Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[Axil Axil]

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:11 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> I assume that your concepts include the various particles such as the
> polyneutron, Erzion, etc. but Rossi has never mentioned any of these.  They
> may be involved in the LENR process, but I suspect that Rossi has never
> used those terms within his postings.
>

http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/11/25/rossis-engineer-i-have-seen-things-you-people-wouldnt-believe/


Rossi’s closest technician and engineer since 2012, *Fulvio Fabiani:*

"And then you realize that it is something unique. We have it all filmed,
which still cannot be disclosed. We have photographs of creatures that emit
pure light that have completely melted the reactor down, all in a very
quiet way. You just turn off the stimuli system and the reaction is
switched off. It’s impressive."

These "creatures that emit pure light" are the photonic based Exotic
Neutral Particles(ENP) the other people has seen in their experiments.

The ENPs looks and act differently because they are holding different light
wavelengths based on the level of power they contain.

These ENPs are weak in the infrared, visible at intermediate
light strength levels, and very powerful in the XUV and x-ray ranges. This
is what R, Mills sees as black light in his experiments.

This is what I call dark mode Surface Plasmon Polaritons.

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[Axil Axil]

Rossi supported two thrid party tests of his units as follows:

http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf

HIGH TEMPERATURE E-CAT MODULE Test of July 16th, 2012
E-Cat Certification: Fabio Penon , M.Eng. (Nuclear Engineer, Product
Certification Specialist) E-Cat Electronic Control System Specialist:
Fulvio Fabiani, M.Eng. Radiation Protection Report: David Bianchini, M.Sc
(Physicist, Radiation Measurements Specialist).
EFA Srl (EFA Ltd). Bologna, Viale dell’Elettricista 6D July 16th, 2012

http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

Lagona Report
Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of
isotopic changes in the fuel Giuseppe Levi Bologna University, Bologna,
Italy Evelyn Foschi Bologna, Italy Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars
Tegnér Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden Hanno Essén Royal Institute of
Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Ludwik Kowalski <
kowals...@mail.montclair.edu> wrote:

>
> 1) Thank you for the  links to your articles, Axil. I will read them
> tomorrow.
>
> 2) Are you saying that Lugano scientists followed Rossi's published
> protocol, and that their quantitative results were approximately the same
> as his? My recollection is that this did not happen. Otherwise, ;-).
>
> 3) What is Rossi waiting for? In his place I would have published the
> protocol (without trying to offer a theory) a long time ago, waited for at
> least two independent quantitative confirmation of results, and expected a
> prestigious recognition  ;-).
>
> 4) Unable to publish, I would start selling reactors, counting on great
> commercial success.  ;-).
>
> Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
>
> ===
>
> On Dec 2, 2015, at 8:47 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> Rossi has revealed his Hot Cat technology in the Lugano test. Using this
> report, multiple experimenters SAY that they have replicated the Hot Cat.
> The patent submitted by the Industrial Heat is  filed with quotes pulled
> directly from the Lugano report.
>
> I have drawn important insights from the Ni62 100 micro ash particle
> analyzed in the Lugano report about how the LENR reaction works.
>
> See
>
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/07/05/lugano-fuel-analysis-axil-axil/
>
>
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/18/rossi-ash-sample-size-from-lugano-test-not-representative-of-whole-charge/
>
>
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/19/my-opinion-regarding-rossicook-reaction-theory-axil-axil/
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Ludwik Kowalski <
> kowals...@mail.montclair.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 2, 2015, at 8:13 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
>>
>> Why are Rossi's patents and intentions important, in the context of
>> validating his CMNS claims? What the world is waiting for is a protocol
>> which allows reputable scientists to replicate at least one of his setups,
>> and to obtain similar (+/- 30%) results. That would be a tremendous
>> contribution, much more valuable than tens of his patents. He has a lot to
>> gain from this. What is he waiting for?
>>
>> Ludwik  Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
>>
>> ===
>>
>> On Dec 2, 2015, at 7:49 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> That is what the Rossi says
>>
>> I have found that Rossi doen not make misstatements when it comes to
>> engineering details. When his product are finally revailed, this pre
>> release statements are consistent with the product. Also, synthsys of all
>> available experimental data lends insight to what Rossi
>> says. Magnetic confinement of ENPs comes from various
>> ENP theories including  the tachyon, the leptonic monopole, the polyneutron,
>> and the Erzion...all ENPs and all informative as to how the cause of
>> LENR behaves.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:30 PM, David Roberson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That is what the Rossi says!  Unfortunately, we do not have any of the
>>> other patents to review at this time to determine how his new device is
>>> structured.  Until that happens it is wise for us to make it clear that we
>>> are speculating on a particular issue so that everyone understands that
>>> that is the situation.  When you state with authority that 1 device is
>>> driving 15 others people are left with the impression that Rossi has made
>>> that clear in his writings.
>>>
>>> I have kept a close watch on his journal and do not recall ever seeing
>>> that mentioned.  In this case I was beginning to think that perhaps I have
>>> missed one of his postings, which turned out not to be the case.  My models
>>> are based upon what Rossi has actually stated and I need to keep that
>>> information accurate.  Can I count on you and others to make a point to
>>> state that you are speculating on a new configuration concept unless it is
>>> actually written by Rossi?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Axil Axil 
>>> To: vortex-l 
>>> Sent: W

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[Ludwik Kowalski]

1) Thank you for the  links to your articles, Axil. I will read them tomorrow. 

2) Are you saying that Lugano scientists followed Rossi's published protocol, 
and that their quantitative results were approximately the same as his? My 
recollection is that this did not happen. Otherwise, ;-).

3) What is Rossi waiting for? In his place I would have published the protocol 
(without trying to offer a theory) a long time ago, waited for at least two 
independent quantitative confirmation of results, and expected a prestigious 
recognition  ;-).

4) Unable to publish, I would start selling reactors, counting on great 
commercial success.  ;-).

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

=== 

On Dec 2, 2015, at 8:47 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

> Rossi has revealed his Hot Cat technology in the Lugano test. Using this 
> report, multiple experimenters SAY that they have replicated the Hot Cat. The 
> patent submitted by the Industrial Heat is  filed with quotes pulled directly 
> from the Lugano report. 
> 
> I have drawn important insights from the Ni62 100 micro ash particle analyzed 
> in the Lugano report about how the LENR reaction works.
> 
> See
> 
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/07/05/lugano-fuel-analysis-axil-axil/
> 
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/18/rossi-ash-sample-size-from-lugano-test-not-representative-of-whole-charge/
> 
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/19/my-opinion-regarding-rossicook-reaction-theory-axil-axil/
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Ludwik Kowalski 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Dec 2, 2015, at 8:13 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
> 
>> Why are Rossi's patents and intentions important, in the context of 
>> validating his CMNS claims? What the world is waiting for is a protocol 
>> which allows reputable scientists to replicate at least one of his setups, 
>> and to obtain similar (+/- 30%) results. That would be a tremendous 
>> contribution, much more valuable than tens of his patents. He has a lot to 
>> gain from this. What is he waiting for?
>> 
>> Ludwik  Kowalski (see Wikipedia) 
>> 
>> ===
>> 
>> On Dec 2, 2015, at 7:49 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>> 
>>> That is what the Rossi says
>>> 
>>> I have found that Rossi doen not make misstatements when it comes to 
>>> engineering details. When his product are finally revailed, this pre 
>>> release statements are consistent with the product. Also, synthsys of all 
>>> available experimental data lends insight to what Rossi says. Magnetic 
>>> confinement of ENPs comes from various ENP theories including  the tachyon, 
>>> the leptonic monopole, the polyneutron, and the Erzion...all ENPs and all 
>>> informative as to how the cause of LENR behaves.  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:30 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>>> That is what the Rossi says!  Unfortunately, we do not have any of the 
>>> other patents to review at this time to determine how his new device is 
>>> structured.  Until that happens it is wise for us to make it clear that we 
>>> are speculating on a particular issue so that everyone understands that 
>>> that is the situation.  When you state with authority that 1 device is 
>>> driving 15 others people are left with the impression that Rossi has made 
>>> that clear in his writings.
>>> 
>>> I have kept a close watch on his journal and do not recall ever seeing that 
>>> mentioned.  In this case I was beginning to think that perhaps I have 
>>> missed one of his postings, which turned out not to be the case.  My models 
>>> are based upon what Rossi has actually stated and I need to keep that 
>>> information accurate.  Can I count on you and others to make a point to 
>>> state that you are speculating on a new configuration concept unless it is 
>>> actually written by Rossi?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Dave
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Axil Axil 
>>> To: vortex-l 
>>> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 5:32 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
>>> 
>>> Joseph
>>> November 5th, 2015 at 12:20 PM
>>> Dr Andrea Rossi,
>>> Congratulations for US Patent and for the 146 patents pending and in the 
>>> making. The story of your life can explain why you are able to do this and 
>>> work in your plant in the factory of the customer for 16 hours per day. You 
>>> are unique.
>>> J.
>>> Andrea Rossi
>>> November 5th, 2015 at 11:25 PM
>>> Joseph,
>>> Thank you, but if the results will be positive, this will be due also to 
>>> the work of our Team and also of the great family of this blog, from which 
>>> so much I have learnt and of Prof Sergio Focardi and Prof Norman Cook, 
>>> whose book has put the theoretical bases to the evolution of my work during 
>>> these last 6 years. If the results will be negative, obviously, the 
>>> responsibility will be totally mine, because I am the one that has taken 
>>> all the decisions on the battlefield.
>>> Warm Regards,
>>> A.R.
>>> 
>>> Sorry, there ar

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[Axil Axil]

Rossi has revealed his Hot Cat technology in the Lugano test. Using this
report, multiple experimenters SAY that they have replicated the Hot Cat.
The patent submitted by the Industrial Heat is  filed with quotes pulled
directly from the Lugano report.

I have drawn important insights from the Ni62 100 micro ash particle
analyzed in the Lugano report about how the LENR reaction works.

See

http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/07/05/lugano-fuel-analysis-axil-axil/

http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/18/rossi-ash-sample-size-from-lugano-test-not-representative-of-whole-charge/

http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/19/my-opinion-regarding-rossicook-reaction-theory-axil-axil/



On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Ludwik Kowalski <
kowals...@mail.montclair.edu> wrote:

>
> On Dec 2, 2015, at 8:13 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
>
> Why are Rossi's patents and intentions important, in the context of
> validating his CMNS claims? What the world is waiting for is a protocol
> which allows reputable scientists to replicate at least one of his setups,
> and to obtain similar (+/- 30%) results. That would be a tremendous
> contribution, much more valuable than tens of his patents. He has a lot to
> gain from this. What is he waiting for?
>
> Ludwik  Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
>
> ===
>
> On Dec 2, 2015, at 7:49 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> That is what the Rossi says
>
> I have found that Rossi doen not make misstatements when it comes to
> egineering details. When his product are finally revailed, this pre release
> statements are consistent with the product. Also, synthsys of all
> available experimental data lends insight to what Rossi
> says. Magnetic confinement of ENPs comes from various
> ENP theories including  the tachyon, the leptonic monopole, the polyneutron,
> and the Erzion...all ENPs and all informative as to how the cause of LENR
> behaves.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:30 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> That is what the Rossi says!  Unfortunately, we do not have any of the
>> other patents to review at this time to determine how his new device is
>> structured.  Until that happens it is wise for us to make it clear that we
>> are speculating on a particular issue so that everyone understands that
>> that is the situation.  When you state with authority that 1 device is
>> driving 15 others people are left with the impression that Rossi has made
>> that clear in his writings.
>>
>> I have kept a close watch on his journal and do not recall ever seeing
>> that mentioned.  In this case I was beginning to think that perhaps I have
>> missed one of his postings, which turned out not to be the case.  My models
>> are based upon what Rossi has actually stated and I need to keep that
>> information accurate.  Can I count on you and others to make a point to
>> state that you are speculating on a new configuration concept unless it is
>> actually written by Rossi?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 5:32 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
>>
>>
>>1. Joseph
>>November 5th, 2015 at 12:20 PM
>>
>> 
>>Dr Andrea Rossi,
>>Congratulations for US Patent and for the 146 patents pending and in
>>the making. The story of your life can explain why you are able to do this
>>and work in your plant in the factory of the customer for 16 hours per 
>> day.
>>You are unique.
>>J.
>>2. Andrea Rossi
>>November 5th, 2015 at 11:25 PM
>>
>> 
>>Joseph,
>>Thank you, but if the results will be positive, this will be due also
>>to the work of our Team and also of the great family of this blog, from
>>which so much I have learnt and of Prof Sergio Focardi and Prof Norman
>>Cook, whose book has put the theoretical bases to the evolution of my work
>>during these last 6 years. If the results will be negative, obviously, the
>>responsibility will be totally mine, because I am the one that has taken
>>all the decisions on the battlefield.
>>Warm Regards,
>>A.R.
>>
>>
>> Sorry, there are 146 other patents pending.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:48 PM, David Roberson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That was 2 years ago before the patent was granted.  Do you see
>>> anything within the patent that fits into this form?  Rossi is required to
>>> supply information that is adequate to construct one of his systems if his
>>> patent is to have value.
>>>
>>> It is quite clear that his patented device has nothing resembling a
>>> driver module that is different for the other modules.  Please point that
>>> out within the written patent.
>>>
>>> Rossi appears to be playing cat and mouse with Hank!  There is nothing
>>> like this in the patent that I have seen.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[Ludwik Kowalski]

On Dec 2, 2015, at 8:13 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:

> Why are Rossi's patents and intentions important, in the context of 
> validating his CMNS claims? What the world is waiting for is a protocol which 
> allows reputable scientists to replicate at least one of his setups, and to 
> obtain similar (+/- 30%) results. That would be a tremendous contribution, 
> much more valuable than tens of his patents. He has a lot to gain from this. 
> What is he waiting for?
> 
> Ludwik  Kowalski (see Wikipedia) 
> 
> ===
> 
> On Dec 2, 2015, at 7:49 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
> 
>> That is what the Rossi says
>> 
>> I have found that Rossi doen not make misstatements when it comes to 
>> egineering details. When his product are finally revailed, this pre release 
>> statements are consistent with the product. Also, synthsys of all available 
>> experimental data lends insight to what Rossi says. Magnetic confinement of 
>> ENPs comes from various ENP theories including  the tachyon, the leptonic 
>> monopole, the polyneutron, and the Erzion...all ENPs and all informative as 
>> to how the cause of LENR behaves.  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:30 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>> That is what the Rossi says!  Unfortunately, we do not have any of the other 
>> patents to review at this time to determine how his new device is 
>> structured.  Until that happens it is wise for us to make it clear that we 
>> are speculating on a particular issue so that everyone understands that that 
>> is the situation.  When you state with authority that 1 device is driving 15 
>> others people are left with the impression that Rossi has made that clear in 
>> his writings.
>> 
>> I have kept a close watch on his journal and do not recall ever seeing that 
>> mentioned.  In this case I was beginning to think that perhaps I have missed 
>> one of his postings, which turned out not to be the case.  My models are 
>> based upon what Rossi has actually stated and I need to keep that 
>> information accurate.  Can I count on you and others to make a point to 
>> state that you are speculating on a new configuration concept unless it is 
>> actually written by Rossi?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Dave
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 5:32 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
>> 
>> Joseph
>> November 5th, 2015 at 12:20 PM
>> Dr Andrea Rossi,
>> Congratulations for US Patent and for the 146 patents pending and in the 
>> making. The story of your life can explain why you are able to do this and 
>> work in your plant in the factory of the customer for 16 hours per day. You 
>> are unique.
>> J.
>> Andrea Rossi
>> November 5th, 2015 at 11:25 PM
>> Joseph,
>> Thank you, but if the results will be positive, this will be due also to the 
>> work of our Team and also of the great family of this blog, from which so 
>> much I have learnt and of Prof Sergio Focardi and Prof Norman Cook, whose 
>> book has put the theoretical bases to the evolution of my work during these 
>> last 6 years. If the results will be negative, obviously, the responsibility 
>> will be totally mine, because I am the one that has taken all the decisions 
>> on the battlefield.
>> Warm Regards,
>> A.R.
>> 
>> Sorry, there are 146 other patents pending.
>> 
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:48 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>> That was 2 years ago before the patent was granted.  Do you see anything 
>> within the patent that fits into this form?  Rossi is required to supply 
>> information that is adequate to construct one of his systems if his patent 
>> is to have value.
>> 
>> It is quite clear that his patented device has nothing resembling a driver 
>> module that is different for the other modules.  Please point that out 
>> within the written patent.
>> 
>> Rossi appears to be playing cat and mouse with Hank!  There is nothing like 
>> this in the patent that I have seen.
>> 
>> Dave
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 3:17 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
>> 
>> Hank Mills
>> December 29th, 2013 at 2:34 PM
>> Dear Andrea,
>> The information you are sharing is facinating. While we wait for the full 
>> reports, it gives us something to think upon.
>> 1 – If the mouse over stimulates the cat so it runs around in circles 
>> continually, not going back to sleep, does the cat always explode?
>> 2 – Have you ever witnessed the cat running around in circles for extended 
>> periods of time, not needing any extra stimulation, but remaining stable?
>> 3 – Other than heat from the mouse, is anything else stimulating the cat 
>> during the drive or self sustain periods? It may not work for the hot cat, 
>> but I wish there was some low power method of keeping the cat stimulated. 
>> For example, like the 100 watts of radio frequencies that kept

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[Ludwik Kowalski]

Why are Rossi's patents and intentions important, in the context of validating 
his CMNS claims? What the world is waiting for is a protocol which allows 
reputable scientists to replicate his results, and to obtain similar (+/- 30%) 
results. That would be a tremendous contribution, much more valuable than tens 
of his patents.

