how Volkswagens defeat device works."

The article says they are thinking of installing a Urea injection system to
fix the problem. Piss on it, in other words. Bringing to mind the saying,
"If you was on fire I wouldn't bother to . . ."


The people at Volkswagen were unbelievably stupid thinking they could get
away with this indefinitely.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Axil Axil]

The EPA test was detected by the VW if the rear wheels weren't spinning. A
while back, Cadillac did the same thing but used a open hood as a indicator
that a EPA test was underway.

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> This is somewhat off-topic but . . .
>
> I have had trouble understanding the news reports about the Volkswagen
> scandal. I have not found a clear technical description of what happened. I
> think the reporters do not understand.
>
> The gist of it is that when someone plugs a computer into the automobile
> onboard computer, something changes. Press reports seem to indicate that
> either the actual performance changes, or that the onboard computer begins
> to generate fake data. It turns out to be the former. When you disengage
> from the onboard computer, NOx emissions increase to a level ~40 times
> above US allowed standards. Furthermore, fixing this problem will probably
> degrade the performance or fuel efficiency of the car.
>
> Here is a short but clear explanation:
>
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/volkswagens-cheating-engines-cant-be-easily-fixed-2015-9
>
> Zoom into the graphic box, "how Volkswagens defeat device works."
>
> The article says they are thinking of installing a Urea injection system
> to fix the problem. Piss on it, in other words. Bringing to mind the
> saying, "If you was on fire I wouldn't bother to . . ."
>
>
> The people at Volkswagen were unbelievably stupid thinking they could get
> away with this indefinitely.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

[David Roberson]

Thanks Jones,

Has the LED effect been replicated?  If so, this would clearly indicate a 
violation of the assumed thermodynamic laws.

One violation opens the door for others in my estimate.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Sep 25, 2015 4:03 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP 
ENERGY ENGINES



From: David Roberson 
 
Ø  Does anyone know of experiments that demonstrate that photo cells can 
convert heat or light radiation from a sink in which they are located directly 
into electrical power?  
 
There are several electro-optical anomalies like this one, which involve LEDs, 
lasers, etc. 
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-leds
 
Most of these anomalies have explanations which sound like apologies or 
oops-jargon.
 
There are many anomalies wrt Boyle’s law – especially involving the 
hydrogen/helium inversion temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_temperature
 
 

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

[David Roberson]

This discussion is interesting.  Perhaps the existing thermodynamic laws apply 
mainly to black body types of interactions when radiation is associated.   
Clearly the light emitted by an LED is not of that nature.   It is narrow band 
radiation at a level that is much higher in these bands than would be expected 
according to the temperature of the device.

Also, the DC input power contributes a significant portion of the net radiation 
output in a direct conversion process.  This behavior is very unlike most of 
the systems used to derive the thermodynamic laws.  Perhaps there really does 
exist at least this one loophole that can be breached.

A clear understanding of exactly how the random thermal motion within the LED 
can be converted into light at this level of efficiency would be desirable.  
Could it be that the random peaks in thermal energy that follow a Gaussian 
distribution are the key?  Near the thermal peak one might find that a little 
help from the DC source is sufficient to cause electrons to jump into higher 
orbitals.  If enough of these occur in a short period of time a population 
inversion may come into existance which would then drain the excess energy by 
positive feedback and subsequent radiation pulses.  The excess energy would 
have to come from that random thermal motion that was tapped leading to cooling 
of the device.

Is this an example of an atomic Maxwell's demon?

There may be some interesting concepts hidden within this effect.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Sep 25, 2015 4:23 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP 
ENERGY ENGINES



http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-leds

Notice that this LED has a COP of 2.3… or 230 percent overunity. That implies 
“perpetual motion”.
“However, while MIT's diode puts out more than twice as much energy in photons 
as it's fed in electrons, it doesn't violate the conservation of energy because 
it appears to draw in heat energy from its surroundings instead.” 
When it gets more than 100 percent efficient, it begins to cool down, stealing 
energy from ambient, which is exactly what must happen in any OU device, unless 
there is nuclear reaction pathway or another “supra-chemical” way to convert 
mass into energy.
BTW - If photocells could be obtained which are ~70% efficient, then in 
principle, yjey could be mated to the LED for the proverbial “eternal light” … 
but the output is so low you would need a few million of them to be useful… but 
you get free air conditioning as a fringe benefit J

Re: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

[Lennart Thornros]

I agree with you Steven, not much will happen before it can be proven BLP
has a product. However, to me it is really sad that BLP need to go to court
to resolve this type of issues. IMHO there is no upside for either party
regardless of the outcome. The only guys laughing all the way to the bank
are the lawyers.

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 Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> AndyTheGrump?
>
>
>
> BLP has it in for Grump as well. They filed a law suit against him and
> others.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.williamslopatto.com/uploads/2/5/8/4/25843913/blacklight_power_inc._complaint.pdf
>
>
>
> Have no idea if BLP's complaint has managed to get any traction or not. I
> suspect it's gone nowhere. If BLP want's restitution they need to present
> to the public a working prototype that proves OU is occurring. Until then I
> suspect the Grump and all of his cohorts will remain safe as a bug under
> the rug until then...
>
>
>
> We're still waiting.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> OrionWorks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[David Roberson]

This type of deception makes me angry.  Also, how stupid are they to assume 
that this will not be uncovered?   All of those guys in management associated 
with this decision should be terminated.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Sep 25, 2015 3:43 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details



The EPA test was detected by the VW if the rear wheels weren't spinning. A 
while back, Cadillac did the same thing but used a open hood as a indicator 
that a EPA test was underway.


On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

This is somewhat off-topic but . . .


I have had trouble understanding the news reports about the Volkswagen scandal. 
I have not found a clear technical description of what happened. I think the 
reporters do not understand.


The gist of it is that when someone plugs a computer into the automobile 
onboard computer, something changes. Press reports seem to indicate that either 
the actual performance changes, or that the onboard computer begins to generate 
fake data. It turns out to be the former. When you disengage from the onboard 
computer, NOx emissions increase to a level ~40 times above US allowed 
standards. Furthermore, fixing this problem will probably degrade the 
performance or fuel efficiency of the car.


Here is a short but clear explanation:


http://www.businessinsider.com/volkswagens-cheating-engines-cant-be-easily-fixed-2015-9



Zoom into the graphic box, "how Volkswagens defeat device works."


The article says they are thinking of installing a Urea injection system to fix 
the problem. Piss on it, in other words. Bringing to mind the saying, "If you 
was on fire I wouldn't bother to . . ."




The people at Volkswagen were unbelievably stupid thinking they could get away 
with this indefinitely.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:GLOBAL RESARCH PLAN FOR LENR (II)

[Axil Axil]

Reference:

“WHAT TO NOT DO IN LENR DESIGN
a) Piantelli: To invest any hopes in the domain below Debye temperature for
any metal'”

Besides nickel(450K), the other group 10 elements: palladium(274K) and
platinum(240K) have a Debye temperature below the freezing point of water.
Gold(165K) and silver(225K) have a Debye temperature close to the freeing
point of CO2. Only Holmlid’s substrate of choice, Iridium(420K), has a
Debye temperature on a par with nickel.

But there is something wrong with this assumption about Debye temperature.
This assumption was violated with respect to Iridium since Holmlid got
muons to appear under florescent light in his Lab at room temperature.

On the other hand, the muons could have been produced by potassium(91K)
and/or solid hydrogen(?K).

A “secret sauce” alkali catalyst could make Piantelli’s observations about
Debye temperature irrelevant.



On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

>
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/09/sep-25-2015-sketch-of-global-research.html
>
> We will continue with discussing details and specifics, your ideas are
> welcome! Thanks!
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Lennart Thornros]

Please Jed, you think it was intentional and that the guy did not care if
his product would kill people. Then I guess the problem is all solved. No
more company will provide peanuts which are a risk to eat. I have not
followed the case as detailed as you have. However, if he did the things
you say (intentionally poisoned people) then is the very exemption among
CEO's. VW CEO did not intentionally wanted to destroy our air. He wanted to
sell cars and was informed about an agreement with someone about a
moratorium (which he hoped would never expire) or some industry standard to
solve this issue. I do not think it is excusable. I just think it goes on
and is reality, because the legislation sometimes is impossible to live up
to. I think it needs to be simple laws that can be enforced without
difficult analysis.



I eat food wherever I am. I eat local food. Yes, I have been sick a couple
of times. I was once in a high end restaurant in  Redwood city California -
so the location is not the issue. There are many factors working together
and there is no way you can regulate them away. You cannot even reduce the
risks.

I have mentioned before (yes, you know) the idea that bigger is better is a
factor. In old times people knew where the food came from. It was possible
to follow the problem to the source. Making large scale operations makes
the path very anonymous. The solution for you and most people is to make
limits and legislate the limits. Works on the paper. Is not even close to
reality. The large batches also means that when a problem occurs it is too
late to stop the problem.