Ludwik  Kowalski (see Wikipedia) 

===

On Dec 2, 2015, at 7:49 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

> That is what the Rossi says
> 
> I have found that Rossi doen not make misstatements when it comes to 
> egineering details. When his product are finally revailed, this pre release 
> statements are consistent with the product. Also, synthsys of all available 
> experimental data lends insight to what Rossi says. Magnetic confinement of 
> ENPs comes from various ENP theories including  the tachyon, the leptonic 
> monopole, the polyneutron, and the Erzion...all ENPs and all informative as 
> to how the cause of LENR behaves.  
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:30 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
> That is what the Rossi says!  Unfortunately, we do not have any of the other 
> patents to review at this time to determine how his new device is structured. 
>  Until that happens it is wise for us to make it clear that we are 
> speculating on a particular issue so that everyone understands that that is 
> the situation.  When you state with authority that 1 device is driving 15 
> others people are left with the impression that Rossi has made that clear in 
> his writings.
> 
> I have kept a close watch on his journal and do not recall ever seeing that 
> mentioned.  In this case I was beginning to think that perhaps I have missed 
> one of his postings, which turned out not to be the case.  My models are 
> based upon what Rossi has actually stated and I need to keep that information 
> accurate.  Can I count on you and others to make a point to state that you 
> are speculating on a new configuration concept unless it is actually written 
> by Rossi?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 5:32 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
> 
> Joseph
> November 5th, 2015 at 12:20 PM
> Dr Andrea Rossi,
> Congratulations for US Patent and for the 146 patents pending and in the 
> making. The story of your life can explain why you are able to do this and 
> work in your plant in the factory of the customer for 16 hours per day. You 
> are unique.
> J.
> Andrea Rossi
> November 5th, 2015 at 11:25 PM
> Joseph,
> Thank you, but if the results will be positive, this will be due also to the 
> work of our Team and also of the great family of this blog, from which so 
> much I have learnt and of Prof Sergio Focardi and Prof Norman Cook, whose 
> book has put the theoretical bases to the evolution of my work during these 
> last 6 years. If the results will be negative, obviously, the responsibility 
> will be totally mine, because I am the one that has taken all the decisions 
> on the battlefield.
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
> 
> Sorry, there are 146 other patents pending.
> 
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:48 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
> That was 2 years ago before the patent was granted.  Do you see anything 
> within the patent that fits into this form?  Rossi is required to supply 
> information that is adequate to construct one of his systems if his patent is 
> to have value.
> 
> It is quite clear that his patented device has nothing resembling a driver 
> module that is different for the other modules.  Please point that out within 
> the written patent.
> 
> Rossi appears to be playing cat and mouse with Hank!  There is nothing like 
> this in the patent that I have seen.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 3:17 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
> 
> Hank Mills
> December 29th, 2013 at 2:34 PM
> Dear Andrea,
> The information you are sharing is facinating. While we wait for the full 
> reports, it gives us something to think upon.
> 1 – If the mouse over stimulates the cat so it runs around in circles 
> continually, not going back to sleep, does the cat always explode?
> 2 – Have you ever witnessed the cat running around in circles for extended 
> periods of time, not needing any extra stimulation, but remaining stable?
> 3 – Other than heat from the mouse, is anything else stimulating the cat 
> during the drive or self sustain periods? It may not work for the hot cat, 
> but I wish there was some low power method of keeping the cat stimulated. For 
> example, like the 100 watts of radio frequencies that kept the one megawatt 
> plant in self sustain mode.
> 4 – By how many degrees on average does the surface of the cat vary from the 
> end of the drive stage to the end of the self sustained stage?
> Andrea Rossi
> December 29th, 2013 at 6:10 PM
> Hank Mill

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[David Roberson]

I assume that your concepts include the various particles such as the 
polyneutron, Erzion, etc. but Rossi has never mentioned any of these.  They may 
be involved in the LENR process, but I suspect that Rossi has never used those 
terms within his postings.

I too have found that he is careful to reveal actual portions of his design but 
sometimes it is nearly impossible to know exactly how to interpret his 
descriptions.  He divulged a great deal of useful information concerning the 
PWM operation of his original ECAT that I found to be applicable within my 
thermal models.  It was with this information that I was able to convince 
myself that it is indeed possible to control a large amount of thermal power 
with a much smaller quantity.  His actual duty cycle works within my computer 
model when I make certain reasonable assumptions.  I was able to achieve a COP 
of 6 in this manner.

It is important to carefully interpret the words that he uses when he writes 
and that is why I request that we are careful to not add our own ideas to what 
is revealed unless acknowledged in our text.  So far I do not see any proof 
that he currently is using 1 drive device to handle 15 others.  That may be the 
case, but his latest patent does not reveal that structure.

It might make sense to use this design if the COP of the new devices is 15 or 
greater except for one situation.  My models show that you need extra power to 
get over the 'hump' before the gain maxes out to 15.  The required drive for 
each to overcome the 'hump' is too great unless driven a few at a time.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 7:49 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement



That is what the Rossi says



I have found that Rossi doen not make misstatements when it comes to egineering 
details. When his product are finally revailed, this pre release statements are 
consistent with the product. Also, synthsys of all available experimental data 
lends insight to what Rossi says. Magnetic confinement of ENPs comes from 
various ENP theories including  the tachyon, the leptonic monopole, the 
polyneutron, and the Erzion...all ENPs and all informative as to how the cause 
of LENR behaves.  







On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:30 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

That is what the Rossi says!  Unfortunately, we do not have any of the other 
patents to review at this time to determine how his new device is structured.  
Until that happens it is wise for us to make it clear that we are speculating 
on a particular issue so that everyone understands that that is the situation.  
When you state with authority that 1 device is driving 15 others people are 
left with the impression that Rossi has made that clear in his writings.

I have kept a close watch on his journal and do not recall ever seeing that 
mentioned.  In this case I was beginning to think that perhaps I have missed 
one of his postings, which turned out not to be the case.  My models are based 
upon what Rossi has actually stated and I need to keep that information 
accurate.  Can I count on you and others to make a point to state that you are 
speculating on a new configuration concept unless it is actually written by 
Rossi?

Thanks,

Dave



 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 

Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 5:32 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement





Joseph
November 5th, 2015 at 12:20 PM
Dr Andrea Rossi,
Congratulations for US Patent and for the 146 patents pending and in the 
making. The story of your life can explain why you are able to do this and work 
in your plant in the factory of the customer for 16 hours per day. You are 
unique.
J.


Andrea Rossi
November 5th, 2015 at 11:25 PM
Joseph,
Thank you, but if the results will be positive, this will be due also to the 
work of our Team and also of the great family of this blog, from which so much 
I have learnt and of Prof Sergio Focardi and Prof Norman Cook, whose book has 
put the theoretical bases to the evolution of my work during these last 6 
years. If the results will be negative, obviously, the responsibility will be 
totally mine, because I am the one that has taken all the decisions on the 
battlefield.
Warm Regards,
A.R.




Sorry, there are 146 other patents pending.



On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:48 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

That was 2 years ago before the patent was granted.  Do you see anything within 
the patent that fits into this form?  Rossi is required to supply information 
that is adequate to construct one of his systems if his patent is to have value.

It is quite clear that his patented device has nothing resembling a driver 
module that is different for the other modules.  Please point that out within 
the written patent.

Rossi appears to be playing cat and mouse with Hank!  There is nothing like 
this in the patent that I have seen.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[Ludwik Kowalski]

Why are Rossi's intentions important, in the context of validating his CMNS 
claims? What the world is waiting for is a protocol which allows reputable 
scientists to replicate his results, and to obtain nearly identical (+/- 30%) 
results. That would be a tremendous contribution, much more valuable than tens 
of patents.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

==
On Dec 2, 2015, at 7:43 PM, David Roberson wrote:

> Axil,
> 
> Do you see any reference in this group of postings to a single mouse driving 
> 15 cats?  I looked at it briefly and can not find it.  There is plenty of 
> speculation on the part of Hank and others but I do not see where Rossi 
> confirms a configuration like we are discussing.
> 
> Much of this information is from 2 years ago and Rossi just recently told me 
> to use the patent as a reference.  What should we use?  The patent seems to 
> be the best indication of his actual intentions.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 5:52 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
> 
> Hank Mills
> December 29th, 2013 at 2:34 PM
> Dear Andrea,
> 
> The information you are sharing is fascinating. While we wait for the full 
> reports, it gives us something to think upon.
> 
> 1 – If the mouse over stimulates the cat so it runs around in circles 
> continually, not going back to sleep, does the cat always explode?
> 
> 2 – Have you ever witnessed the cat running around in circles for extended 
> periods of time, not needing any extra stimulation, but remaining stable?
> 
> 3 – Other than heat from the mouse, is anything else stimulating the cat 
> during the drive or self sustain periods? It may not work for the hot cat, 
> but I wish there was some low power method of keeping the cat stimulated. For 
> example, like the 100 watts of radio frequencies that kept the one megawatt 
> plant in self sustain mode.
> 
> 4 – By how many degrees on average does the surface of the cat vary from the 
> end of the drive stage to the end of the self sustained stage?
> 
> Andrea Rossi
> December 29th, 2013 at 6:10 PM
> Hank Mills:
> 1- no
> 2- confidential
> 3- no
> 4- the temperature of the Cat raises when the Mouse is turned off, lowers 
> when the Mouse is turned on
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
> 
> Hank Mills
> December 27th, 2013 at 7:34 PM
> Dear Andrea,
> 
> What happens if you do not apply power again once you put the reactor in to 
> self sustained mode? Do the reactions try to run away or will they fade over 
> time? With at least some of your previous reactors, if you did not apply 
> power every so often the reactors would run away. However, in one test the 
> data showed when the input power was cut off the reactions gradually faded 
> over time.
> 
> Andrea Rossi
> December 27th, 2013 at 7:56 PM
> Hank Mills:
> If we give too much energy to the reactor the temperature raises above the 
> controllability limits and the reactor explodes. We must maintain the drive 
> below this limit, and it is what we are learning to do, trying to reach a 
> controllability level at the highest temperature possible, because the COP 
> raises exponentially with the operation temperature. The apparatus is made by 
> two well separated components, the activator ( “mouse”) and the energy 
> catalyzar ( “Cat”). Now we have a mouse with a COP above 1 and a Cat with a 
> COP with zero energy consumption. If the Mouse excites the cat too much, the 
> cat gets wild and explodes. We must not risk to reach this level. We have 
> seen explode hunderds of reactors now, this way.
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
> 
> Joseph Fine
> May 12th, 2013 at 8:53 PM
> Dear Andrea Rossi,
> 
> The initiator/Mouse is at low (or zero power) when switched off. It/(the 
> Mouse) consumes 1 kW only 35% of the time (and produces essentially 1.02 kW 
> of heat during this time). Instead of using a (Joe)COP of 2.86(P2/P1) = 286, 
> assume the actual COP is only 100-125. This is admittedly much higher than 
> the presumed COP of 10-12, but lets continue along this path.
> 
> If the “ETA”, or thermal-to-electric conversion efficiency at 350-400 C, is 
> between 30% and 40% (40% is on the high side), and COP is between 100-125, 
> (let alone 200-250) then each 100 kW Hot Cat would be able to drive from 
> .3*100 to .4*125 or 30 – 50 other Hot-Cats. So, each 1 KW input to a 
> first-stage Mouse can produce not 100 KW-th but, by generating 30+ kW-Elec, 
> may be able to drive 30 other second-stage 100 kW Hot Cat devices.
> 
> Even if it is possible to produce 3 MW-thermal with one (1st stage) 1 kW 
> Mouse, it may be much simpler to have 30 1-kW Mice to drive 30 separate 100 
> kW devices.
> 
> Without getting too exuberant, three stages of multiplication by a factor of 
> 20, instead of 30, is already 20^3 = 8000. That is, even if a single 1st 
> stage kW Mouse can only drive 20-100 kW ‘Cats’, three such stages, using a 
> single 1 kW input (gas or e

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[Axil Axil]

Rossi's patents are misleading. For example he states in his patent that
his fuel must be preprocessed involving high heat but he does not say how
he preprocesses that fuel. IMHO, this lack of preprocessing detail in
replication attemps produces failure to replicate.

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:43 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Axil,
>
> Do you see any reference in this group of postings to a single mouse
> driving 15 cats?  I looked at it briefly and can not find it.  There is
> plenty of speculation on the part of Hank and others but I do not see where
> Rossi confirms a configuration like we are discussing.
>
> Much of this information is from 2 years ago and Rossi just recently told
> me to use the patent as a reference.  What should we use?  The patent seems
> to be the best indication of his actual intentions.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 5:52 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
>
> Hank Mills
> December 29th, 2013 at 2:34 PM
> Dear Andrea,
>
> The information you are sharing is facinating. While we wait for the full
> reports, it gives us something to think upon.
>
> 1 – If the mouse over stimulates the cat so it runs around in circles
> continually, not going back to sleep, does the cat always explode?
>
> 2 – Have you ever witnessed the cat running around in circles for extended
> periods of time, not needing any extra stimulation, but remaining stable?
>
> 3 – Other than heat from the mouse, is anything else stimulating the cat
> during the drive or self sustain periods? It may not work for the hot cat,
> but I wish there was some low power method of keeping the cat stimulated.
> For example, like the 100 watts of radio frequencies that kept the one
> megawatt plant in self sustain mode.
>
> 4 – By how many degrees on average does the surface of the cat vary from
> the end of the drive stage to the end of the self sustained stage?
>
> Andrea Rossi
> December 29th, 2013 at 6:10 PM
> Hank Mills:
> 1- no
> 2- confidential
> 3- no
> 4- the temperature of the Cat raises when the Mouse is turned off, lowers
> when the Mouse is turned on
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
>
> Hank Mills
> December 27th, 2013 at 7:34 PM
> Dear Andrea,
>
> What happens if you do not apply power again once you put the reactor in
> to self sustained mode? Do the reactions try to run away or will they fade
> over time? With at least some of your previous reactors, if you did not
> apply power every so often the reactors would run away. However, in one
> test the data showed when the input power was cut off the reactions
> gradually faded over time.
>
> Andrea Rossi
> December 27th, 2013 at 7:56 PM
> Hank Mills:
> If we give too much energy to the reactor the temperature raises above the
> controllability limits and the reactor explodes. We must maintain the drive
> below this limit, and it is what we are learning to do, trying to reach a
> controllability level at the highest temperature possible, because the COP
> raises exponentially with the operation temperature. The apparatus is made
> by two well separated components, the activator ( “mouse”) and the energy
> catalyzar ( “Cat”). Now we have a mouse with a COP above 1 and a Cat with a
> COP with zero energy consumption. If the Mouse excites the cat too much,
> the cat gets wild and explodes. We must not risk to reach this level. We
> have seen explode hunderds of reactors now, this way.
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
>
> Joseph Fine
> May 12th, 2013 at 8:53 PM
> Dear Andrea Rossi,
>
> The initiator/Mouse is at low (or zero power) when switched off. It/(the
> Mouse) consumes 1 kW only 35% of the time (and produces essentially 1.02 kW
> of heat during this time). Instead of using a (Joe)COP of 2.86(P2/P1) =
> 286, assume the actual COP is only 100-125. This is admittedly much higher
> than the presumed COP of 10-12, but lets continue along this path.
>
> If the “ETA”, or thermal-to-electric conversion efficiency at 350-400 C,
> is between 30% and 40% (40% is on the high side), and COP is between
> 100-125, (let alone 200-250) then each 100 kW Hot Cat would be able to
> drive from .3*100 to .4*125 or 30 – 50 other Hot-Cats. So, each 1 KW input
> to a first-stage Mouse can produce not 100 KW-th but, by generating 30+
> kW-Elec, may be able to drive 30 other second-stage 100 kW Hot Cat devices.
>
> Even if it is possible to produce 3 MW-thermal with one (1st stage) 1 kW
> Mouse, it may be much simpler to have 30 1-kW Mice to drive 30 separate 100
> kW devices.
>
> Without getting too exuberant, three stages of multiplication by a factor
> of 20, instead of 30, is already 20^3 = 8000. That is, even if a single 1st
> stage kW Mouse can only drive 20-100 kW ‘Cats’, three such stages, using a
> single 1 kW input (gas or electric), ultimately might produce 8000*100 kW
> or 800 MW of heat.
>
> And if you can produce 800 MW of heat, or even much less, why do you need
> a 1 kW input? (Other than for s

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[Axil Axil]

That is what the Rossi says

I have found that Rossi doen not make misstatements when it comes to
egineering details. When his product are finally revailed, this pre release
statements are consistent with the product. Also, synthsys of all
available experimental data lends insight to what Rossi
says. Magnetic confinement of ENPs comes from various
ENP theories including  the tachyon, the leptonic monopole, the polyneutron,
and the Erzion...all ENPs and all informative as to how the cause of LENR
behaves.