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 Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> David Roberson  wrote:
>
>
>> I hope and believe that he did not think that the peanut butter he was
>> producing would lead to any deaths.
>
>
> Perhaps he hoped it wouldn't lead to deaths. That would be stupid because
> he knew the peanuts were contaminated with salmonella, and anyone who knows
> about food, knows that salmonella often causes sickness or death. I guess
> he was betting they would not lead to deaths, or if they did kill someone,
> he hoped no one could pin the deaths on him.
>
> There is no doubt of his criminal intent. He sent memos to his employees
> saying: "lie about the sales if it saves us money." He failed to submit
> products for testing, and he sent the customer falsified certificates of
> analysis (fake documents saying the peanuts were inspected). He was warned
> repeatedly that the peanuts were contaminated. If that is not criminal
> behavior, what would be?
>
> I have been following this story because it happened here in Georgia, and
> it has been the local papers.
>
>
> I suspect that he was of the opinion that this sort of issue has been
>> around for many years and did not reflect any significant danger to the
>> public.
>>
>
> If so, he is an idiot unaware of what has been common knowledge for over a
> century.
>
>
>
>> I have read that a very large portion of chicken is infected during
>> production as well.
>
>
> If that were true, and if the processing or cooking did not fix the
> problem by sterilizing the meat later, thousands of people who get sick or
> killed by chicken, and no one would eat it.
>
> If you go to India or South America you will find lots of food that does
> not meet U.S. standards. If you are foolish enough to eat it, you will
> probably be violently ill for days or weeks. Once you recover, you will
> never, ever, eat that food again. If this contamination were common in
> chickens in the U.S., people would soon find out by getting violently ill.
> Word would get out, and the entire chicken industry would be wiped out.
>
>
>
>>   Surely, he assumed that this was business as usual and did not make a
>> conscious decision to cause additional loss of life in a callous way.
>
>
> I am sure he did make a conscious decision to risk people's lives! That's
> why they sent him to prison for 28 years.
>
>
>
>>   Does anyone really believe that only peanut butter was dangerous during
>> that time frame?  How many other foods were equally or more dangerous?
>
>
> The ones that are equally dangerous, such as the recent batch of
> cucumbers, have also sickened or killed people. "Every year, Salmonella is
> estimated to cause one million illnesses in the United States, with 19,000
> hospitalizations and 380 deaths."
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/
>
> Obviously, in most cases the food producers do not realize there is
> contamination. Very few people deliberately sell products that they know
> are likely to sicken or kill consumers. People do not do this because they
> do not want to hurt others, and also because 

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

Jed you are the eternal defender of regulations. No, it is not with consent.
>

Everyone with knowledge of industry and the history of commerce is a
defender of regulations. Go back and read how things were before there were
modern regulations, or go live in a Third World country such as India or
China and you will see.

You are incorrect. It is always with consent. If not, the industries would
raise hell with the Congress, and the Congress always listens to people who
have lots of money. Evidently, I know more about regulations, and I have
spoken with more regulators and industry experts than you have. I suggest
you read books about this subject, such as the ones by S. Florman.



> Yes, they work for putting high entry cost to a market.
>

Not as much as they used to. Regulators got wise to this tactic in the
1970s and they got rid of many regulations that only served that purpose.
That is why, for example, advertisers nowadays are free to name their
competitors, and lawyers can advertise their services.



> I have been in the food industry. No Jed the federal inspection does no
> good.
>

Go back and read how things were before there were federal inspections, and
you will quickly change your mind. Or, as I said, go visit a country where
they do not inspect food, or where the food inspectors are routinely paid
bribes to look the other way.



> As a matter of fact it is so full of side deals that it is a joke for all
> involved.
>

Number of people killed by salmonella in the U.S. per year: ~380

People killed by salmonella in third world counties: over 100,000.

Is that a joke? Do you also laugh at infant mortality rates? How about
diarrhea from contaminated water, which kills 2.2 million people in the
Third World, and practically no one in the U.S.? Because we have
regulations. Do you also find that hilarious?

Without regulations, inspections, laws and prisons, criminals such as
Stewart Parnell would kill hundreds of thousands of victims per year,
knowingly, for profit. That is what they did in the 19th century in the
U.S. That is what they do every day in countries such as China. Many people
are evil. If they can make a few dollars by making you sick or killing you,
they will.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

[mixent]

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 25 Sep 2015 15:40:33 -0400:
Hi Dave,
[snip]
>This discussion is interesting.  Perhaps the existing thermodynamic laws apply 
>mainly to black body types of interactions when radiation is associated.   
>Clearly the light emitted by an LED is not of that nature.   It is narrow band 
>radiation at a level that is much higher in these bands than would be expected 
>according to the temperature of the device.
>
>Also, the DC input power contributes a significant portion of the net 
>radiation output in a direct conversion process.  This behavior is very unlike 
>most of the systems used to derive the thermodynamic laws.  Perhaps there 
>really does exist at least this one loophole that can be breached.
>
>A clear understanding of exactly how the random thermal motion within the LED 
>can be converted into light at this level of efficiency would be desirable.  
>Could it be that the random peaks in thermal energy that follow a Gaussian 
>distribution are the key?  Near the thermal peak one might find that a little 
>help from the DC source is sufficient to cause electrons to jump into higher 
>orbitals.  If enough of these occur in a short period of time a population 
>inversion may come into existance which would then drain the excess energy by 
>positive feedback and subsequent radiation pulses.  The excess energy would 
>have to come from that random thermal motion that was tapped leading to 
>cooling of the device.
>
>Is this an example of an atomic Maxwell's demon?

It sounds a little like what  I have tried to describe previously with
evaporation. When water evaporates, only the fastest molecules make the grade,
which essentially comprises a Maxwell demon. This process converts the kinetic
energy of the fast molecules into potential energy, and leaves the slow
molecules behind in the liquid, which is then cooler as a consequence.
(We call a common example "wind chill".)

By jumping to a higher orbital, in your description here above, kinetic energy
is also converted into potential energy.

I have in the past also suggested a setup where a plastic with an attached
charged ligand that was free to rotate, was placed in a resonant chamber with a
magnetic field which would convert microwaves into DC, thus preventing a two way
flow of energy. That also constitutes a form of Maxwell demon, as the chamber
would appear as a cold sink to the material. The chamber is tuned to resonate at
the same frequency as the rotation frequency of the ligand. The general purpose
of this setup is to convert random motion into ordered motion (thermal energy
into DC).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed you are the eternal defender of regulations. No, it is not with
consent. Yes, they work for putting high entry cost to a market. The
biggest entities often become part of an initial agreement and then the law
is a fact and various parties now negotiate exceptions and some of them not
so kosher.
I have been in the food industry. No Jed the federal inspection does no
good. As a matter of fact it is so full of side deals that it is a joke for
all involved. I think David is correct about the peanut scandal. Reality is
that the company probably had dealings (agreements) that gave them OK to
not have the zero tolerance level enforced (zero tolerance is common in the
food industry - but not possible). At some point in time the test probably
became a joke as it was always OK even if it was not. Perhaps they just
abandoned the test. Why spend time on testing when their is no limit. I
think like David that nobody believed the product was dangerous. It was
good for years - of course it is good today also.

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 Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:21 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Jed, you mention Mr. Parnell and his case.  I hope and believe that he
> did not think that the peanut butter he was producing would lead to any
> deaths.   I suspect that he was of the opinion that this sort of issue has
> been around for many years and did not reflect any significant danger to
> the public.
>
> I have read that a very large portion of chicken is infected during
> production as well.  Surely, he assumed that this was business as usual and
> did not make a conscious decision to cause additional loss of life in a
> callous way.  Does anyone really believe that only peanut butter was
> dangerous during that time frame?  How many other foods were equally or
> more dangerous?
>
> Perhaps I am underestimating his level of criminality, but to put a
> businessman in jail for making a mistake in judgement is going a little too
> far.  People make similar errors in judgement all the time.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jed Rothwell 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Fri, Sep 25, 2015 5:10 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details
>
> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>>
>> However, one cannot make laws / rules that are violating what is
>> practical if one is not prepared to pay the price.
>>
>
> The people who draft these rules are industry experts, recruited from the
> leading companies. In the U.S., regulatory agencies *never* pass rules
> that have not be vetted by industry experts, and recommended by them. That
> is not to suggest that regulators are always captives of the industries
> they regulate, although in some cases they are! I am saying that
> regulations are always passed with cooperation and advance knowledge of the
> corporations being regulated. They reflect the best practices of
> responsible companies.
>
> In many cases, the corporations themselves ask for and pay for the
> regulations. In the past this was sometimes done to prevent competition by
> making it hard for new companies to enter the field, in a subtle but
> effective violation of anti-trust laws. That happens less often today.
>
> If the government were to try to force through regulations without
> industry consent, there would be a hue and cry.
>
> One of the purposes of regulations is to keep dishonest people from taking
> over an industry sector. For example, if food inspections are reduced you
> can be sure more vendors will sell peanuts tainted by salmonella. Stewart
> Parnell was sentenced to 28 years in prison for doing this. Responsible
> peanut suppliers do not want thousands of consumers poisoned and killed by
> salmonella because they know that people will stop buying peanuts if that
> happens. Criminals such as Parnell don't care how many people they kill. It
> is not enough to have general laws against poisoning people. You must have
> to have inspections and standards with a host of specifics about peanuts.
>
>
>
>> Maybe this problem is only related to diesel motors but if not I can
>> almost guarantee that other manufacturers have similar systems in place.
>>
>
> I think the chances of that are zero to none. The other automobile
> companies are probably not run by blithering idiots who do things that will
> destroy the company. I expect experts are checking to be sure though.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, I have been in those countries.
Yes, the mortality rate from misc. things are higher than in the US.
The factors are not to be found in the regulations. It is mostly other
factors.
Often third world countries adopt US or European regulations. The
possibilities to avoid the legislation is by far more abundant in third
world countries.
Next time you visit any third world country, check with what the locals do.
They usually will tell you where the risks are.

You bring up a number of other things you think are better because of the
regulations. The contaminated water is not unhealthy because they do not
have good regulations. If the water supply is very limited and you have no
funding for or infrastructure to handle purification you will drink less
good water. Take your rules to a village in Kongo and tell them; "here is
what we do in the US - we do not die from bad water" Then you mention the
death rate among newly born. Long time since I checked but ten years ago
approximately the death rate among newly born in the US were ten times
higher than they were in Sweden. This amazed me so I looked upon why and my
conclusion is that it is an attitude question. It certainly has nothing to
do with the rules / laws forced on the mothers or doctors or anyone else
involved as they are more or less identical. .