On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:30 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> That is what the Rossi says!  Unfortunately, we do not have any of the
> other patents to review at this time to determine how his new device is
> structured.  Until that happens it is wise for us to make it clear that we
> are speculating on a particular issue so that everyone understands that
> that is the situation.  When you state with authority that 1 device is
> driving 15 others people are left with the impression that Rossi has made
> that clear in his writings.
>
> I have kept a close watch on his journal and do not recall ever seeing
> that mentioned.  In this case I was beginning to think that perhaps I have
> missed one of his postings, which turned out not to be the case.  My models
> are based upon what Rossi has actually stated and I need to keep that
> information accurate.  Can I count on you and others to make a point to
> state that you are speculating on a new configuration concept unless it is
> actually written by Rossi?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 5:32 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
>
>
>1. Joseph
>November 5th, 2015 at 12:20 PM
>
>Dr Andrea Rossi,
>Congratulations for US Patent and for the 146 patents pending and in
>the making. The story of your life can explain why you are able to do this
>and work in your plant in the factory of the customer for 16 hours per day.
>You are unique.
>J.
>2. Andrea Rossi
>November 5th, 2015 at 11:25 PM
>
>Joseph,
>Thank you, but if the results will be positive, this will be due also
>to the work of our Team and also of the great family of this blog, from
>which so much I have learnt and of Prof Sergio Focardi and Prof Norman
>Cook, whose book has put the theoretical bases to the evolution of my work
>during these last 6 years. If the results will be negative, obviously, the
>responsibility will be totally mine, because I am the one that has taken
>all the decisions on the battlefield.
>Warm Regards,
>A.R.
>
>
> Sorry, there are 146 other patents pending.
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:48 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> That was 2 years ago before the patent was granted.  Do you see anything
>> within the patent that fits into this form?  Rossi is required to supply
>> information that is adequate to construct one of his systems if his patent
>> is to have value.
>>
>> It is quite clear that his patented device has nothing resembling a
>> driver module that is different for the other modules.  Please point that
>> out within the written patent.
>>
>> Rossi appears to be playing cat and mouse with Hank!  There is nothing
>> like this in the patent that I have seen.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 3:17 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
>>
>>
>>1. Hank Mills
>>December 29th, 2013 at 2:34 PM
>>
>>Dear Andrea,
>>The information you are sharing is facinating. While we wait for the
>>full reports, it gives us something to think upon.
>>1 – If the mouse over stimulates the cat so it runs around in circles
>>continually, not going back to sleep, does the cat always explode?
>>2 – Have you ever witnessed the cat running around in circles for
>>extended periods of time, not needing any extra stimulation, but remaining
>>stable?
>>3 – Other than heat from the mouse, is anything else stimulating the
>>cat during the drive or self sustain periods? It may not work for the hot
>>cat, but I wish there was some low power method of keeping the cat
>>stimulated. For example, like the 100 watts of radio frequencies that kept
>>the one megawatt plant in self sustain mode.
>>4 – By how many degrees on average does the surface of the cat vary
>>from the end of the drive stage to the end of the self sustained stage?
>>2. Andrea Rossi
>>December 29th, 2013 at 6:10 PM
>>
>>Hank Mills:
>>1- no
>>2- confidential
>>3-

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[David Roberson]

Axil,

Do you see any reference in this group of postings to a single mouse driving 15 
cats?  I looked at it briefly and can not find it.  There is plenty of 
speculation on the part of Hank and others but I do not see where Rossi 
confirms a configuration like we are discussing.

Much of this information is from 2 years ago and Rossi just recently told me to 
use the patent as a reference.  What should we use?  The patent seems to be the 
best indication of his actual intentions.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 5:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement



Hank Mills
December 29th, 2013 at 2:34 PM
Dear Andrea,


The information you are sharing is facinating. While we wait for the full 
reports, it gives us something to think upon.


1 – If the mouse over stimulates the cat so it runs around in circles 
continually, not going back to sleep, does the cat always explode?


2 – Have you ever witnessed the cat running around in circles for extended 
periods of time, not needing any extra stimulation, but remaining stable?


3 – Other than heat from the mouse, is anything else stimulating the cat during 
the drive or self sustain periods? It may not work for the hot cat, but I wish 
there was some low power method of keeping the cat stimulated. For example, 
like the 100 watts of radio frequencies that kept the one megawatt plant in 
self sustain mode.


4 – By how many degrees on average does the surface of the cat vary from the 
end of the drive stage to the end of the self sustained stage?


Andrea Rossi
December 29th, 2013 at 6:10 PM
Hank Mills:
1- no
2- confidential
3- no
4- the temperature of the Cat raises when the Mouse is turned off, lowers when 
the Mouse is turned on
Warm Regards,
A.R.


Hank Mills
December 27th, 2013 at 7:34 PM
Dear Andrea,


What happens if you do not apply power again once you put the reactor in to 
self sustained mode? Do the reactions try to run away or will they fade over 
time? With at least some of your previous reactors, if you did not apply power 
every so often the reactors would run away. However, in one test the data 
showed when the input power was cut off the reactions gradually faded over time.


Andrea Rossi
December 27th, 2013 at 7:56 PM
Hank Mills:
If we give too much energy to the reactor the temperature raises above the 
controllability limits and the reactor explodes. We must maintain the drive 
below this limit, and it is what we are learning to do, trying to reach a 
controllability level at the highest temperature possible, because the COP 
raises exponentially with the operation temperature. The apparatus is made by 
two well separated components, the activator ( “mouse”) and the energy 
catalyzar ( “Cat”). Now we have a mouse with a COP above 1 and a Cat with a COP 
with zero energy consumption. If the Mouse excites the cat too much, the cat 
gets wild and explodes. We must not risk to reach this level. We have seen 
explode hunderds of reactors now, this way.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


Joseph Fine
May 12th, 2013 at 8:53 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi,


The initiator/Mouse is at low (or zero power) when switched off. It/(the Mouse) 
consumes 1 kW only 35% of the time (and produces essentially 1.02 kW of heat 
during this time). Instead of using a (Joe)COP of 2.86(P2/P1) = 286, assume the 
actual COP is only 100-125. This is admittedly much higher than the presumed 
COP of 10-12, but lets continue along this path.


If the “ETA”, or thermal-to-electric conversion efficiency at 350-400 C, is 
between 30% and 40% (40% is on the high side), and COP is between 100-125, (let 
alone 200-250) then each 100 kW Hot Cat would be able to drive from .3*100 to 
.4*125 or 30 – 50 other Hot-Cats. So, each 1 KW input to a first-stage Mouse 
can produce not 100 KW-th but, by generating 30+ kW-Elec, may be able to drive 
30 other second-stage 100 kW Hot Cat devices.


Even if it is possible to produce 3 MW-thermal with one (1st stage) 1 kW Mouse, 
it may be much simpler to have 30 1-kW Mice to drive 30 separate 100 kW devices.


Without getting too exuberant, three stages of multiplication by a factor of 
20, instead of 30, is already 20^3 = 8000. That is, even if a single 1st stage 
kW Mouse can only drive 20-100 kW ‘Cats’, three such stages, using a single 1 
kW input (gas or electric), ultimately might produce 8000*100 kW or 800 MW of 
heat.


And if you can produce 800 MW of heat, or even much less, why do you need a 1 
kW input? (Other than for start-ups.)


0) Is that the basic concept of what you are trying to accomplish?


1) When a 100 kW HotCat or Tiger-Cat is not in the self-sustained mode (SSM), 
what mode or state is it in? In other words, how much thermal power is produced 
during the 35% of time the 100 kW Cat is not in SSM? Does it have an electrical 
input to bring it back under control? Or do you simply remove its input 
Hydrogen (Idrogen) supply?


Multi-stage regards,


Joseph Fi

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:

Jed, maybe I feel differently about some issues that others.  I honestly,
> strongly dislike the appearance of the large wind turbines . . .


I don't care for the looks of them either. A British politician called them
"toilet scrub brushes in the sky." However, they look better than billowing
smoke or even steam. Steam kills lots of birds and uses up tremendous
amounts of water. They look better than the sight of 1.5 million funerals
in China, or 20,000 in the U.S.



> and also find the solar plants to be using far too much land and currently
> as unattractive as the wind farms.
>

They take up less land than coal mines or natural gas pipeline
right-of-ways. Most of the land used for wind turbines can also be used for
agriculture, grazing cows, etc. The footprint on the ground is much smaller
per megawatt than other energy sources.

Solar panels can be installed on flat building roof and other wasted space.
This could generate about a third of peak electricity, as I recall, with
essentially no land use at all.



> Perhaps one day it will be possible to use much of the area of home roofs
> for solar cell collection, and it may even become possible to make these
> look attractive in some way.


It is possible today. They are doing that in Hawaii, to the point of
putting the electric power company out of business.



> If our energy needs can be met without breaking the bank, then I would
> love to see it happen.


As one energy expert put it: this is not a free lunch; it is a lunch you
are paid to eat. Alternative energy will not "break the bank" -- it will
save more than it costs, especially when you include the cost of all those
funerals and wars.

1.5 million lives is an extravagant cost for electricity, wouldn't you say?
Even 20,000 is unthinkable. Imagine what would happen if the airlines
killed 20,000 passengers, or a grocery chain killed 20,000 people from food
poisoning.

Of course cold fusion would save far more money than alternative energy.



> I wish I felt as confident as you that the problems can be solved in a
> reasonable manner without LENR or some similar miracle.


First, the problems are not so profound. There are dozens of potential
solutions.

Second, the resources are gigantic. Much bigger than most people realize.
U.S. wind power in North and South Dakota could generate a flow of liquid
fuel larger than the flow of oil pumped from the Middle East. Wind energy
on the North Sea could provide four times more energy than Europe consumes.
A single installation about 100 miles to the side (as I recall) in the U.S.
southeast desert could supply all the energy in North America.

Third, history shows that many difficult technical problems were solved
completely, to the point where they are now trivial. The production of ice,
for example, or illumination, or computer data storage. These used to be
hugely expensive and problematic.



> And, let's hope that a method arises that allows us to extract the
> government from complete control of our energy in the future.
>

The government does not control energy, and it never has. The oil, gas and
electric power companies do. There are municipal power companies. They are
usually cheaper than the privately owned ones, which indicates it would be
better if the government controlled energy. At least for electricity.

Energy from solar panels on your roof will be controlled by you.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[David Roberson]

That is what the Rossi says!  Unfortunately, we do not have any of the other 
patents to review at this time to determine how his new device is structured.  
Until that happens it is wise for us to make it clear that we are speculating 
on a particular issue so that everyone understands that that is the situation.  
When you state with authority that 1 device is driving 15 others people are 
left with the impression that Rossi has made that clear in his writings.

I have kept a close watch on his journal and do not recall ever seeing that 
mentioned.  In this case I was beginning to think that perhaps I have missed 
one of his postings, which turned out not to be the case.  My models are based 
upon what Rossi has actually stated and I need to keep that information 
accurate.  Can I count on you and others to make a point to state that you are 
speculating on a new configuration concept unless it is actually written by 
Rossi?

Thanks,

Dave



 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 5:32 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement





Joseph
November 5th, 2015 at 12:20 PM
Dr Andrea Rossi,
Congratulations for US Patent and for the 146 patents pending and in the 
making. The story of your life can explain why you are able to do this and work 
in your plant in the factory of the customer for 16 hours per day. You are 
unique.
J.


Andrea Rossi
November 5th, 2015 at 11:25 PM
Joseph,
Thank you, but if the results will be positive, this will be due also to the 
work of our Team and also of the great family of this blog, from which so much 
I have learnt and of Prof Sergio Focardi and Prof Norman Cook, whose book has 
put the theoretical bases to the evolution of my work during these last 6 
years. If the results will be negative, obviously, the responsibility will be 
totally mine, because I am the one that has taken all the decisions on the 
battlefield.
Warm Regards,
A.R.




Sorry, there are 146 other patents pending.



On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:48 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

That was 2 years ago before the patent was granted.  Do you see anything within 
the patent that fits into this form?  Rossi is required to supply information 
that is adequate to construct one of his systems if his patent is to have value.

It is quite clear that his patented device has nothing resembling a driver 
module that is different for the other modules.  Please point that out within 
the written patent.

Rossi appears to be playing cat and mouse with Hank!  There is nothing like 
this in the patent that I have seen.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 

Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 3:17 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement





Hank Mills
December 29th, 2013 at 2:34 PM
Dear Andrea,
The information you are sharing is facinating. While we wait for the full 
reports, it gives us something to think upon.
1 – If the mouse over stimulates the cat so it runs around in circles 
continually, not going back to sleep, does the cat always explode?
2 – Have you ever witnessed the cat running around in circles for extended 
periods of time, not needing any extra stimulation, but remaining stable?
3 – Other than heat from the mouse, is anything else stimulating the cat during 
the drive or self sustain periods? It may not work for the hot cat, but I wish 
there was some low power method of keeping the cat stimulated. For example, 
like the 100 watts of radio frequencies that kept the one megawatt plant in 
self sustain mode.
4 – By how many degrees on average does the surface of the cat vary from the 
end of the drive stage to the end of the self sustained stage?


Andrea Rossi
December 29th, 2013 at 6:10 PM
Hank Mills:
1- no
2- confidential
3- no
4- the temperature of the Cat raises when the Mouse is turned off, lowers when 
the Mouse is turned on
Warm Regards,
A.R.




On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

Rossi has provided a comprehensive explanation of the Cat and Mouse reactor 
clustering method in bits and pieces throughout his Q&A blog. One of them 
explains how the shutdown of power from the Mouse causes the Cat to be 
stimulated.


I now take this to mean that when Rossi shuts off a magnetic confinements field 
coil that keeps the ENP inside the mouse, the Cats take off because the ENPs 
can then get into the Cats to stimulate the LENR reaction. 




On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

I have also seen the reference to the 16 reactors.  The question is whether or 
not 1 is the driver with 15 following devices.  Where did you see anything 
about a special type of driver device among the other 15?  Did Rossi state this 
or is it entirely your assumption?

Dave

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 

Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 2:12 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement



Roland  Bob • 17 hours ago


Hi Bob,
Each 250kVA module is composed o

Re: [Vo]:[OT]: Toward a More Scientifically Literate Public

[Axil Axil]

Regarding:

Toward a More Scientifically Literate Public
http://today.ucf.edu/toward-a-more-scientifically-literate-public/

Michael Bass,
What would happen if the cause of Cold fusion was based on Photonics, your
specialty? lf the experts that the public trusts whose scientific
specialties include nuclear physics astrophysics, and particle physics and
who have declared that Cold fusion is pathological science have no
background in photonics to make that unequivocal statement about cold
fusion. You understand that photonics is far removed from mainstream
nuclear physics. It involves obscure quantum mechanical processes, wave
physics, and quasiparticle formulations such as the polariton. What if the
cause of cold fusion involved the dark mode Surface Plasmon Polariton
(SPP)? What expert in science would understand it in the required depth
besides you? The fields of science have become too broad and unconnected
for one expert to make absolute statements about other obscure phenomena in
another field of science.

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Mark Jurich  wrote:

> FYI:
>
> I think this opinion is crying out for a well written and thought out
> response.  Are you up to the task?  Not sure if replies get posted or they
> are just submitted to the web master:
>
> http://today.ucf.edu/toward-a-more-scientifically-literate-public/
>

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[David Roberson]

Ransom,

Perhaps you are right that it is not important to become too upset about the 
global warming issue.   It is certainly beyond my control and even though I 
detect plenty of dishonest behavior on behalf of the scientists that are being 
used as pawns by political operatives, it is best to leave the subject alone.  
From hence forth, I plan to respond in short form to any questions that arise 
on the issue.

Dave
 

 

-Original Message-
From: Ransom Wuller 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 5:12 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments



David:
 
Countries like the US are already throttling their economies even as the cost 
of energy has been cut in half.Energy will not be a limiter under the 
system currently in place regardless of carbon limits.  
 
Hence, you are imaging a PERIL that doesn’t exist because you don’t understand 
current economics.   You really don’t need to get all worked up even if the 
Global Warming Scientists turn out to wrong or only minimally right.  Your 
conclusions regarding PERIL are wrong.  However, if Global Warming Scientists 
are right or even partially right, we may be in real PERIL and that is worth 
the current international efforts.  Which is why you should be supporting the 
efforts for carbon emission reductions (it can’t hurt and may help).  The 
reason you are taking the position you do has little to do with the science of 
climate and everything to do with your misunderstanding of economics.
 
Ransom
 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 3:39 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

 
The peril is that countries such as the USA will throttle their economies by 
making energy too expensive.  The end result is that millions will find their 
standard of living much reduced for a cause that is beyond mankind's control.   
The wealthy people of the world will not suffer too severely, but the poor are 
going to take a beating as is generally the case.  

Also, it will be a bad day if and when the world's energy supplies become 
regulated by one central authority.  The opportunity for abuse is astounding!

If LENR ever proves itself to be the new energy source we are hoping for, then 
the problem will be solved without any corrupt intervention.   I have great 
hopes for Rossi, but until we have proof I remain a bit skeptical.  My thermal 
models suggest that what he says is true provided his fuel actually delivers 
the required watts per kilogram for an extended time period. 


Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Ransom Wuller 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 4:11 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments


David:

 

You said: “No one should assume that the guys making the global climate 
computer models are great experts, which is what is happening at the world's 
peril.”

 

What PERIL?  

 

Ransom

 


From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 2:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments


 

The YouTube reference is dead on!

Jed, you can research the global warming discussion and become more informed.  
No one should assume that the guys making the global climate computer models 
are great experts, which is what is happening at the world's peril.   If you 
take the time to look into the subject, you will see that those models have all 
missed the real world tests by a rather large margin and need to be modified 
every couple of years.   Why do you suppose this is true?

A person can argue that only the high priests of climate have the answers, much 
like you are saying, but when they fail to make correct predictions it is time 
to question them.   Every one of their models predicts that the earth should be 
hotter than it actually is measured to be after a modest period of time 
elapses.  Of course, a new correction factor is then established which keeps 
them functioning a bit longer, but only for a short time into the future.  
Anyone familiar with curve fitting can readily see what they are achieving by 
this technique.  It is tragic that anyone accepts that they are experts in 
anything but guessing the future climate!

Dave


 


 


 


-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 3:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments




Lennart Thornros  wrote:



 



Let us leave the dispute about organizations.


I actually started to address the topic in the headline by saying:


The debate about global warming is far from conclusive. I do not know the 
answer.



 


You do not know the answer, but experts in climatology say they do know it. 
They are probably right. Non-experts from outside a field -- such as the plasma 
fusion scientists who attacked cold fusion -- are usually wrong.


 


You probably k

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Bob Higgins]

Obviously the effects of human carbon pollution of our atmosphere is a very
contentious topic.  There are plenty of reasons to make a concerted effort
to reduce carbon contribution in our atmosphere, not just warming - real or
otherwise.  The normal CO2 level in the 200-300 ppm level is compatible
with human life.  CO2 is a reasonably poisonous gas for mammalian
exposure.  The concentration can be much higher in inversion areas,
particularly in China.  The average person doesn't realize that burning 1
tank (20 gallons) of gas puts 360 pounds of CO2 in the air.  That's a lot
of gas!  Improved fuel economy has probably halved the annual
amount/vehicle added to the atmosphere in the last 20 years to the economic
advantage of the drivers at the same time.  It is an example of win-win.
To be successful in further reduction of carbon in the atmosphere, there
will have to be a succession of win-wins.