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 Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> Please Jed, you think it was intentional and that the guy did not care if
> his product would kill people. Then I guess the problem is all solved. No
> more company will provide peanuts which are a risk to eat. I have not
> followed the case as detailed as you have. However, if he did the things
> you say (intentionally poisoned people) then is the very exemption among
> CEO's. VW CEO did not intentionally wanted to destroy our air. He wanted to
> sell cars and was informed about an agreement with someone about a
> moratorium (which he hoped would never expire) or some industry standard to
> solve this issue. I do not think it is excusable. I just think it goes on
> and is reality, because the legislation sometimes is impossible to live up
> to. I think it needs to be simple laws that can be enforced without
> difficult analysis.
>
>
>
> I eat food wherever I am. I eat local food. Yes, I have been sick a couple
> of times. I was once in a high end restaurant in  Redwood city California -
> so the location is not the issue. There are many factors working together
> and there is no way you can regulate them away. You cannot even reduce the
> risks.
>
> I have mentioned before (yes, you know) the idea that bigger is better is
> a factor. In old times people knew where the food came from. It was
> possible to follow the problem to the source. Making large scale operations
> makes the path very anonymous. The solution for you and most people is to
> make limits and legislate the limits. Works on the paper. Is not even close
> to reality. The large batches also means that when a problem occurs it is
> too late to stop the problem.
>
> 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 Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> David Roberson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I hope and believe that he did not think that the peanut butter he was
>>> producing would lead to any deaths.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps he hoped it wouldn't lead to deaths. That would be stupid because
>> he knew the peanuts were contaminated with salmonella, and anyone who knows
>> about food, knows that salmonella often causes sickness or death. I guess
>> he was betting they would not lead to deaths, or if they did kill someone,
>> he hoped no one could pin the deaths on him.
>>
>> There is no doubt of his criminal intent. He sent memos to his employees
>> saying: "lie about the sales if it saves us money." He failed to submit
>> products for testing, and he sent the customer falsified certificates of
>> analysis (fake documents saying the peanuts were inspected). He was warned
>> repeatedly that the peanuts were contaminated. If that is not criminal
>> behavior, what would be?
>>
>> I have been following this story because it happened here in Georgia, and
>> it has been the local papers.
>>
>>
>> I suspect that he was of the opinion that this sort of issue has been
>>> around for many years and did not reflect any significant danger to the
>>> public.
>>>
>>
>> If so, he is an idiot unaware of what 

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:


> I hope and believe that he did not think that the peanut butter he was
> producing would lead to any deaths.


Perhaps he hoped it wouldn't lead to deaths. That would be stupid because
he knew the peanuts were contaminated with salmonella, and anyone who knows
about food, knows that salmonella often causes sickness or death. I guess
he was betting they would not lead to deaths, or if they did kill someone,
he hoped no one could pin the deaths on him.

There is no doubt of his criminal intent. He sent memos to his employees
saying: "lie about the sales if it saves us money." He failed to submit
products for testing, and he sent the customer falsified certificates of
analysis (fake documents saying the peanuts were inspected). He was warned
repeatedly that the peanuts were contaminated. If that is not criminal
behavior, what would be?

I have been following this story because it happened here in Georgia, and
it has been the local papers.


I suspect that he was of the opinion that this sort of issue has been
> around for many years and did not reflect any significant danger to the
> public.
>

If so, he is an idiot unaware of what has been common knowledge for over a
century.



> I have read that a very large portion of chicken is infected during
> production as well.


If that were true, and if the processing or cooking did not fix the problem
by sterilizing the meat later, thousands of people who get sick or killed
by chicken, and no one would eat it.

If you go to India or South America you will find lots of food that does
not meet U.S. standards. If you are foolish enough to eat it, you will
probably be violently ill for days or weeks. Once you recover, you will
never, ever, eat that food again. If this contamination were common in
chickens in the U.S., people would soon find out by getting violently ill.
Word would get out, and the entire chicken industry would be wiped out.



>   Surely, he assumed that this was business as usual and did not make a
> conscious decision to cause additional loss of life in a callous way.


I am sure he did make a conscious decision to risk people's lives! That's
why they sent him to prison for 28 years.



>   Does anyone really believe that only peanut butter was dangerous during
> that time frame?  How many other foods were equally or more dangerous?


The ones that are equally dangerous, such as the recent batch of cucumbers,
have also sickened or killed people. "Every year, Salmonella is estimated
to cause one million illnesses in the United States, with 19,000
hospitalizations and 380 deaths."

http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/

Obviously, in most cases the food producers do not realize there is
contamination. Very few people deliberately sell products that they know
are likely to sicken or kill consumers. People do not do this because they
do not want to hurt others, and also because it is against the law and you
are fined or put out of business even if you do it by accident. However, in
this case, the evidence collected by the police, and the testimony at
trial, proves beyond doubt that Parnell knew what he was doing, and he went
on doing it for a long time.

>


> Perhaps I am underestimating his level of criminality, but to put a
> businessman in jail for making a mistake in judgement is going a little too
> far.  People make similar errors in judgement all the time.
>

This was not a mistake in judgement, except insofar as he judged he could
get away with murder.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Lennart,

 

> ... However, to me it is really sad that BLP need to go to court

> to resolve this type of issues. IMHO there is no upside for either

> party regardless of the outcome.

 

Indeed. IMO, there is really only one definitive way to settle the matter. 
Build a working prototype proving OU is occurring. Filing a law suit to go 
after Grump and his cohorts accomplishes diddly squat other than eating up 
valuable man-hours and financial resources better spent on building the 
promised prototype. ...to paraphrase a famous saying from a popular movie "If 
you build it, [they] will come." For now, all the Gump has to say is "Where's 
the beef! You've been promising us eminent delivery of a quarter pound double 
cheeseburger for how long now??? I rest my case." IMO, BLP would be wise not to 
press the matter in court. It might be the primary reason why there hasn't been 
much said about the matter since. Going forward, seeking damages, IMO, is more 
likely to end up hurting BLP's image more than any so-called legitimate 
scientific evidence filed in court claiming verification of scientific findings 
would show. Again, No cheeseburger? Grump goes free.

 

> The only guys laughing all the way to the bank are the lawyers.

 

yep.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

 

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[David Roberson]

***
The ones that are equally dangerous, such as the recent batch of cucumbers, 
have also sickened or killed people. "Every year, Salmonella is estimated to 
cause one million illnesses in the United States, with 19,000 hospitalizations 
and 380 deaths."

http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/

Obviously, in most cases the food producers do not realize there is 
contamination. Very few people deliberately sell products that they know are 
likely to sicken or kill consumers. People do not do this because they do not 
want to hurt others, and also because it is against the law and you are fined 
or put out of business even if you do it by accident. However, in this case, 
the evidence collected by the police, and the testimony at trial, proves beyond 
doubt that Parnell knew what he was doing, and he went on doing it for a long 
time.

***



Jed,

You must have missed the special on TV about the incidence of salmonella 
discovered in raw chicken in the US.  If I recall correctly it was 
approximately 25% occurrance rate, especially in chicken parts such as breasts. 
 And, the USDA did not even regulate that pathogen since it was assumed present 
and normal.  The program made it clear that these regulators could not force 
the manufacturers to cease production due to that issue during the time this 
incident took place.

Now, if you cook chicken that is soiled in this way, it is likely that you will 
get some of the pathogens on fresh vegetables, etc. that are present within 
your kitchen.   And, cooking is not going to clean up the problem in many cases.

You also should know that the USDA did not regulate or require testing of the 
salmonella levels in the products of Mr. Parnell.   He performed testing on 
some of his products to satisfy his contracts with certain customers and not 
the USDA.  At the moment, I am not aware of exactly what regulation on the 
books he was charged with except perhaps manslaughter, which covers just about 
any purpose the prosecutor wishes.  I suspect that if you were to cut down a 
tree without care and it landed upon your neighbor causing his death, that 
would fall within the same category.   This would be especially true if you 
knew the neighbor frequented that spot and you were warned not to make the cut 
due to the danger to his life.

You mentioned over a million sicknesses due to food poisoning by salmonella 
each year.  Should we lock up every food executive associated with those 
incidents?  Do you believe that no one realized that salmonella was being 
shipped in any of these products?  Keep in mind the chicken special(no pun 
intended) that I referred to above.

For disclosure, I know friends of Mr. Parnell since he lived fairly closeby and 
they all claim he is a decent guy.  Why send him to prison when the chicken 
masters get a free pass?  This does not make sense and needs to be changed.  He 
is certainly no more of a murderer than a driver that has had too much to drink 
and wrecks leading to someone's death.  We all know people that have been 
caught in that trap and most serve little if any time in prison.  (28 years???)

Dave

[Vo]:Article: These Incredible Saltwater Batteries Are Designed To Store Renewable Energy

[Jack Cole]

Now we can clean power even when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't
blowing. If we're going use renewable power in a big way, we're going to
need better battery storage. Because solar and wind are intermittent
sources of energy, they need to be backed up for when they're not there,
because, ...

http://flip.it/h6SCz

Sent via Flipboard , your personal magazine.
Get it for free  to keep up with the news you care
about.

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

[David Roberson]

Robin,

I think we are on the same frequency in this quest.  It appears that any non 
linear process that can be coaxed into converting the kinetic energy due to 
thermal motion into potential energy of some type will achieve the goal.

The second law must be based upon linear behavior of gasses, etc. and may fail 
to cover non linear processes on occasion leading to violations.  Of course 
Maxwell's demon is clearly non linear since it is either completely open or 
closed depending upon the magnitude of the kinetic energy of the incoming 
particle.  I suppose you could consider it related to an electrical diode 
acting upon a series combination of DC and AC voltage.  You only see the value 
of the combination once it exceeds a fixed total voltage magnitude.Another 
interesting comparison is that the waveform ahead of the diode is clipped and 
reduced in RMS magnitude when the diode conducts.  Here I am assuming that the 
voltage source has a finite resistance that is comparable to the load 
resistance following the series connected diode.

The evaporation process appears to have exactly this behavior.  And, it leads 
to cooling of the remaining liquid.  I do not follow your second example.

The LED example seems to demonstrate a method which allows for the elevation of 
kinetic energy into potential energy of electron orbitals which can then be 
released to pass freely out of the system, taking some of the kinetic energy 
away, leading to overall cooling of the remaining material.