It is up to the highly developed nations to find a solution to reduce the
carbon pollution of the atmosphere so that the developing nations can take
advantage of the improved technology without going through a phase of high
pollution.

Bob

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:14 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

>  Have you actually taken the time to look at how that 97% figure was
>> determined?  If you did, you would have seen that it was proven false and
>> that the university for which the scientist worked could not be forced to
>> release the procedure used to reach that figure.  A hacker finally obtained
>> the data!
>>
>
> >I am sure that is bullshit. When a university researcher or public
> opinion pollster does not release data, no one ever believes him. He loses
> all credibility. Besides, no one would believe a 97% figure that from a
> single study in social science or any other field. You need other sources
> of evidence pointing to the same thing. Such as the weight of published
> papers, statements by professional organizations and so on.<
>
> I wish that you take the time to follow up on this one Jed!  It really did
> happen as I point out.  The university threatened to sue that hacker
> because he released data that they considered confidential.  If you do not
> find time to check out any of the other things I have said I beg of you to
> at least look into this one.  That will open your eyes to much of the other
> problems concerning man made global warming.
>
> Since you are so confident that this is BS, I feel that you owe it to me
> to check it out and apologize on this list if you find I am correct.  On
> the other hand, I will agree to do the same if you can show the opposite.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave
>

RE: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Ransom Wuller]

David:

 

Just to clarify my point, I have no idea, personally, if man is a main 
contributor to issues regarding climate change or an insignificant contributor. 
 

 

My point is simply that I would rather error on the side of caution since doing 
so is harmless.  So to me, man MAY be contributing to climate change (since we 
do know CO2 is a green house gas) and reducing our contribution to CO2 levels 
is entirely harmless (in my opinion).  You think current efforts to reduce 
carbon emissions will have an adverse effect on the economy of the world.  I 
completely disagree.  That is our disconnect.   

 

In my mind all the “Global Warming Hoax” crowd are not really concerned about 
climate science but a perceived effect on economics.  If they realized that 
their economic concern was entirely misplaced would they be so passionate about 
the subject?  I don’t think so.

 

Ransom

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 5:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

 

Ransom,

Thanks for the positive things you have stated about my previous postings.  I 
realize that this particular issue is very polarized and hesitated to become 
involved in the discussion, but one should not stand by and let bad science be 
used without pointing it out.

I once accepted the global warming issue as being valid, but decided to see 
just how severe the problem was according to information available on the web.  
I was amazed to find that things were not as I had expected.  It concerned me 
greatly that proponents of the issue were carefully adjusting their dates and 
neglecting historical data in order to make their point.

The more I reviewed the data, the more I realized that something was not right 
concerning what we are being told.  I understand that you apparently are still 
convinced that man is the main contributor to the problem, but have you 
actually reviewed the data yourself?  I was under the same perception as you 
before I checked the facts.

I am open to being corrected in my understanding if anyone can prove that 
strong nonscientific motives are being applied to prove that man is not the 
main contributor to global warming.   Are you effectively stating that the 
information contained within most of that material is fabricated?   Am I 
mistaken to believe that a little ice age occurred around 1800 because of false 
data?   The records show that sun spots were not significant at the same time 
as the cooling.   I also know for a fact that Jefferson had an ice house where 
he stored ice that was cut from a nearby river during the winter to keep foods 
cool during the summer.   Now, you would have a difficult time finding ice to 
cut in that area.   There was very little river ice there even before the 
1940's when the pollution began in earnest.

Do you believe that there was no warming period during which the Vikings farmed 
southern areas of Greenland during the warmer middle ages when the temperatures 
were apparently warmer than today?  How about the period from 1940 to about 
1970 when these same types of scientists were warning about an ice age 
beginning due to the cooling that was evident even though carbon dioxide levels 
were well on the way upwards?

I just want to add one more question to the list that I find hard to answer.  
Why do all the folks that have such great concern for the global warming 
problem hide the fact that 95% of the warming gas is water vapor?  And, of 
course, they make assumptions that there is a large multiplier associated with 
the effect of carbon dioxide on that water vapor.  None of them think that the 
carbon dioxide alone is going to be a significant problem without the large 
multiplier.

What unscientific motive could we apply to the professor that started the 
entire carbon dioxide concern who later realize he was in error?  I could go on 
but it would be better for you and anyone else who wants to seek the truth to 
do their own research.  With due respect, anyone that accepts the settled 
science without any question is a bit naive.

The climate is going to change with or without us being involved and thus far 
it has not been established that the generally warming episode that is 
currently taking place is bad for the world or mankind.  Everything I have seen 
suggests that the world is becoming greener as a result of the carbon we are 
releasing.  The computer models are not realistic as of today and can not be 
counted upon to predict with any degree of accuracy the climate in 100 years, 
since apparently they weigh the effect of carbon dioxide much too heavily to 
generate their predictions.

The politically correct answer would be to spend a trillion dollars a year to 
attempt to prevent something that does not appear to be a problem.  Who would 
be asked to make this contribution when so many people are starving around the 
world?  Can we win in a batt

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[David Roberson]

Jed, maybe I feel differently about some issues that others.  I honestly, 
strongly dislike the appearance of the large wind turbines and also find the 
solar plants to be using far too much land and currently as unattractive as the 
wind farms.

Perhaps one day it will be possible to use much of the area of home roofs for 
solar cell collection, and it may even become possible to make these look 
attractive in some way.  If our energy needs can be met without breaking the 
bank, then I would love to see it happen.  As we all know, one day fossil fuels 
will become depleted and then we are going to be in trouble unless another 
solution exists.  My hopes are currently being placed upon Rossi and LENR, but 
remain skeptical.  It reminds me of the torture achieved by a thousand small 
cuts as we push him forward.  His F9 key is causing me a major headache!

I wish I felt as confident as you that the problems can be solved in a 
reasonable manner without LENR or some similar miracle.  And, let's hope that a 
method arises that allows us to extract the government from complete control of 
our energy in the future.

Dave


 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 4:53 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments




David Roberson  wrote:


The peril is that countries such as the USA will throttle their economies by 
making energy too expensive.


That's hardly likely! It is getting cheaper by the day. The cost of wind and 
solar energy will soon be less than fossil fuel. Especially when you take into 
account the 20,000 people year who die from coal smoke, and the millions of 
people who are sickened by other air pollution.


Even if global warming is not real, the present-day total cost of fossil fuel 
energy probably make it more expensive than alternatives such as wind and 
solar, when you included hidden costs such as pollution, wars fought over oil, 
massive subsidies for oil and coal, and so on.


You really should not worry about things like that.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[David Roberson]

 
 Have you actually taken the time to look at how that 97% figure was 
determined?  If you did, you would have seen that it was proven false and that 
the university for which the scientist worked could not be forced to release 
the procedure used to reach that figure.  A hacker finally obtained the data!



>I am sure that is bullshit. When a university researcher or public opinion 
>pollster does not release data, no one ever believes him. He loses all 
>credibility. Besides, no one would believe a 97% figure that from a single 
>study in social science or any other field. You need other sources of evidence 
>pointing to the same thing. Such as the weight of published papers, statements 
>by professional organizations and so on.<

I wish that you take the time to follow up on this one Jed!  It really did 
happen as I point out.  The university threatened to sue that hacker because he 
released data that they considered confidential.  If you do not find time to 
check out any of the other things I have said I beg of you to at least look 
into this one.  That will open your eyes to much of the other problems 
concerning man made global warming.

Since you are so confident that this is BS, I feel that you owe it to me to 
check it out and apologize on this list if you find I am correct.  On the other 
hand, I will agree to do the same if you can show the opposite.

Thanks,

Dave

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[David Roberson]

Ransom,

Thanks for the positive things you have stated about my previous postings.  I 
realize that this particular issue is very polarized and hesitated to become 
involved in the discussion, but one should not stand by and let bad science be 
used without pointing it out.

I once accepted the global warming issue as being valid, but decided to see 
just how severe the problem was according to information available on the web.  
I was amazed to find that things were not as I had expected.  It concerned me 
greatly that proponents of the issue were carefully adjusting their dates and 
neglecting historical data in order to make their point.

The more I reviewed the data, the more I realized that something was not right 
concerning what we are being told.  I understand that you apparently are still 
convinced that man is the main contributor to the problem, but have you 
actually reviewed the data yourself?  I was under the same perception as you 
before I checked the facts.

I am open to being corrected in my understanding if anyone can prove that 
strong nonscientific motives are being applied to prove that man is not the 
main contributor to global warming.   Are you effectively stating that the 
information contained within most of that material is fabricated?   Am I 
mistaken to believe that a little ice age occurred around 1800 because of false 
data?   The records show that sun spots were not significant at the same time 
as the cooling.   I also know for a fact that Jefferson had an ice house where 
he stored ice that was cut from a nearby river during the winter to keep foods 
cool during the summer.   Now, you would have a difficult time finding ice to 
cut in that area.   There was very little river ice there even before the 
1940's when the pollution began in earnest.

Do you believe that there was no warming period during which the Vikings farmed 
southern areas of Greenland during the warmer middle ages when the temperatures 
were apparently warmer than today?  How about the period from 1940 to about 
1970 when these same types of scientists were warning about an ice age 
beginning due to the cooling that was evident even though carbon dioxide levels 
were well on the way upwards?

I just want to add one more question to the list that I find hard to answer.  
Why do all the folks that have such great concern for the global warming 
problem hide the fact that 95% of the warming gas is water vapor?  And, of 
course, they make assumptions that there is a large multiplier associated with 
the effect of carbon dioxide on that water vapor.  None of them think that the 
carbon dioxide alone is going to be a significant problem without the large 
multiplier.

What unscientific motive could we apply to the professor that started the 
entire carbon dioxide concern who later realize he was in error?  I could go on 
but it would be better for you and anyone else who wants to seek the truth to 
do their own research.  With due respect, anyone that accepts the settled 
science without any question is a bit naive.

The climate is going to change with or without us being involved and thus far 
it has not been established that the generally warming episode that is 
currently taking place is bad for the world or mankind.  Everything I have seen 
suggests that the world is becoming greener as a result of the carbon we are 
releasing.  The computer models are not realistic as of today and can not be 
counted upon to predict with any degree of accuracy the climate in 100 years, 
since apparently they weigh the effect of carbon dioxide much too heavily to 
generate their predictions.

The politically correct answer would be to spend a trillion dollars a year to 
attempt to prevent something that does not appear to be a problem.  Who would 
be asked to make this contribution when so many people are starving around the 
world?  Can we win in a battle against the world itself?  What if we were to 
succeed and start the world plunging into another ice age due to our 
intervention?  Can we be sure this will not occur?

It is unfortunate that we are not able to find common ground on this subject, 
but I feel that I have taken the time to become better informed than many.   
Perhaps you believe that I have become mislead by the global warming deniers 
but I instead suggest that you may be under the influence of those that would 
take away your civil rights using scare tactics.  Please take the time to study 
the issue before you pass judgement on my beliefs.

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Ransom Wuller 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 3:41 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments



David:
 
I typically enjoy your posts but I find the “Global Warming Hoax” material 
utterly ridiculous.  It is being driven by strong nonscientific motives.  
Please examine your motives for embracing it.  
 
Then answer this question,  “If there is even a minimal chance that WE 
(humanity) ar

RE: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Jones Beene]

Coincidentally – speaking of the real cost of coal…

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/12/01/chinas-smog-closes-schools-and-highways/76611310/

 

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

Especially when you take into account the 20,000 people year who die from coal 
smoke . . .

 

20,000 people in the U.S. that is. In China roughly 1.5 million people die per 
year from coal smoke.

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[Axil Axil]

Hank Mills
December 29th, 2013 at 2:34 PM
Dear Andrea,

The information you are sharing is facinating. While we wait for the full
reports, it gives us something to think upon.

1 – If the mouse over stimulates the cat so it runs around in circles
continually, not going back to sleep, does the cat always explode?

2 – Have you ever witnessed the cat running around in circles for extended
periods of time, not needing any extra stimulation, but remaining stable?

3 – Other than heat from the mouse, is anything else stimulating the cat
during the drive or self sustain periods? It may not work for the hot cat,
but I wish there was some low power method of keeping the cat stimulated.
For example, like the 100 watts of radio frequencies that kept the one
megawatt plant in self sustain mode.

4 – By how many degrees on average does the surface of the cat vary from
the end of the drive stage to the end of the self sustained stage?

Andrea Rossi
December 29th, 2013 at 6:10 PM
Hank Mills:
1- no
2- confidential
3- no
4- the temperature of the Cat raises when the Mouse is turned off, lowers
when the Mouse is turned on
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Hank Mills
December 27th, 2013 at 7:34 PM
Dear Andrea,

What happens if you do not apply power again once you put the reactor in to
self sustained mode? Do the reactions try to run away or will they fade
over time? With at least some of your previous reactors, if you did not
apply power every so often the reactors would run away. However, in one
test the data showed when the input power was cut off the reactions
gradually faded over time.

Andrea Rossi
December 27th, 2013 at 7:56 PM
Hank Mills:
If we give too much energy to the reactor the temperature raises above the
controllability limits and the reactor explodes. We must maintain the drive
below this limit, and it is what we are learning to do, trying to reach a
controllability level at the highest temperature possible, because the COP
raises exponentially with the operation temperature. The apparatus is made
by two well separated components, the activator ( “mouse”) and the energy
catalyzar ( “Cat”). Now we have a mouse with a COP above 1 and a Cat with a
COP with zero energy consumption. If the Mouse excites the cat too much,
the cat gets wild and explodes. We must not risk to reach this level. We
have seen explode hunderds of reactors now, this way.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Joseph Fine
May 12th, 2013 at 8:53 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi,

The initiator/Mouse is at low (or zero power) when switched off. It/(the
Mouse) consumes 1 kW only 35% of the time (and produces essentially 1.02 kW
of heat during this time). Instead of using a (Joe)COP of 2.86(P2/P1) =
286, assume the actual COP is only 100-125. This is admittedly much higher
than the presumed COP of 10-12, but lets continue along this path.

If the “ETA”, or thermal-to-electric conversion efficiency at 350-400 C, is
between 30% and 40% (40% is on the high side), and COP is between 100-125,
(let alone 200-250) then each 100 kW Hot Cat would be able to drive from
.3*100 to .4*125 or 30 – 50 other Hot-Cats. So, each 1 KW input to a
first-stage Mouse can produce not 100 KW-th but, by generating 30+ kW-Elec,
may be able to drive 30 other second-stage 100 kW Hot Cat devices.

Even if it is possible to produce 3 MW-thermal with one (1st stage) 1 kW
Mouse, it may be much simpler to have 30 1-kW Mice to drive 30 separate 100
kW devices.

Without getting too exuberant, three stages of multiplication by a factor
of 20, instead of 30, is already 20^3 = 8000. That is, even if a single 1st
stage kW Mouse can only drive 20-100 kW ‘Cats’, three such stages, using a
single 1 kW input (gas or electric), ultimately might produce 8000*100 kW
or 800 MW of heat.

And if you can produce 800 MW of heat, or even much less, why do you need a
1 kW input? (Other than for start-ups.)

0) Is that the basic concept of what you are trying to accomplish?

1) When a 100 kW HotCat or Tiger-Cat is not in the self-sustained mode
(SSM), what mode or state is it in? In other words, how much thermal power
is produced during the 35% of time the 100 kW Cat is not in SSM? Does it
have an electrical input to bring it back under control? Or do you simply
remove its input Hydrogen (Idrogen) supply?

Multi-stage regards,

Joseph Fine

PS I apologize for this comment, as I may be engaging in irrational
exuberance.

Andrea Rossi
May 12th, 2013 at 5:03 PM
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
1- The Activator provides heat to the Customer when it is turned ON, while
it also activates the E-Cat. When it is turned off his production is very
low.
2- yes
3- I would say: since the Activator pays for itself, being its COP ~1.02 ,
the E-Cat has a COP difficult to evaluate: we say 100-200, but, as a matter
of fact, at the denominator there is zero.
4- this depends on the model of the apparatus. In the basic Hot Cat it is
about 1 kW
5- no
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Steven N. Karels
May 12th, 2013 at 5:47 AM
Dear Andrea Rossi,

Many thanks for the continued information a

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[Axil Axil]

   1. Joseph
   November 5th, 2015 at 12:20 PM
   

   Dr Andrea Rossi,
   Congratulations for US Patent and for the 146 patents pending and in the
   making. The story of your life can explain why you are able to do this and
   work in your plant in the factory of the customer for 16 hours per day. You
   are unique.
   J.
   2. Andrea Rossi
   November 5th, 2015 at 11:25 PM
   

   Joseph,
   Thank you, but if the results will be positive, this will be due also to
   the work of our Team and also of the great family of this blog, from which
   so much I have learnt and of Prof Sergio Focardi and Prof Norman Cook,
   whose book has put the theoretical bases to the evolution of my work during
   these last 6 years. If the results will be negative, obviously, the
   responsibility will be totally mine, because I am the one that has taken
   all the decisions on the battlefield.
   Warm Regards,
   A.R.


Sorry, there are 146 other patents pending.