These processes appear to be violations of the laws.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Sep 25, 2015 6:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP 
ENERGY ENGINES


In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 25 Sep 2015 15:40:33 -0400:
Hi
Dave,
[snip]
>This discussion is interesting.  Perhaps the existing
thermodynamic laws apply mainly to black body types of interactions when
radiation is associated.   Clearly the light emitted by an LED is not of that
nature.   It is narrow band radiation at a level that is much higher in these
bands than would be expected according to the temperature of the
device.
>
>Also, the DC input power contributes a significant portion of the
net radiation output in a direct conversion process.  This behavior is very
unlike most of the systems used to derive the thermodynamic laws.  Perhaps there
really does exist at least this one loophole that can be breached.
>
>A clear
understanding of exactly how the random thermal motion within the LED can be
converted into light at this level of efficiency would be desirable.  Could it
be that the random peaks in thermal energy that follow a Gaussian distribution
are the key?  Near the thermal peak one might find that a little help from the
DC source is sufficient to cause electrons to jump into higher orbitals.  If
enough of these occur in a short period of time a population inversion may come
into existance which would then drain the excess energy by positive feedback and
subsequent radiation pulses.  The excess energy would have to come from that
random thermal motion that was tapped leading to cooling of the device.
>
>Is
this an example of an atomic Maxwell's demon?

It sounds a little like what  I
have tried to describe previously with
evaporation. When water evaporates, only
the fastest molecules make the grade,
which essentially comprises a Maxwell
demon. This process converts the kinetic
energy of the fast molecules into
potential energy, and leaves the slow
molecules behind in the liquid, which is
then cooler as a consequence.
(We call a common example "wind chill".)

By
jumping to a higher orbital, in your description here above, kinetic energy
is
also converted into potential energy.

I have in the past also suggested a
setup where a plastic with an attached
charged ligand that was free to rotate,
was placed in a resonant chamber with a
magnetic field which would convert
microwaves into DC, thus preventing a two way
flow of energy. That also
constitutes a form of Maxwell demon, as the chamber
would appear as a cold sink
to the material. The chamber is tuned to resonate at
the same frequency as the
rotation frequency of the ligand. The general purpose
of this setup is to
convert random motion into ordered motion (thermal energy
into
DC).

Regards,

Robin van
Spaandonk

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


 

Re: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

[Jed Rothwell]

Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson  wrote:

> Indeed. IMO, there is really only one definitive way to settle the matter.
> Build a working prototype proving OU is occurring. Filing a law suit to go
> after Grump and his cohorts accomplishes diddly squat . . .
>
Yes, this is foolish. It makes BLP look bad. I see no upside, and no way
they can win.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Jed Rothwell]

Some other info:

A lab at West Virginia U. found the problem, working with a $50,000 grant.
They have also tested a BMI, which was fine. That confirmed their method is
correct. See:

http://www.npr.org/2015/09/24/443053672/how-a-little-lab-in-west-virginia-caught-volkswagens-big-cheat

The excess NOx pollution worldwide is roughly as much as 20 U.S. coal fired
plants produce (legally produce). There are 589 coal fired plants in the
U.S., so 20 is a significant number.

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/23/9383641/volkswagen-scandal-pollution

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

[Mark Goldes]

David, Robin, all,

You may find SECOND LAW SURPRISES under MORE at aesopinstitute.org of
interest.

Mark



Mark Goldes
Chairman, CEO, AESOP Energy LLC

707 861-9070

AESOP Institute website: www.aesopinstitute.org


On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 6:05 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Robin,
>
> I think we are on the same frequency in this quest.  It appears that any
> non linear process that can be coaxed into converting the kinetic energy
> due to thermal motion into potential energy of some type will achieve the
> goal.
>
> The second law must be based upon linear behavior of gasses, etc. and may
> fail to cover non linear processes on occasion leading to violations.  Of
> course Maxwell's demon is clearly non linear since it is either completely
> open or closed depending upon the magnitude of the kinetic energy of the
> incoming particle.  I suppose you could consider it related to an
> electrical diode acting upon a series combination of DC and AC voltage.
> You only see the value of the combination once it exceeds a fixed total
> voltage magnitude.Another interesting comparison is that the waveform
> ahead of the diode is clipped and reduced in RMS magnitude when the diode
> conducts.  Here I am assuming that the voltage source has a finite
> resistance that is comparable to the load resistance following the series
> connected diode.
>
> The evaporation process appears to have exactly this behavior.  And, it
> leads to cooling of the remaining liquid.  I do not follow your second
> example.
>
> The LED example seems to demonstrate a method which allows for the
> elevation of kinetic energy into potential energy of electron orbitals
> which can then be released to pass freely out of the system, taking some of
> the kinetic energy away, leading to overall cooling of the remaining
> material.
>
> These processes appear to be violations of the laws.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mixent 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Fri, Sep 25, 2015 6:59 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP
> ENERGY ENGINES
>
> In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 25 Sep 2015 15:40:33 -0400:
> Hi
> Dave,
> [snip]
> >This discussion is interesting.  Perhaps the existing
> thermodynamic laws apply mainly to black body types of interactions when
> radiation is associated.   Clearly the light emitted by an LED is not of that
> nature.   It is narrow band radiation at a level that is much higher in these
> bands than would be expected according to the temperature of the
> device.
> >
> >Also, the DC input power contributes a significant portion of the
> net radiation output in a direct conversion process.  This behavior is very
> unlike most of the systems used to derive the thermodynamic laws.  Perhaps 
> there
> really does exist at least this one loophole that can be breached.
> >
> >A clear
> understanding of exactly how the random thermal motion within the LED can be
> converted into light at this level of efficiency would be desirable.  Could it
> be that the random peaks in thermal energy that follow a Gaussian distribution
> are the key?  Near the thermal peak one might find that a little help from the
> DC source is sufficient to cause electrons to jump into higher orbitals.  If
> enough of these occur in a short period of time a population inversion may 
> come
> into existance which would then drain the excess energy by positive feedback 
> and
> subsequent radiation pulses.  The excess energy would have to come from that
> random thermal motion that was tapped leading to cooling of the device.
> >
> >Is
> this an example of an atomic Maxwell's demon?
>
> It sounds a little like what  I
> have tried to describe previously with
> evaporation. When water evaporates, only
> the fastest molecules make the grade,
> which essentially comprises a Maxwell
> demon. This process converts the kinetic
> energy of the fast molecules into
> potential energy, and leaves the slow
> molecules behind in the liquid, which is
> then cooler as a consequence.
> (We call a common example "wind chill".)
>
> By
> jumping to a higher orbital, in your description here above, kinetic energy
> is
> also converted into potential energy.
>
> I have in the past also suggested a
> setup where a plastic with an attached
> charged ligand that was free to rotate,
> was placed in a resonant chamber with a
> magnetic field which would convert
> microwaves into DC, thus preventing a two way
> flow of energy. That also
> constitutes a form of Maxwell demon, as the chamber
> would appear as a cold sink
> to the material. The chamber is tuned to resonate at
> the same frequency as the
> rotation frequency of the ligand. The general purpose
> of this setup is to
> convert random motion into ordered motion (thermal energy
> into
> DC).
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van
> Spaandonk
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