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:48 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> That was 2 years ago before the patent was granted.  Do you see anything
> within the patent that fits into this form?  Rossi is required to supply
> information that is adequate to construct one of his systems if his patent
> is to have value.
>
> It is quite clear that his patented device has nothing resembling a driver
> module that is different for the other modules.  Please point that out
> within the written patent.
>
> Rossi appears to be playing cat and mouse with Hank!  There is nothing
> like this in the patent that I have seen.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 3:17 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
>
>
>1. Hank Mills
>December 29th, 2013 at 2:34 PM
>
>Dear Andrea,
>The information you are sharing is facinating. While we wait for the
>full reports, it gives us something to think upon.
>1 – If the mouse over stimulates the cat so it runs around in circles
>continually, not going back to sleep, does the cat always explode?
>2 – Have you ever witnessed the cat running around in circles for
>extended periods of time, not needing any extra stimulation, but remaining
>stable?
>3 – Other than heat from the mouse, is anything else stimulating the
>cat during the drive or self sustain periods? It may not work for the hot
>cat, but I wish there was some low power method of keeping the cat
>stimulated. For example, like the 100 watts of radio frequencies that kept
>the one megawatt plant in self sustain mode.
>4 – By how many degrees on average does the surface of the cat vary
>from the end of the drive stage to the end of the self sustained stage?
>2. Andrea Rossi
>December 29th, 2013 at 6:10 PM
>
>Hank Mills:
>1- no
>2- confidential
>3- no
>4- the temperature of the Cat raises when the Mouse is turned off,
>lowers when the Mouse is turned on
>Warm Regards,
>A.R.
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Rossi has provided a comprehensive explanation of the Cat and Mouse
>> reactor clustering method in bits and pieces throughout his Q&A blog. One
>> of them explains how the shutdown of power from the Mouse causes the Cat to
>> be stimulated.
>>
>> I now take this to mean that when Rossi shuts off a magnetic confinements
>> field coil that keeps the ENP inside the mouse, the Cats take off because
>> the ENPs can then get into the Cats to stimulate the LENR reaction.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have also seen the reference to the 16 reactors.  The question is
>>> whether or not 1 is the driver with 15 following devices.  Where did you
>>> see anything about a special type of driver device among the other 15?  Did
>>> Rossi state this or is it entirely your assumption?
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Axil Axil 
>>> To: vortex-l 
>>> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 2:12 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
>>>
>>> Roland  Bob
>>> 
>>>  • 17 hours ago
>>> 
>>> Hi Bob,
>>> Each 250kVA module is composed of 16 reactors; we were all confused
>>> about this till Rossi revealed the structure a few days ago after the
>>> photos and mockups were published.
>>>
>>> From:
>>> Rossi on the E-Cat’s Modular Future: 

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> Especially when you take into account the 20,000 people year who die from
> coal smoke . . .
>

20,000 people in the U.S. that is. In China roughly 1.5 million people die
per year from coal smoke.

The cost of all these deaths is not included in the total cost of energy
because electric power companies do not pay the victims' families anything.

If you include the cost of these deaths, that would make coal, oil and even
gas much more expensive. This is a hidden cost. Even if you discount the
possible cost of global warming, it would still save a tremendous amount of
money to transition to alternative energy. It would also save millions of
lives.

There is no need to invoke global warming as a reason to do this. Given the
irrational opposition to global warming research, it is probably bad public
relations to invoke it. The industry websites for wind energy do not
emphasize global warming. They talk about reduced pollution, reduced
dependence on foreign energy sources, increased employment, and other
things most people agree on. See:

http://www.awea.org/

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Ransom Wuller]

David:

 

Countries like the US are already throttling their economies even as the cost 
of energy has been cut in half.Energy will not be a limiter under the 
system currently in place regardless of carbon limits.  

 

Hence, you are imaging a PERIL that doesn’t exist because you don’t understand 
current economics.   You really don’t need to get all worked up even if the 
Global Warming Scientists turn out to wrong or only minimally right.  Your 
conclusions regarding PERIL are wrong.  However, if Global Warming Scientists 
are right or even partially right, we may be in real PERIL and that is worth 
the current international efforts.  Which is why you should be supporting the 
efforts for carbon emission reductions (it can’t hurt and may help).  The 
reason you are taking the position you do has little to do with the science of 
climate and everything to do with your misunderstanding of economics.

 

Ransom

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 3:39 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

 

The peril is that countries such as the USA will throttle their economies by 
making energy too expensive.  The end result is that millions will find their 
standard of living much reduced for a cause that is beyond mankind's control.   
The wealthy people of the world will not suffer too severely, but the poor are 
going to take a beating as is generally the case.  

Also, it will be a bad day if and when the world's energy supplies become 
regulated by one central authority.  The opportunity for abuse is astounding!

If LENR ever proves itself to be the new energy source we are hoping for, then 
the problem will be solved without any corrupt intervention.   I have great 
hopes for Rossi, but until we have proof I remain a bit skeptical.  My thermal 
models suggest that what he says is true provided his fuel actually delivers 
the required watts per kilogram for an extended time period. 


Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Ransom Wuller <  rwul...@freeark.com>
To: vortex-l <  vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 4:11 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

David:

 

You said: “No one should assume that the guys making the global climate 
computer models are great experts, which is what is happening at the world's 
peril.”

 

What PERIL?  

 

Ransom

 

From: David Roberson [  mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 2:58 PM
To:   vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

 

The YouTube reference is dead on!

Jed, you can research the global warming discussion and become more informed.  
No one should assume that the guys making the global climate computer models 
are great experts, which is what is happening at the world's peril.   If you 
take the time to look into the subject, you will see that those models have all 
missed the real world tests by a rather large margin and need to be modified 
every couple of years.   Why do you suppose this is true?

A person can argue that only the high priests of climate have the answers, much 
like you are saying, but when they fail to make correct predictions it is time 
to question them.   Every one of their models predicts that the earth should be 
hotter than it actually is measured to be after a modest period of time 
elapses.  Of course, a new correction factor is then established which keeps 
them functioning a bit longer, but only for a short time into the future.  
Anyone familiar with curve fitting can readily see what they are achieving by 
this technique.  It is tragic that anyone accepts that they are experts in 
anything but guessing the future climate!

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <  jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <  vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 3:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

Lennart Thornros <  lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:

 

Let us leave the dispute about organizations.

I actually started to address the topic in the headline by saying:

The debate about global warming is far from conclusive. I do not know the 
answer.

 

You do not know the answer, but experts in climatology say they do know it. 
They are probably right. Non-experts from outside a field -- such as the plasma 
fusion scientists who attacked cold fusion -- are usually wrong.

 

You probably know next to nothing about climatology, because it is a complex 
subject. Therefore you have no basis to judge whether these experts are right 
or wrong. I know nothing about climatology so I have no basis to judge either. 
But as I said, as a general rule mainstream experts in hard s

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:

The peril is that countries such as the USA will throttle their economies
> by making energy too expensive.


That's hardly likely! It is getting cheaper by the day. The cost of wind
and solar energy will soon be less than fossil fuel. Especially when you
take into account the 20,000 people year who die from coal smoke, and the
millions of people who are sickened by other air pollution.

Even if global warming is not real, the present-day total cost of fossil
fuel energy probably make it more expensive than alternatives such as wind
and solar, when you included hidden costs such as pollution, wars fought
over oil, massive subsidies for oil and coal, and so on.

You really should not worry about things like that.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[David Roberson]

That was 2 years ago before the patent was granted.  Do you see anything within 
the patent that fits into this form?  Rossi is required to supply information 
that is adequate to construct one of his systems if his patent is to have value.

It is quite clear that his patented device has nothing resembling a driver 
module that is different for the other modules.  Please point that out within 
the written patent.

Rossi appears to be playing cat and mouse with Hank!  There is nothing like 
this in the patent that I have seen.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 3:17 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement





Hank Mills
December 29th, 2013 at 2:34 PM
Dear Andrea,
The information you are sharing is facinating. While we wait for the full 
reports, it gives us something to think upon.
1 – If the mouse over stimulates the cat so it runs around in circles 
continually, not going back to sleep, does the cat always explode?
2 – Have you ever witnessed the cat running around in circles for extended 
periods of time, not needing any extra stimulation, but remaining stable?
3 – Other than heat from the mouse, is anything else stimulating the cat during 
the drive or self sustain periods? It may not work for the hot cat, but I wish 
there was some low power method of keeping the cat stimulated. For example, 
like the 100 watts of radio frequencies that kept the one megawatt plant in 
self sustain mode.
4 – By how many degrees on average does the surface of the cat vary from the 
end of the drive stage to the end of the self sustained stage?


Andrea Rossi
December 29th, 2013 at 6:10 PM
Hank Mills:
1- no
2- confidential
3- no
4- the temperature of the Cat raises when the Mouse is turned off, lowers when 
the Mouse is turned on
Warm Regards,
A.R.




On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

Rossi has provided a comprehensive explanation of the Cat and Mouse reactor 
clustering method in bits and pieces throughout his Q&A blog. One of them 
explains how the shutdown of power from the Mouse causes the Cat to be 
stimulated.


I now take this to mean that when Rossi shuts off a magnetic confinements field 
coil that keeps the ENP inside the mouse, the Cats take off because the ENPs 
can then get into the Cats to stimulate the LENR reaction. 




On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

I have also seen the reference to the 16 reactors.  The question is whether or 
not 1 is the driver with 15 following devices.  Where did you see anything 
about a special type of driver device among the other 15?  Did Rossi state this 
or is it entirely your assumption?

Dave

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 

Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 2:12 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement



Roland  Bob • 17 hours ago


Hi Bob,
Each 250kVA module is composed of 16 reactors; we were all confused about this 
till Rossi revealed the structure a few days ago after the photos and mockups 
were published.


From:
Rossi on the E-Cat’s Modular Future: E-Cat X Units Can Combine to Make Power 
Plants of Any Size





On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:42 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Axil, where did you see a description of the tiger?  I do not recall any 
reference to the use of one module to drive the other 15.

Dave


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 1, 2015 10:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement



It has be recently revealed that each 250kVA E-Cat tiger reactor module is 
composed of 16 reactors. Only one of those reactors  is a powered 
activator(mouse). The other 15 are drones driven by the activator. The 
activator produces a reaction catalyst that drives the other drones. I say that 
the reaction catalyst is the magnetic Exotic Neutral Particle(ENP) that becomes 
mobile as its energy content level reaches a self sustaining threshold. At low 
temperatures the alumina tub reactor shell that all these reactors are 
comprised of confines the ENP. But as all these reactors heat up, the alumina 
shell becomes electrically conductive. At high temperatures, the alumina 
becomes magnetically transparent and this allows the ENP to leave the activator 
an enter the drone where the ENP catalyzes the LENR reaction.


http://www.thevalvepage.com/valvetek/heater/fig1.gif


Electrical conductivity Vs, temperature.



On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:


The so called Erzion phenomenon was discovered in a series of electrolytic 
experiments marked by unexplained changes in a pool of cooling water outside of 
the catalytic cell. After 40 minutes of electrolytic cell operation, water on 
the tungsten anode side of the cooling vessel started loosing its transparency.
Water on the stainless steel cathode of the pool of cooling water remained 
transparent, at the same 40 C temperature. A sample of bubbly water, removed 
from the anode side, 

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Jed Rothwell]

Chris Zell  wrote:


> As for the Ph.D’s gained studying climate and all their expertise and
> experience, it means about as to public interest as the history of
> collecting porcelain Hummel figures..EXCEPT for their ability to make
> unambiguous, practical, truthful predictions.
>

They do the best they can, and the best that is humanly possible at
present. Do not demand the impossible such as unambiguous predictions. I
have never heard an honest scientist say anything unambiguous.

People demand assurance from cold fusion researchers that cold fusion will
definitely become a practical source of energy. Many so-called skeptics say
they will not believe it until it is sold in the stores. This is an
outrageous standard for a scientific discovery.



> My religious background has left me with a permanent distaste for doom and
> gloom prophecy –and that includes negative climate speculations (emphasis
> on ‘speculation’).
>

It is not speculation. It may be wrong, but it is grounded in hard science
and fantastic amounts of data. There is a world of difference between
religious prophecy and climate science. They are as dissimilar as anything
can be.



> Their predictive track record is not good.
>

On the contrary, it is excellent, especially given the difficulties of the
science.



> When I was a young boy, the future was full of trips to other planets,
> starships, fusion energy, pills to stop aging, the end of fossil fuels and
> cures for paralysis/MS/ALS and cancer. None of those things happened.
>

Some of them did happen and the others may yet happen. The use of fossil
fuels has been greatly reduced and it would have been reduced more if these
unfortunate fission reactor accidents had not occurred. We do have fusion
energy in the form of cold fusion. People just do not realize it yet.

Some forms of cancer have been cured and others reduced. We have robot
explorers on Mars. Great progress has been made in curing some forms of
paralysis lately. We have self driving cars long before I thought they
would arrive. We are finally making progress in artificial intelligence,
with the Watson computer beating the world's experts in Jeopardy. Robotics
are improving by leaps and bounds, threatening to put most people out of a
job.


If LENR comes to market, open the champagne.  However, so far, it has
> failed to breech the barrier of stagnation that oppresses us.
>

I agree there is stagnation. See:

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

If I thought there was no chance we will ever breech it I would not be
devoting my time to promoting cold fusion and editing boring papers in it.
History shows that things sometimes change faster than you might realize.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[Axil Axil]

Rossi has said that he has 64 more patents to submit. The patent that he
how has is relevant to the Hot Cat which is not capable of SSM. The 1 MW
E-Cat is where SSM applies, It has yet to be patented in whole or in part.

Rossi has said that the E-Cat X which is the updated Hot Cat might be
capable of SSM but Rossi has not gotten down to that level of R&D yet with
the E-Cat X..

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:13 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> But Axil, Rossi's patent does not show any such cat and mouse structure.
> He has answered a question of mine about the structure of the new CAT by
> telling me that the patent is where to look.
>
> I suspect that you are attempting to make the design fall into a pattern
> that you believe is required instead of following the actual data.
>
> Each tiger probably contains 16 smaller identical units.  Perhaps Rossi
> has modified the coolant flow so that it is more effective in balancing the
> thermal load than with the earlier system.With only 3 modules per
> active unit there were far too many pumps, etc. to deal with.  Now, he
> reduces that requirement by a factor of roughly 5.
>
> Rossi seems to be wise to keep 4 main tigers together so that if 1 fails,
> the other 3 can likely be adjusted to take up that slack for a short period
> until the repairs are completed.  It may be as simple as that.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 3:11 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
>
> Rossi has provided a comprehensive explanation of the Cat and Mouse
> reactor clustering method in bits and pieces throughout his Q&A blog. One
> of them explains how the shutdown of power from the Mouse causes the Cat to
> be stimulated.
>
> I now take this to mean that when Rossi shuts off a magnetic confinements
> field coil that keeps the ENP inside the mouse, the Cats take off because
> the ENPs can then get into the Cats to stimulate the LENR reaction.
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> I have also seen the reference to the 16 reactors.  The question is
>> whether or not 1 is the driver with 15 following devices.  Where did you
>> see anything about a special type of driver device among the other 15?  Did
>> Rossi state this or is it entirely your assumption?
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 2:12 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
>>
>> Roland  Bob
>> 
>>  • 17 hours ago
>> 
>> Hi Bob,
>> Each 250kVA module is composed of 16 reactors; we were all confused about
>> this till Rossi revealed the structure a few days ago after the photos and
>> mockups were published.
>>
>> From:
>> Rossi on the E-Cat’s Modular Future: E-Cat X Units Can Combine to Make
>> Power Plants of Any Size
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:42 PM, David Roberson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Axil, where did you see a description of the tiger?  I do not recall
>>> any reference to the use of one module to drive the other 15.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Axil Axil 
>>> To: vortex-l 
>>> Sent: Tue, Dec 1, 2015 10:40 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
>>>
>>> It has be recently revealed that each 250kVA E-Cat tiger reactor module
>>> is composed of 16 reactors. Only one of those reactors  is a powered
>>> activator(mouse). The other 15 are drones driven by the activator. The
>>> activator produces a reaction catalyst that drives the other drones. I say
>>> that the reaction catalyst is the magnetic Exotic Neutral Particle(ENP)
>>> that becomes mobile as its energy content level reaches a self sustaining
>>> threshold. At low temperatures the alumina tub reactor shell that all these
>>> reactors are comprised of confines the ENP. But as all these reactors heat
>>> up, the alumina shell becomes electrically conductive. At high
>>> temperatures, the alumina becomes magnetically transparent and this allows
>>> the ENP to leave the activator an enter the drone where the ENP catalyzes
>>> the LENR reaction.
>>>
>>> http://www.thevalvepage.com/valvetek/heater/fig1.gif
>>>
>>> Electrical conductivity Vs, temperature.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
 The so called Erzion phenomenon was discovered in a series of
 electrolytic experiments marked by unexplained changes in a pool of cooling
 water outside of the catalytic cell. After 40 minutes of electrolytic cell
 operation, water on the tungsten anode side of the cooling vessel started
 loosing its transparency.
 Water on the stainless steel cathode of the pool of

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[David Roberson]

The peril is that countries such as the USA will throttle their economies by 
making energy too expensive.  The end result is that millions will find their 
standard of living much reduced for a cause that is beyond mankind's control.   
The wealthy people of the world will not suffer too severely, but the poor are 
going to take a beating as is generally the case.  

Also, it will be a bad day if and when the world's energy supplies become 
regulated by one central authority.  The opportunity for abuse is astounding!

If LENR ever proves itself to be the new energy source we are hoping for, then 
the problem will be solved without any corrupt intervention.   I have great 
hopes for Rossi, but until we have proof I remain a bit skeptical.  My thermal 
models suggest that what he says is true provided his fuel actually delivers 
the required watts per kilogram for an extended time period.
 
Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Ransom Wuller 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 4:11 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments



David:
 
You said: “No one should assume that the guys making the global climate 
computer models are great experts, which is what is happening at the world's 
peril.”
 
What PERIL?  
 
Ransom
 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 2:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

 
The YouTube reference is dead on!

Jed, you can research the global warming discussion and become more informed.  
No one should assume that the guys making the global climate computer models 
are great experts, which is what is happening at the world's peril.   If you 
take the time to look into the subject, you will see that those models have all 
missed the real world tests by a rather large margin and need to be modified 
every couple of years.   Why do you suppose this is true?

A person can argue that only the high priests of climate have the answers, much 
like you are saying, but when they fail to make correct predictions it is time 
to question them.   Every one of their models predicts that the earth should be 
hotter than it actually is measured to be after a modest period of time 
elapses.  Of course, a new correction factor is then established which keeps 
them functioning a bit longer, but only for a short time into the future.  
Anyone familiar with curve fitting can readily see what they are achieving by 
this technique.  It is tragic that anyone accepts that they are experts in 
anything but guessing the future climate!

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 3:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments



Lennart Thornros  wrote:


 


Let us leave the dispute about organizations.

I actually started to address the topic in the headline by saying:

The debate about global warming is far from conclusive. I do not know the 
answer.


 

You do not know the answer, but experts in climatology say they do know it. 
They are probably right. Non-experts from outside a field -- such as the plasma 
fusion scientists who attacked cold fusion -- are usually wrong.

 

You probably know next to nothing about climatology, because it is a complex 
subject. Therefore you have no basis to judge whether these experts are right 
or wrong. I know nothing about climatology so I have no basis to judge either. 
But as I said, as a general rule mainstream experts in hard science who have 
devoted years to research are usually right, so I defer to them.

 

I am sure that the comments by anti-global warming journalists are 
preposterous. I know enough about the subject to judge that. For example, they 
often say that we cannot even predict the weather 5 days ahead so how could 
anyone predict climate change decades from now. This is like saying that we 
cannot predict whether you will be alive tomorrow so how can anyone draw up 
actuarial tables for groups of people?

 

It is presumptuous for anyone to assume they understand climatology better than 
climatologists, or cold fusion better than Fleischmann, Bockris or McKubre. 
Even in 1989 I found it infuriating when people such as George Chapline 
(Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) and Morrison claimed that Fleischmann 
did not realize that highly loaded palladium hydrides release hydrogen when 
recombines at the surface, making the metal hot. It was used as a cigarette 
lighter in the 19th century.

By the way, what I am saying NOT -- repeat not -- a Fallacious Appeal to 
Authority. That would only be the case if Fleischmann was not a leading expert 
on electrochemistry and calorimetry, and he unquestionably was. See:

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Most people attacking cold fusion and climatology suffer from the 
Dunning-Kruger effect. Especially the idiots at Scientific American and 
Wikipedia

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:


> Jed, you can research the global warming discussion and become more
> informed.


A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.



> No one should assume that the guys making the global climate computer
> models are great experts, which is what is happening at the world's peril.


Oh yes we should assume that. People who work with scientific data all day
long are usually good at it. They have to go through peer review which is
very challenging. Researchers have sent me many papers in chemistry and
physics (not just cold fusion) that went through peer review. They get torn
to shreds. Academic researchers are very competitive and merciless with
mistakes.



> If you take the time to look into the subject, you will see that those
> models have all missed the real world tests by a rather large margin and
> need to be modified every couple of years.


I have seen claims of that and I have read experts showing that is not the
case, in the Sci. Am. and elsewhere. I do not know much about climatology
but I do understand statistics and trends and I can see the experts are
correct in this case.

As I said, the biggest source of misunderstanding is the confusion about
predicting weather for a specific location over a few days versus long-term
climate trends. The two problems are completely separate, in the same way
predicting your future as an individual is compared to making an actuarial
table.



>Why do you suppose this is true?
>

It is clearly not true.



> A person can argue that only the high priests of climate have the answers,
> much like you are saying, but when they fail to make correct predictions it
> is time to question them.


In this case they have not failed. I believe I can judge that much. What
you say is exactly like the people at Wikipedia and the APS who say "the
high priests of cold fusion claim they replicated but we know better."
"They are a cult of fervent halfwits." -- F. Slakey of the APS.


   Every one of their models predicts that the earth should be hotter than
> it actually is measured to be after a modest period of time elapses.


No, not a modest period. This is a general trend over many decades, with a
great deal of variation. The earth is, without question, much hotter than
it has been. Even many of the so-called climate skeptics agree with that.
The only question is why.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Chris Zell]

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 3:46 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

As for the Ph.D’s gained studying climate and all their expertise and 
experience, it means about as to public interest as the history of collecting 
porcelain Hummel figures..EXCEPT for their ability to make unambiguous, 
practical, truthful predictions.

My religious background has left me with a permanent distaste for doom and 
gloom prophecy –and that includes negative climate speculations (emphasis on 
‘speculation’). Their predictive track record is not good.  A recent blog 
associated with Sci Am recommended ‘global lukewarmism’ –which might be the 
closest approach to the truth.

When I was a young boy, the future was full of trips to other planets, 
starships, fusion energy, pills to stop aging, the end of fossil fuels and 
cures for paralysis/MS/ALS and cancer. None of those things happened.  Instead 
we have clever phones to retrieve cute cat photos.  I observe more stagnation 
in science than anything else – which makes me wary of expensive schemes that 
leave us freezing in darkness while burning novels.

If LENR comes to market, open the champagne.  However, so far, it has failed to 
breech the barrier of stagnation that oppresses us.

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[David Roberson]

But Axil, Rossi's patent does not show any such cat and mouse structure.  He 
has answered a question of mine about the structure of the new CAT by telling 
me that the patent is where to look.

I suspect that you are attempting to make the design fall into a pattern that 
you believe is required instead of following the actual data.

Each tiger probably contains 16 smaller identical units.  Perhaps Rossi has 
modified the coolant flow so that it is more effective in balancing the thermal 
load than with the earlier system.With only 3 modules per active unit there 
were far too many pumps, etc. to deal with.  Now, he reduces that requirement 
by a factor of roughly 5.

Rossi seems to be wise to keep 4 main tigers together so that if 1 fails, the 
other 3 can likely be adjusted to take up that slack for a short period until 
the repairs are completed.  It may be as simple as that.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 3:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement



Rossi has provided a comprehensive explanation of the Cat and Mouse reactor 
clustering method in bits and pieces throughout his Q&A blog. One of them 
explains how the shutdown of power from the Mouse causes the Cat to be 
stimulated.


I now take this to mean that when Rossi shuts off a magnetic confinements field 
coil that keeps the ENP inside the mouse, the Cats take off because the ENPs 
can then get into the Cats to stimulate the LENR reaction. 



On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

I have also seen the reference to the 16 reactors.  The question is whether or 
not 1 is the driver with 15 following devices.  Where did you see anything 
about a special type of driver device among the other 15?  Did Rossi state this 
or is it entirely your assumption?

Dave

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 

Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 2:12 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement



Roland  Bob • 17 hours ago


Hi Bob,
Each 250kVA module is composed of 16 reactors; we were all confused about this 
till Rossi revealed the structure a few days ago after the photos and mockups 
were published.


From:
Rossi on the E-Cat’s Modular Future: E-Cat X Units Can Combine to Make Power 
Plants of Any Size





On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:42 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Axil, where did you see a description of the tiger?  I do not recall any 
reference to the use of one module to drive the other 15.

Dave


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 1, 2015 10:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement



It has be recently revealed that each 250kVA E-Cat tiger reactor module is 
composed of 16 reactors. Only one of those reactors  is a powered 
activator(mouse). The other 15 are drones driven by the activator. The 
activator produces a reaction catalyst that drives the other drones. I say that 
the reaction catalyst is the magnetic Exotic Neutral Particle(ENP) that becomes 
mobile as its energy content level reaches a self sustaining threshold. At low 
temperatures the alumina tub reactor shell that all these reactors are 
comprised of confines the ENP. But as all these reactors heat up, the alumina 
shell becomes electrically conductive. At high temperatures, the alumina 
becomes magnetically transparent and this allows the ENP to leave the activator 
an enter the drone where the ENP catalyzes the LENR reaction.


http://www.thevalvepage.com/valvetek/heater/fig1.gif


Electrical conductivity Vs, temperature.



On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:


The so called Erzion phenomenon was discovered in a series of electrolytic 
experiments marked by unexplained changes in a pool of cooling water outside of 
the catalytic cell. After 40 minutes of electrolytic cell operation, water on 
the tungsten anode side of the cooling vessel started loosing its transparency.
Water on the stainless steel cathode of the pool of cooling water remained 
transparent, at the same 40 C temperature. A sample of bubbly water, removed 
from the anode side, was tested for induced gamma radioactivity. No such 
radioactivity was found in it; the sample became transparent after 24 hours. 
Attempts to reproduce the long-term loss of cooling water transparency with 
other electrolytes, and under different electrical discharge conditions, were 
not successful. But the effect was highly reproducible when experimenting with 
the tungsten-anode electrolytic cell and the 7 M KF electrolyte containing 50% 
of heavy water.





That cooling water on the outside of the electrolytic cell's glass reactor 
shell at the right side (see Figure 1) is close to the anode while cooling 
water on the left side is close to the cathode. The disappearance of bubbles, 
after the electrolysis, was very slow (half-life of about 10 hrs). Attempts to 
explain the phenomenon in terms of cavitation, and other ultr

RE: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Ransom Wuller]

David:

 

You said: “No one should assume that the guys making the global climate 
computer models are great experts, which is what is happening at the world's 
peril.”

 

What PERIL?  

 

Ransom

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 2:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

 

The YouTube reference is dead on!

Jed, you can research the global warming discussion and become more informed.  
No one should assume that the guys making the global climate computer models 
are great experts, which is what is happening at the world's peril.   If you 
take the time to look into the subject, you will see that those models have all 
missed the real world tests by a rather large margin and need to be modified 
every couple of years.   Why do you suppose this is true?

A person can argue that only the high priests of climate have the answers, much 
like you are saying, but when they fail to make correct predictions it is time 
to question them.   Every one of their models predicts that the earth should be 
hotter than it actually is measured to be after a modest period of time 
elapses.  Of course, a new correction factor is then established which keeps 
them functioning a bit longer, but only for a short time into the future.  
Anyone familiar with curve fitting can readily see what they are achieving by 
this technique.  It is tragic that anyone accepts that they are experts in 
anything but guessing the future climate!

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 3:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

 

Let us leave the dispute about organizations.

I actually started to address the topic in the headline by saying:

The debate about global warming is far from conclusive. I do not know the 
answer.

 

You do not know the answer, but experts in climatology say they do know it. 
They are probably right. Non-experts from outside a field -- such as the plasma 
fusion scientists who attacked cold fusion -- are usually wrong.

 

You probably know next to nothing about climatology, because it is a complex 
subject. Therefore you have no basis to judge whether these experts are right 
or wrong. I know nothing about climatology so I have no basis to judge either. 
But as I said, as a general rule mainstream experts in hard science who have 
devoted years to research are usually right, so I defer to them.

 

I am sure that the comments by anti-global warming journalists are 
preposterous. I know enough about the subject to judge that. For example, they 
often say that we cannot even predict the weather 5 days ahead so how could 
anyone predict climate change decades from now. This is like saying that we 
cannot predict whether you will be alive tomorrow so how can anyone draw up 
actuarial tables for groups of people?

 

It is presumptuous for anyone to assume they understand climatology better than 
climatologists, or cold fusion better than Fleischmann, Bockris or McKubre. 
Even in 1989 I found it infuriating when people such as George Chapline 
(Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) and Morrison claimed that Fleischmann 
did not realize that highly loaded palladium hydrides release hydrogen when 
recombines at the surface, making the metal hot. It was used as a cigarette 
lighter in the 19th century.

By the way, what I am saying NOT -- repeat not -- a Fallacious Appeal to 
Authority. That would only be the case if Fleischmann was not a leading expert 
on electrochemistry and calorimetry, and he unquestionably was. See:

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Most people attacking cold fusion and climatology suffer from the 
Dunning-Kruger effect. Especially the idiots at Scientific American and 
Wikipedia. Here is an amusing short description of the Dunning-Kruger effect by 
John Cleese. (Cleese teaches at Cornell University which is how knows Prof. 
Dunning.)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWX8pl9B1Hk

 

- Jed

 

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:


> You claim researchers outside the government have replicated. I asked for
> their names. You have not given a single one.
> ​ Can be found here;​ has been given in general form and supported with a
> couple of examples.
>

No, you have not listed a single name. I listed Rossi. You have not told us
anything. Not in general form, and not specific. Not a couple of examples:
none. Zip. Bupkis.

Some people such as Storms, Mizuno and Cravens are now working on their
own, but they were originally employed by government, and that is where and
when they made most of their contributions to the field. (Storms was at
LANL; Mizuno at Hokkaido National University; and Cravens was a professor
at a state university, as I recall.)

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[Bob Cook]

Dave--

The number 16 may come from the Artists rendition of a reactor.  I could find 
no specific Rossi statement regarding the picture included in the E-Cat World 
item identified by Axil as the basis for his comment.  Axil’s interpretations 
of what he reads and sees in various items can make use of a lot of 
imagination.  The device pictured in the item referenced is way to small to be 
a practical 250Kw reactor in my estimation.  

Bob Cook

From: David Roberson 
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 11:46 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

I have also seen the reference to the 16 reactors.  The question is whether or 
not 1 is the driver with 15 following devices.  Where did you see anything 
about a special type of driver device among the other 15?  Did Rossi state this 
or is it entirely your assumption?

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 2:12 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement


Roland  Bob • 17 hours ago 
Hi Bob,
Each 250kVA module is composed of 16 reactors; we were all confused about this 
till Rossi revealed the structure a few days ago after the photos and mockups 
were published.

From:
Rossi on the E-Cat’s Modular Future: E-Cat X Units Can Combine to Make Power 
Plants of Any Size

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:42 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

  Axil, where did you see a description of the tiger?  I do not recall any 
reference to the use of one module to drive the other 15.

  Dave




  -Original Message-
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tue, Dec 1, 2015 10:40 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement


  It has be recently revealed that each 250kVA E-Cat tiger reactor module is 
composed of 16 reactors. Only one of those reactors  is a powered 
activator(mouse). The other 15 are drones driven by the activator. The 
activator produces a reaction catalyst that drives the other drones. I say that 
the reaction catalyst is the magnetic Exotic Neutral Particle(ENP) that becomes 
mobile as its energy content level reaches a self sustaining threshold. At low 
temperatures the alumina tub reactor shell that all these reactors are 
comprised of confines the ENP. But as all these reactors heat up, the alumina 
shell becomes electrically conductive. At high temperatures, the alumina 
becomes magnetically transparent and this allows the ENP to leave the activator 
an enter the drone where the ENP catalyzes the LENR reaction.

  http://www.thevalvepage.com/valvetek/heater/fig1.gif

  Electrical conductivity Vs, temperature.

  On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

The so called Erzion phenomenon was discovered in a series of electrolytic 
experiments marked by unexplained changes in a pool of cooling water outside of 
the catalytic cell. After 40 minutes of electrolytic cell operation, water on 
the tungsten anode side of the cooling vessel started loosing its transparency.
Water on the stainless steel cathode of the pool of cooling water remained 
transparent, at the same 40 C temperature. A sample of bubbly water, removed 
from the anode side, was tested for induced gamma radioactivity. No such 
radioactivity was found in it; the sample became transparent after 24 hours. 
Attempts to reproduce the long-term loss of cooling water transparency with 
other electrolytes, and under different electrical discharge conditions, were 
not successful. But the effect was highly reproducible when experimenting with 
the tungsten-anode electrolytic cell and the 7 M KF electrolyte containing 50% 
of heavy water.

That cooling water on the outside of the electrolytic cell's glass reactor 
shell at the right side (see Figure 1) is close to the anode while cooling 
water on the left side is close to the cathode. The disappearance of bubbles, 
after the electrolysis, was very slow (half-life of about 10 hrs). Attempts to 
explain the phenomenon in terms of cavitation, and other ultrasonic effects, 
were not successful. The only satisfactory explanation was possible within the 
framework of the erzion model. Authors believe that bubbles are produced 
through the action of neutral Erzions.
The Erzons phenomenon behavior is consistent with the magnetic based Exotic 
Neutral Particle(ENP). To begin with, the glass container is transparent to the 
magnetically based ENPs both optically and magnetically. The LENR reaction that 
keeps the ENPs viable produce the vapor that forms the water bubbles. The ENPs 
become energetically self sufficient in the water of the cooling pool where the 
ENPs remain viable for hours.
If the Erzons phenomenon is produced by magnetically based ENPs, an iron 
plate placed just on the outside of the glass wall adjacent to the anode would 
prevent the ENPs from exiting the glass electrolytic cell. With the ENPs 
blocked from travel, bubble production would be eliminated.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:37 PM

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[David Roberson]

The YouTube reference is dead on!

Jed, you can research the global warming discussion and become more informed.  
No one should assume that the guys making the global climate computer models 
are great experts, which is what is happening at the world's peril.   If you 
take the time to look into the subject, you will see that those models have all 
missed the real world tests by a rather large margin and need to be modified 
every couple of years.   Why do you suppose this is true?

A person can argue that only the high priests of climate have the answers, much 
like you are saying, but when they fail to make correct predictions it is time 
to question them.   Every one of their models predicts that the earth should be 
hotter than it actually is measured to be after a modest period of time 
elapses.  Of course, a new correction factor is then established which keeps 
them functioning a bit longer, but only for a short time into the future.  
Anyone familiar with curve fitting can readily see what they are achieving by 
this technique.  It is tragic that anyone accepts that they are experts in 
anything but guessing the future climate!

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 3:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments




Lennart Thornros  wrote:

 

Let us leave the dispute about organizations.
I actually started to address the topic in the headline by saying:
The debate about global warming is far from conclusive. I do not know the 
answer.



You do not know the answer, but experts in climatology say they do know it. 
They are probably right. Non-experts from outside a field -- such as the plasma 
fusion scientists who attacked cold fusion -- are usually wrong.


You probably know next to nothing about climatology, because it is a complex 
subject. Therefore you have no basis to judge whether these experts are right 
or wrong. I know nothing about climatology so I have no basis to judge either. 
But as I said, as a general rule mainstream experts in hard science who have 
devoted years to research are usually right, so I defer to them.