[Vo]:coding error

[a.ashfield]

I am getting this message following Blaze Spinnaker's second post and 
later ones


"Content Encoding Error

The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because it uses an 
invalid or unsupported form of compression.


Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem."


http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg104748.html

RE: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

[a.ashfield]

I can't see most of the comments because I get a message that there is a 
coding error.


Good luck getting Wiki to change their write up on cold fusion.  I got 
banned from there for arguing with editor AndyTheGrump, who was 
obviously biased and wrong.

Re: [Vo]:RE: The megafarad capacitor

[Jed Rothwell]

 wrote:


> ...I think we have been here before. You can just carry water in the
> vehicle,
> and electrolyze it in situ, a minute quantity at a time, as required.
> There need
> be no stored gas, and no danger.
>

Mizuno and others who know a lot about hydrogen tell me that might be
problematic. It is difficult to electrolyze and purify the hydrogen. Mizuno
built a complicated purifier with filters and other gadgets taking up a
sheet of plywood on his lab wall. It is probably better to fracture the
water, purify the gas, and then pressurize either the cell or a small tank
next to the cell.

This takes only a little stored gas which would not be a danger even in the
event the tank fractured. It would be no more dangerous than a punctured
can of spray paint. A punctured can of paint would be a hazard in the
passenger compartment, but I do not think it would be a problem mounted in
the engine compartment.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:RE: The megafarad capacitor

[Jed Rothwell]

 wrote:

>
> >right. In other words, the overhead is small; 1 MJ of electricity produces
> >enough hydrogen to generate 5e13 MJ of heat.
> >
> I think you have dropped about 7 orders of magnitude. ;)


I wouldn't put it past me. I think I was looking at the numbers for D+D
fusion.

Anyway, it's a lot. The energy overhead is small. We do not need to keep
any fission reactors running to supply the hydrogen or deuterium. Or any
wind turbines or hydroelectric dams either.

Many years ago someone said to me, "we will always need oil even with cold
fusion, because you need oil to run the palladium mining equipment." This
person did not realize that underground mining equipment runs on
electricity. More to the point, if we do need liquid fuel for some purpose,
we can synthesize it.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:How Rossi's test may not be definitive

[Jones Beene]

Jack,

 

It could be more problematic than that.

 

If the customer was using electricity for heating, that means that natural gas 
is unavailable. This is true in Miami and much of south Florida – little access 
to natural gas. Thus “the customer” could be already paying three times more 
for heat then a competitor with access to natural gas.

 

Even today, AR is still hedging: “if the plant is successful”… LOL … after 9 
months of claimed operation, he should have more confidence than this – unless 
for instance, there are long periods where there is little or no thermal gain 
from the reactors. In that event, someone must pay for electrical power to 
supply the required heat (at a net loss).

 

My expectation is that the report on the megawatt box, if it actually is a 
complete study which can be independently verified - will severely disappoint 
most of Rossi’s fan base. More likely it will be severely edited, data-free, 
unverified and almost meaningless.

 

From: Jack Cole 

 

Recently, I was thinking about how Rossi's industrial test could turn out to be 
problematic in the end.  Consider the following scenario: the plant of the 
customer used conventional heating elements to heat their water before, but 
their pipes in their boiler system were not as well insulated as in Rossi's 
container.  So, if at the end, the customer saves 50% on electricity bills, do 
we know Rossi's reactor works?  Of course there comes a point where the above 
scenario could not explain the results (e.g., the customer's bills are cut by 
90%).

 

The savings data will have to be backed up by data on the energy balance of the 
system (energy output/input).

 

Jack