I am sure that the comments by anti-global warming journalists are 
preposterous. I know enough about the subject to judge that. For example, they 
often say that we cannot even predict the weather 5 days ahead so how could 
anyone predict climate change decades from now. This is like saying that we 
cannot predict whether you will be alive tomorrow so how can anyone draw up 
actuarial tables for groups of people?



It is presumptuous for anyone to assume they understand climatology better than 
climatologists, or cold fusion better than Fleischmann, Bockris or McKubre. 
Even in 1989 I found it infuriating when people such as George Chapline 
(Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) and Morrison claimed that Fleischmann 
did not realize that highly loaded palladium hydrides release hydrogen when 
recombines at the surface, making the metal hot. It was used as a cigarette 
lighter in the 19th century.

By the way, what I am saying NOT -- repeat not -- a Fallacious Appeal to 
Authority. That would only be the case if Fleischmann was not a leading expert 
on electrochemistry and calorimetry, and he unquestionably was. See:


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Most people attacking cold fusion and climatology suffer from the 
Dunning-Kruger effect. Especially the idiots at Scientific American and 
Wikipedia. Here is an amusing short description of the Dunning-Kruger effect by 
John Cleese. (Cleese teaches at Cornell University which is how knows Prof. 
Dunning.)




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWX8pl9B1Hk



- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:

Jed, I can not force you to look into the data yourself.  That is your
> decision.
>

I have looked at the paper you referenced. I do not understand it well
enough to comment. I never offer an opinion on a scientific paper I cannot
understand in depth.



> You sound much like the established Physics community in assuming that
> LENR is not real because most physicists believe that.


On the surface I may sound like that, but when you peel away a few layers
of what I am saying, you will see it is just the opposite. The so-called
established Physics community that makes assumptions about LENR are people
who have read nothing, know nothing, and who have no right to any opinion.
Just as I have no right to an opinion about the Akasofu paper you reference.

In my case I say only "I doubt it because the weight of expert opinion is
against it." That means "I don't know but it seems unlikely." The
established Physics community nitwits (EPCN), on the other hand, are
certain they are right, based on nothing at all. No evidence, no knowledge.

It is impossible to judge the weight of expert opinion until you first
establish who the experts are. You have to know whether self-appointed
experts have actually read the literature or not, and whether they have
basis for what they claim. I can do that in the case of cold fusion because
I have read the literature. It is clear to me that the EPCN, the people at
Scientific American and the people at Wikipedia have read nothing. They
make elementary mistakes about the research. They have no idea what
instruments are used, or what claims are made. Mainly, they have no idea
what it is they do now know. It is classic case of the Dunning-Kruger effect

I cannot make any such judgement regarding climatology, so I am forced to
defer to experts. I hope they really are experts. Since most of them work
in the labs with data from thermometers and satellites, it seems likely to
me they are experts. Everyone I know who works in the lab with actual cold
fusion data knows about hundred times more than the EPCN. I know for a fact
that any electrochemist knows about a thousand times more about
electrochemistry than, say, Robert Park does, or the people at Kamiokande
did.



>  Have you actually taken the time to look at how that 97% figure was
> determined?  If you did, you would have seen that it was proven false and
> that the university for which the scientist worked could not be forced to
> release the procedure used to reach that figure.  A hacker finally obtained
> the data!
>

I am sure that is bullshit. When a university researcher or public opinion
pollster does not release data, no one ever believes him. He loses all
credibility. Besides, no one would believe a 97% figure that from a single
study in social science or any other field. You need other sources of
evidence pointing to the same thing. Such as the weight of published
papers, statements by professional organizations and so on.



> It is amazing that you attack what I am merely reporting without doing any
> research on your own.   Google the phrase "Global Warming Hoax" and read
> plenty of articles by reputable scientists from NASA, etc.


Google "cold fusion hoax" and you will find just as many. It is all
bullshit. Academic science have many faults, but it not possible for anyone
to create or maintain a hoax in it. Heck, scientists can barely express a
plain truth! It seems they can't even convince Bill Gates that cold fusion
is real given a full day to present the evidence. I cannot imagine why
anyone thinks scientists are capable of lying when they cannot even tell
the truth. I have been working with them for a long time and believe me
they they would make the worst liars imaginable.

It reminds me of the notion that Rossi is a con man (confidence man). As I
have often said, he inspires no confidence in anyone.



> It shouldn't take too long for you to realize that the science is quite
> flawed.


Cold fusion is quite flawed. There is a world of difference between a hoax
and flawed science.



> Of course, if you believe that the science is settled, then you do not
> need to research further.
>

As Martin Fleischmann said, "whenever anyone says the science is settled
you can be sure it isn't."


>
> Can I assume that you are really going to review a few of those articles?
> If not, then please refrain from calling that 97% figure accurate until you
> prove it is.
>

I have great faith in modern public opinion research and polls. My late
mother was an expert on that subject and taught me a lot about it. Those
people made many mistakes in the past but by the 1980s it was down to a
science. Furthermore, it is easy to take a poll of climatologists. You know
where to find them, and the response rate is probably high.



> Also, no one is suggesting that the earth is not warming up.  It is mainly
> a natural cycle with the contribution of man hidden within the noise.
>

Not according to most experts.

-

RE: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Ransom Wuller]

David:

 

I typically enjoy your posts but I find the “Global Warming Hoax” material 
utterly ridiculous.  It is being driven by strong nonscientific motives.  
Please examine your motives for embracing it.  

 

Then answer this question,  “If there is even a minimal chance that WE 
(humanity) are contributing to a warming of the planet, what is the HARM of 
minimizing that effect” (and supporting steps to so minimize)?  Your answer 
will tell you everything you need to understand about your motives and bias.  
PS, the HARM (instituting carbon emission standards etc) you imagine is just 
that (imagined) and it has to do with economics not science.

 

Ransom  

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 2:09 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

 

Jed, I can not force you to look into the data yourself.  That is your decision.

You sound much like the established Physics community in assuming that LENR is 
not real because most physicists believe that.   Have you actually taken the 
time to look at how that 97% figure was determined?  If you did, you would have 
seen that it was proven false and that the university for which the scientist 
worked could not be forced to release the procedure used to reach that figure.  
A hacker finally obtained the data!

It is amazing that you attack what I am merely reporting without doing any 
research on your own.   Google the phrase "Global Warming Hoax" and read plenty 
of articles by reputable scientists from NASA, etc.  It shouldn't take too long 
for you to realize that the science is quite flawed.   Of course, if you 
believe that the science is settled, then you do not need to research further.

Can I assume that you are really going to review a few of those articles?  If 
not, then please refrain from calling that 97% figure accurate until you prove 
it is.

Also, no one is suggesting that the earth is not warming up.  It is mainly a 
natural cycle with the contribution of man hidden within the noise.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 2:21 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

David Roberson  wrote:

 

The reference that 97% of scientists believe that man is responsible for 90% of 
the problem has been proven wildly wrong (<1% actually agree) but keeps being 
stated over and over.

 

That's nonsense. You sound like the editors at Scientific American who keep 
assuring me that no paper on cold fusion has ever been published.

 

Most climatologists are sure that CO2 from burning fuel is causing global 
warming. Maybe they are right, and maybe they are wrong, but there is no doubt 
that is what the majority of them think. Not <1%; most of them. This is a 
matter of fact. Not an opinion, and not a scientific dispute. This is what 
climatologists say in opinion polls and in their own journals and web sites.

 

You can dispute scientific findings all you like, but you cannot dispute what 
climatologists tell poll takers, or what they say publicly. They DO NOT say 
what you claim they say. Along the same lines, the people at Scientific 
American may claim that no good papers have been published. They may claim that 
no papers have been published in Nature, or in Science. But when they say that 
no papers have been published they are denying a matter of fact that anyone can 
verify. That's stupid.

 

- Jed

 

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:


> Let us leave the dispute about organizations.
> I actually started to address the topic in the headline by saying:
> The debate about global warming is far from conclusive. I do not know the
> answer.
>

You do not know the answer, but experts in climatology say they do know it.
They are probably right. Non-experts from outside a field -- such as the
plasma fusion scientists who attacked cold fusion -- are usually wrong.

You probably know next to nothing about climatology, because it is a
complex subject. Therefore you have no basis to judge whether these experts
are right or wrong. I know nothing about climatology so I have no basis to
judge either. But as I said, as a general rule mainstream experts in hard
science who have devoted years to research are usually right, so I defer to
them.

I am sure that the comments by anti-global warming journalists are
preposterous. I know enough about the subject to judge that. For example,
they often say that we cannot even predict the weather 5 days ahead so how
could anyone predict climate change decades from now. This is like saying
that we cannot predict whether you will be alive tomorrow so how can anyone
draw up actuarial tables for groups of people?

It is presumptuous for anyone to assume they understand climatology better
than climatologists, or cold fusion better than Fleischmann, Bockris or
McKubre. Even in 1989 I found it infuriating when people such as George
Chapline (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) and Morrison claimed that
Fleischmann did not realize that highly loaded palladium hydrides release
hydrogen when recombines at the surface, making the metal hot. It was used
as a cigarette lighter in the 19th century.

By the way, what I am saying NOT -- repeat not -- a Fallacious Appeal to
Authority. That would only be the case if Fleischmann was not a leading
expert on electrochemistry and calorimetry, and he unquestionably was. See:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Most people attacking cold fusion and climatology suffer from the
Dunning-Kruger effect. Especially the idiots at Scientific American and
Wikipedia. Here is an amusing short description of the Dunning-Kruger
effect by John Cleese. (Cleese teaches at Cornell University which is how
knows Prof. Dunning.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWX8pl9B1Hk

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[Axil Axil]

   1. Hank Mills
   December 29th, 2013 at 2:34 PM
   

   Dear Andrea,

   The information you are sharing is facinating. While we wait for the
   full reports, it gives us something to think upon.

   1 – If the mouse over stimulates the cat so it runs around in circles
   continually, not going back to sleep, does the cat always explode?

   2 – Have you ever witnessed the cat running around in circles for
   extended periods of time, not needing any extra stimulation, but remaining
   stable?

   3 – Other than heat from the mouse, is anything else stimulating the cat
   during the drive or self sustain periods? It may not work for the hot cat,
   but I wish there was some low power method of keeping the cat stimulated.
   For example, like the 100 watts of radio frequencies that kept the one
   megawatt plant in self sustain mode.

   4 – By how many degrees on average does the surface of the cat vary from
   the end of the drive stage to the end of the self sustained stage?
   2. Andrea Rossi
   December 29th, 2013 at 6:10 PM
   

   Hank Mills:
   1- no
   2- confidential
   3- no
   4- the temperature of the Cat raises when the Mouse is turned off,
   lowers when the Mouse is turned on
   Warm Regards,
   A.R.


On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Rossi has provided a comprehensive explanation of the Cat and Mouse
> reactor clustering method in bits and pieces throughout his Q&A blog. One
> of them explains how the shutdown of power from the Mouse causes the Cat to
> be stimulated.
>
> I now take this to mean that when Rossi shuts off a magnetic confinements
> field coil that keeps the ENP inside the mouse, the Cats take off because
> the ENPs can then get into the Cats to stimulate the LENR reaction.
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> I have also seen the reference to the 16 reactors.  The question is
>> whether or not 1 is the driver with 15 following devices.  Where did you
>> see anything about a special type of driver device among the other 15?  Did
>> Rossi state this or is it entirely your assumption?
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 2:12 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
>>
>> Roland  Bob
>> 
>>  • 17 hours ago
>> 
>> Hi Bob,
>> Each 250kVA module is composed of 16 reactors; we were all confused about
>> this till Rossi revealed the structure a few days ago after the photos and
>> mockups were published.
>>
>> From:
>> Rossi on the E-Cat’s Modular Future: E-Cat X Units Can Combine to Make
>> Power Plants of Any Size
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:42 PM, David Roberson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Axil, where did you see a description of the tiger?  I do not recall
>>> any reference to the use of one module to drive the other 15.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Axil Axil 
>>> To: vortex-l 
>>> Sent: Tue, Dec 1, 2015 10:40 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
>>>
>>> It has be recently revealed that each 250kVA E-Cat tiger reactor module
>>> is composed of 16 reactors. Only one of those reactors  is a powered
>>> activator(mouse). The other 15 are drones driven by the activator. The
>>> activator produces a reaction catalyst that drives the other drones. I say
>>> that the reaction catalyst is the magnetic Exotic Neutral Particle(ENP)
>>> that becomes mobile as its energy content level reaches a self sustaining
>>> threshold. At low temperatures the alumina tub reactor shell that all these
>>> reactors are comprised of confines the ENP. But as all these reactors heat
>>> up, the alumina shell becomes electrically conductive. At high
>>> temperatures, the alumina becomes magnetically transparent and this allows
>>> the ENP to leave the activator an enter the drone where the ENP catalyzes
>>> the LENR reaction.
>>>
>>> http://www.thevalvepage.com/valvetek/heater/fig1.gif
>>>
>>> Electrical conductivity Vs, temperature.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
 The so called Erzion phenomenon was discovered in a series of
 electrolytic experiments marked by unexplained changes in a pool of cooling
 water outside of the catalytic cell. After 40 minutes of electrolytic cell
 operation, water on the tungsten anode side of the cooling vessel started
 loosing its transparency.
 Water on the stainless steel cathode of the pool of cooling water
 remained transparent, at the same 40 C temperature. A sample of bubbly

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[David Roberson]

Jed, I can not force you to look into the data yourself.  That is your decision.

You sound much like the established Physics community in assuming that LENR is 
not real because most physicists believe that.   Have you actually taken the 
time to look at how that 97% figure was determined?  If you did, you would have 
seen that it was proven false and that the university for which the scientist 
worked could not be forced to release the procedure used to reach that figure.  
A hacker finally obtained the data!

It is amazing that you attack what I am merely reporting without doing any 
research on your own.   Google the phrase "Global Warming Hoax" and read plenty 
of articles by reputable scientists from NASA, etc.  It shouldn't take too long 
for you to realize that the science is quite flawed.   Of course, if you 
believe that the science is settled, then you do not need to research further.

Can I assume that you are really going to review a few of those articles?  If 
not, then please refrain from calling that 97% figure accurate until you prove 
it is.

Also, no one is suggesting that the earth is not warming up.  It is mainly a 
natural cycle with the contribution of man hidden within the noise.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 2:21 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments




David Roberson  wrote:

 
The reference that 97% of scientists believe that man is responsible for 90% of 
the problem has been proven wildly wrong (<1% actually agree) but keeps being 
stated over and over.


That's nonsense. You sound like the editors at Scientific American who keep 
assuring me that no paper on cold fusion has ever been published.


Most climatologists are sure that CO2 from burning fuel is causing global 
warming. Maybe they are right, and maybe they are wrong, but there is no doubt 
that is what the majority of them think. Not <1%; most of them. This is a 
matter of fact. Not an opinion, and not a scientific dispute. This is what 
climatologists say in opinion polls and in their own journals and web sites.


You can dispute scientific findings all you like, but you cannot dispute what 
climatologists tell poll takers, or what they say publicly. They DO NOT say 
what you claim they say. Along the same lines, the people at Scientific 
American may claim that no good papers have been published. They may claim that 
no papers have been published in Nature, or in Science. But when they say that 
no papers have been published they are denying a matter of fact that anyone can 
verify. That's stupid.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[Axil Axil]

Rossi has provided a comprehensive explanation of the Cat and Mouse reactor
clustering method in bits and pieces throughout his Q&A blog. One of them
explains how the shutdown of power from the Mouse causes the Cat to be
stimulated.

I now take this to mean that when Rossi shuts off a magnetic confinements
field coil that keeps the ENP inside the mouse, the Cats take off because
the ENPs can then get into the Cats to stimulate the LENR reaction.

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> I have also seen the reference to the 16 reactors.  The question is
> whether or not 1 is the driver with 15 following devices.  Where did you
> see anything about a special type of driver device among the other 15?  Did
> Rossi state this or is it entirely your assumption?
>
> Dave
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 2:12 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
>
> Roland  Bob
> 
>  • 17 hours ago
> 
> Hi Bob,
> Each 250kVA module is composed of 16 reactors; we were all confused about
> this till Rossi revealed the structure a few days ago after the photos and
> mockups were published.
>
> From:
> Rossi on the E-Cat’s Modular Future: E-Cat X Units Can Combine to Make
> Power Plants of Any Size
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:42 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> Axil, where did you see a description of the tiger?  I do not recall any
>> reference to the use of one module to drive the other 15.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Tue, Dec 1, 2015 10:40 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
>>
>> It has be recently revealed that each 250kVA E-Cat tiger reactor module
>> is composed of 16 reactors. Only one of those reactors  is a powered
>> activator(mouse). The other 15 are drones driven by the activator. The
>> activator produces a reaction catalyst that drives the other drones. I say
>> that the reaction catalyst is the magnetic Exotic Neutral Particle(ENP)
>> that becomes mobile as its energy content level reaches a self sustaining
>> threshold. At low temperatures the alumina tub reactor shell that all these
>> reactors are comprised of confines the ENP. But as all these reactors heat
>> up, the alumina shell becomes electrically conductive. At high
>> temperatures, the alumina becomes magnetically transparent and this allows
>> the ENP to leave the activator an enter the drone where the ENP catalyzes
>> the LENR reaction.
>>
>> http://www.thevalvepage.com/valvetek/heater/fig1.gif
>>
>> Electrical conductivity Vs, temperature.
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> The so called Erzion phenomenon was discovered in a series of
>>> electrolytic experiments marked by unexplained changes in a pool of cooling
>>> water outside of the catalytic cell. After 40 minutes of electrolytic cell
>>> operation, water on the tungsten anode side of the cooling vessel started
>>> loosing its transparency.
>>> Water on the stainless steel cathode of the pool of cooling water
>>> remained transparent, at the same 40 C temperature. A sample of bubbly
>>> water, removed from the anode side, was tested for induced gamma
>>> radioactivity. No such radioactivity was found in it; the sample became
>>> transparent after 24 hours. Attempts to reproduce the long-term loss of
>>> cooling water transparency with other electrolytes, and under different
>>> electrical discharge conditions, were not successful. But the effect was
>>> highly reproducible when experimenting with the tungsten-anode electrolytic
>>> cell and the 7 M KF electrolyte containing 50% of heavy water.
>>> [image: Thumbnail]
>>> 
>>> That cooling water on the outside of the electrolytic cell's glass
>>> reactor shell at the right side (see Figure 1) is close to the anode while
>>> cooling water on the left side is close to the cathode. The disappearance
>>> of bubbles, after the electrolysis, was very slow (half-life of about 10
>>> hrs). Attempts to explain the phenomenon in terms of cavitation, and other
>>> ultrasonic effects, were not successful. The only satisfactory explanation
>>> was possible within the framework of the erzion model. Authors believe that
>>> bubbles are produced through the action of neutral Erzions.
>>> The Erzons phenomenon behavior is consistent with the magnetic based
>>> Exotic Neutral Particle(ENP). To begin with, the glass container is
>>> transparent to the magnetically based ENPs both optically and magnetically.
>>> The LENR reaction that keeps the ENPs viable produce the vapor that forms
>>> the w

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
Let us leave the dispute about organizations.
I actually started to address the topic in the headline by saying:
The debate about global warming is far from conclusive. I do not know the
answer. I do know that it is not a question we can control (i.e. I doubt
anyone created the ice- age(s)). For many other reasons I can agree that
limiting our carbon pollution has its advantages. Global warming will not
be totally depending on the CO2 level in the atmosphere, many other factors
will be as or more important. I think we need to get better information and
then search for the solution that still makes this place liveable. I think
we have time but to limit use of fossil fuel (limit CO2 in the atmosphere
is good in the meantime.
There are many other factors involved solar flares etc, They are way over
my understanding so I stay rather neutral in the debate. To limit the
manmade pollution is good. To believe that is the solution to control the
temperature on this planet is naive or beyond naive.
The show in Paris is just that, a show, entertaining for people in
governments. Perhaps it also give reason for further expansion of
governments (in all countries not just the US and GB). The politician have
one thing in common world wide - they want more power, more impact on our
daily life. The ROI of this show will never reach a positive number - ever.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> Jed,
> first of all thanks for the many advices you give. I will try to get hold
> of a book at some point in time.
> I understand that what I think does not change the world. However, facts
> like government (or any organization cannot achieve result is true. That
> does not mean that organization is worthless. What I try to say it certain
> organizations work better than others for different tasks / jobs. I do have
> some experience of that from real life and I spent considerable time to
> work with government in changing situations - that does not work at all -
> ever. I have done similar job in small organizations and achieved rather
> good result. So my statements are built more on experience and less on
> books.
> Having said so I have learnt the statement that;'Organizations cannot get
> result but people can', in a book. Maybe I read to many books - you confuse
> me. Or is it so that there is a book supporting most any opinion you have?
> I am not claiming any good understanding of LENR or its history. I did not
> know Mr. Fleischman. If you say he expressed contempt for entrepreneur I
> believe you. I still say he had some entrepreneurial characteristics.
> Unfortunately he was in an environment that made it impossible or at least
> very difficult to develop / utilize those entrepreneurial skills.
> No I did not (do not) answer as you want. I answer in my way.
> The answer to I have given you many examples of major technologies that
> were discovered by or paid for by governments. You have not addressed a
> single one of these examples. No, technology has been discovered by the
> government. You should say that the queen of spain should be celebrated
> on Columbus day with your logics (nonexisting btw).
> ​and​
>
> You claim researchers outside the government have replicated. I asked for
> their names. You have not given a single one.
> ​ Can be found here;​ has been given in general form and supported with a
> couple of examples.
>
> Finally you have not heard much I conclude from, '
> That is the most idiotic assertion I have heard in many years.
> ​'​ Instead of reading a book perhaps some hands on work is a good advice
> to you.
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
>
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +1 916 436 1899
>
> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> No, I do not think the government does anything for progress.
>>>
>>
>> What you think is irrelevant. Read any history of technology and you will
>> see that you are wrong. Your opinions cannot change facts or rewrite
>> history books.
>>
>> I have given you many examples of major technologies that were discovered
>> by or paid for by governments. You have not addressed a single one of these
>> examples.
>>
>> You claim researchers outside the government have replicated. I asked for
>> their names. You have not given a single one.
>>
>> You claimed that Fleischmann "sounds to me like an entrepreneur" and that
>> he was "certainly not supported by the government." That is preposterous.
>> He worked for the government his entire life, except at the end when he
>> worked for IMRA, and that went badly. He was never anything like an
>> entrepreneur. He e

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[David Roberson]

I have also seen the reference to the 16 reactors.  The question is whether or 
not 1 is the driver with 15 following devices.  Where did you see anything 
about a special type of driver device among the other 15?  Did Rossi state this 
or is it entirely your assumption?

Dave

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 2:12 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement



Roland  Bob • 17 hours ago


Hi Bob,
Each 250kVA module is composed of 16 reactors; we were all confused about this 
till Rossi revealed the structure a few days ago after the photos and mockups 
were published.


From:
Rossi on the E-Cat’s Modular Future: E-Cat X Units Can Combine to Make Power 
Plants of Any Size





On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:42 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Axil, where did you see a description of the tiger?  I do not recall any 
reference to the use of one module to drive the other 15.

Dave


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 1, 2015 10:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement



It has be recently revealed that each 250kVA E-Cat tiger reactor module is 
composed of 16 reactors. Only one of those reactors  is a powered 
activator(mouse). The other 15 are drones driven by the activator. The 
activator produces a reaction catalyst that drives the other drones. I say that 
the reaction catalyst is the magnetic Exotic Neutral Particle(ENP) that becomes 
mobile as its energy content level reaches a self sustaining threshold. At low 
temperatures the alumina tub reactor shell that all these reactors are 
comprised of confines the ENP. But as all these reactors heat up, the alumina 
shell becomes electrically conductive. At high temperatures, the alumina 
becomes magnetically transparent and this allows the ENP to leave the activator 
an enter the drone where the ENP catalyzes the LENR reaction.


http://www.thevalvepage.com/valvetek/heater/fig1.gif


Electrical conductivity Vs, temperature.



On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:


The so called Erzion phenomenon was discovered in a series of electrolytic 
experiments marked by unexplained changes in a pool of cooling water outside of 
the catalytic cell. After 40 minutes of electrolytic cell operation, water on 
the tungsten anode side of the cooling vessel started loosing its transparency.
Water on the stainless steel cathode of the pool of cooling water remained 
transparent, at the same 40 C temperature. A sample of bubbly water, removed 
from the anode side, was tested for induced gamma radioactivity. No such 
radioactivity was found in it; the sample became transparent after 24 hours. 
Attempts to reproduce the long-term loss of cooling water transparency with 
other electrolytes, and under different electrical discharge conditions, were 
not successful. But the effect was highly reproducible when experimenting with 
the tungsten-anode electrolytic cell and the 7 M KF electrolyte containing 50% 
of heavy water.





That cooling water on the outside of the electrolytic cell's glass reactor 
shell at the right side (see Figure 1) is close to the anode while cooling 
water on the left side is close to the cathode. The disappearance of bubbles, 
after the electrolysis, was very slow (half-life of about 10 hrs). Attempts to 
explain the phenomenon in terms of cavitation, and other ultrasonic effects, 
were not successful. The only satisfactory explanation was possible within the 
framework of the erzion model. Authors believe that bubbles are produced 
through the action of neutral Erzions.
The Erzons phenomenon behavior is consistent with the magnetic based Exotic 
Neutral Particle(ENP). To begin with, the glass container is transparent to the 
magnetically based ENPs both optically and magnetically. The LENR reaction that 
keeps the ENPs viable produce the vapor that forms the water bubbles. The ENPs 
become energetically self sufficient in the water of the cooling pool where the 
ENPs remain viable for hours.
If the Erzons phenomenon is produced by magnetically based ENPs, an iron plate 
placed just on the outside of the glass wall adjacent to the anode would 
prevent the ENPs from exiting the glass electrolytic cell. With the ENPs 
blocked from travel, bubble production would be eliminated.




On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

In my opinion, the fundamental nature of the Rossi effect is based on 
magnetism. The catalytic particle that produces the reaction is magnetic in 
nature. This particle is produced by heat pumping and EMF stimulation. The 
nature of this Exotic Neutral Particle (ENP)is reflected by the behaviour of 
the E-Cat itself and reflect how the E-Cat operates. 

The ENP can exist at low energy pumping where the energy coming into the 
particle is equal to the energy leaving the particle. This is similar to the 
way Rossi keeps his reactor under control. Too much external energy pumping 
will result

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
first of all thanks for the many advices you give. I will try to get hold
of a book at some point in time.
I understand that what I think does not change the world. However, facts
like government (or any organization cannot achieve result is true. That
does not mean that organization is worthless. What I try to say it certain
organizations work better than others for different tasks / jobs. I do have
some experience of that from real life and I spent considerable time to
work with government in changing situations - that does not work at all -
ever. I have done similar job in small organizations and achieved rather
good result. So my statements are built more on experience and less on
books.
Having said so I have learnt the statement that;'Organizations cannot get
result but people can', in a book. Maybe I read to many books - you confuse
me. Or is it so that there is a book supporting most any opinion you have?
I am not claiming any good understanding of LENR or its history. I did not
know Mr. Fleischman. If you say he expressed contempt for entrepreneur I
believe you. I still say he had some entrepreneurial characteristics.
Unfortunately he was in an environment that made it impossible or at least
very difficult to develop / utilize those entrepreneurial skills.
No I did not (do not) answer as you want. I answer in my way.
The answer to I have given you many examples of major technologies that
were discovered by or paid for by governments. You have not addressed a
single one of these examples. No, technology has been discovered by the
government. You should say that the queen of spain should be celebrated
on Columbus day with your logics (nonexisting btw).
​and​

You claim researchers outside the government have replicated. I asked for
their names. You have not given a single one.
​ Can be found here;​ has been given in general form and supported with a
couple of examples.

Finally you have not heard much I conclude from, '
That is the most idiotic assertion I have heard in many years.
​'​ Instead of reading a book perhaps some hands on work is a good advice
to you.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>
>> No, I do not think the government does anything for progress.
>>
>
> What you think is irrelevant. Read any history of technology and you will
> see that you are wrong. Your opinions cannot change facts or rewrite
> history books.
>
> I have given you many examples of major technologies that were discovered
> by or paid for by governments. You have not addressed a single one of these
> examples.
>
> You claim researchers outside the government have replicated. I asked for
> their names. You have not given a single one.
>
> You claimed that Fleischmann "sounds to me like an entrepreneur" and that
> he was "certainly not supported by the government." That is preposterous.
> He worked for the government his entire life, except at the end when he
> worked for IMRA, and that went badly. He was never anything like an
> entrepreneur. He expressed contempt for entrepreneurs and businessmen in
> general.
>
> You clearly know nothing about the history of technology or cold fusion,
> and nothing about Fleischmann or the other researchers. Before you spout
> off about a subject (any subject) I suggest you read books and learn
> something about it.
>
>
>
>> Organizations cannot make result but people can.
>>
>
> That is the most idiotic assertion I have heard in many years. Do you
> think individual people can build railroads, run corporations, eliminate
> smallpox or win World War II? On their own? Without an organization to back
> them up and coordinate their efforts? Most professors I know are so
> helpless, and so inept at anything outside their specialty, they cannot
> type a paper without organizational support. Without people like me, to be
> specific. They can barely order lunch.
>
> Without organizations human society and civilization would not exist.
> There would be no continuity, no support systems, and no accomplishment
> larger than a single person can handle in one lifetime.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:


> The reference that 97% of scientists believe that man is responsible for
> 90% of the problem has been proven wildly wrong (<1% actually agree) but
> keeps being stated over and over.


That's nonsense. You sound like the editors at Scientific American who keep
assuring me that no paper on cold fusion has ever been published.

Most climatologists are sure that CO2 from burning fuel is causing global
warming. Maybe they are right, and maybe they are wrong, but there is no
doubt that is what the majority of them think. Not <1%; most of them. This
is a matter of fact. Not an opinion, and not a scientific dispute. This is
what climatologists say in opinion polls and in their own journals and web
sites.

You can dispute scientific findings all you like, but you cannot dispute
what climatologists tell poll takers, or what they say publicly. They DO
NOT say what you claim they say. Along the same lines, the people at
Scientific American may claim that no good papers have been published. They
may claim that no papers have been published in Nature, or in Science. But
when they say that no papers have been published they are denying a matter
of fact that anyone can verify. That's stupid.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:


> No, I do not think the government does anything for progress.
>

What you think is irrelevant. Read any history of technology and you will
see that you are wrong. Your opinions cannot change facts or rewrite
history books.

I have given you many examples of major technologies that were discovered
by or paid for by governments. You have not addressed a single one of these
examples.

You claim researchers outside the government have replicated. I asked for
their names. You have not given a single one.

You claimed that Fleischmann "sounds to me like an entrepreneur" and that
he was "certainly not supported by the government." That is preposterous.
He worked for the government his entire life, except at the end when he
worked for IMRA, and that went badly. He was never anything like an
entrepreneur. He expressed contempt for entrepreneurs and businessmen in
general.

You clearly know nothing about the history of technology or cold fusion,
and nothing about Fleischmann or the other researchers. Before you spout
off about a subject (any subject) I suggest you read books and learn
something about it.



> Organizations cannot make result but people can.
>

That is the most idiotic assertion I have heard in many years. Do you think
individual people can build railroads, run corporations, eliminate smallpox
or win World War II? On their own? Without an organization to back them up
and coordinate their efforts? Most professors I know are so helpless, and
so inept at anything outside their specialty, they cannot type a paper
without organizational support. Without people like me, to be specific.
They can barely order lunch.

Without organizations human society and civilization would not exist. There
would be no continuity, no support systems, and no accomplishment larger
than a single person can handle in one lifetime.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[Axil Axil]

Roland  Bob

 • 17 hours ago


Hi Bob,

Each 250kVA module is composed of 16 reactors; we were all confused about
this till Rossi revealed the structure a few days ago after the photos and
mockups were published.


From:

Rossi on the E-Cat’s Modular Future: E-Cat X Units Can Combine to Make
Power Plants of Any Size

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:42 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Axil, where did you see a description of the tiger?  I do not recall any
> reference to the use of one module to drive the other 15.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, Dec 1, 2015 10:40 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
>
> It has be recently revealed that each 250kVA E-Cat tiger reactor module is
> composed of 16 reactors. Only one of those reactors  is a powered
> activator(mouse). The other 15 are drones driven by the activator. The
> activator produces a reaction catalyst that drives the other drones. I say
> that the reaction catalyst is the magnetic Exotic Neutral Particle(ENP)
> that becomes mobile as its energy content level reaches a self sustaining
> threshold. At low temperatures the alumina tub reactor shell that all these
> reactors are comprised of confines the ENP. But as all these reactors heat
> up, the alumina shell becomes electrically conductive. At high
> temperatures, the alumina becomes magnetically transparent and this allows
> the ENP to leave the activator an enter the drone where the ENP catalyzes
> the LENR reaction.
>
> http://www.thevalvepage.com/valvetek/heater/fig1.gif
>
> Electrical conductivity Vs, temperature.
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> The so called Erzion phenomenon was discovered in a series of
>> electrolytic experiments marked by unexplained changes in a pool of cooling
>> water outside of the catalytic cell. After 40 minutes of electrolytic cell
>> operation, water on the tungsten anode side of the cooling vessel started
>> loosing its transparency.
>> Water on the stainless steel cathode of the pool of cooling water
>> remained transparent, at the same 40 C temperature. A sample of bubbly
>> water, removed from the anode side, was tested for induced gamma
>> radioactivity. No such radioactivity was found in it; the sample became
>> transparent after 24 hours. Attempts to reproduce the long-term loss of
>> cooling water transparency with other electrolytes, and under different
>> electrical discharge conditions, were not successful. But the effect was
>> highly reproducible when experimenting with the tungsten-anode electrolytic
>> cell and the 7 M KF electrolyte containing 50% of heavy water.
>> [image: Thumbnail]
>> 
>> That cooling water on the outside of the electrolytic cell's glass
>> reactor shell at the right side (see Figure 1) is close to the anode while
>> cooling water on the left side is close to the cathode. The disappearance
>> of bubbles, after the electrolysis, was very slow (half-life of about 10
>> hrs). Attempts to explain the phenomenon in terms of cavitation, and other
>> ultrasonic effects, were not successful. The only satisfactory explanation
>> was possible within the framework of the erzion model. Authors believe that
>> bubbles are produced through the action of neutral Erzions.
>> The Erzons phenomenon behavior is consistent with the magnetic based
>> Exotic Neutral Particle(ENP). To begin with, the glass container is
>> transparent to the magnetically based ENPs both optically and magnetically.
>> The LENR reaction that keeps the ENPs viable produce the vapor that forms
>> the water bubbles. The ENPs become energetically self sufficient in the
>> water of the cooling pool where the ENPs remain viable for hours.
>> If the Erzons phenomenon is produced by magnetically based ENPs, an iron
>> plate placed just on the outside of the glass wall adjacent to the anode
>> would prevent the ENPs from exiting the glass electrolytic cell. With the
>> ENPs blocked from travel, bubble production would be eliminated.
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> In my opinion, the fundamental nature of the Rossi effect is based on
>>> magnetism. The catalytic particle that produces the reaction is magnetic in
>>> nature. This particle is produced by heat pumping and EMF stimulation. The
>>> nature of this Exotic Neutral Particle (ENP)is reflected by the behaviour
>>> of the E-Cat itself and reflect how the E-Cat operates.
>>>
>>> The ENP can exist at low energy pumping where the energy coming into the
>>> particle is equal to the energy leaving the particle. This is similar to
>>> the way Rossi

Re: [Vo]:[OT]: Toward a More Scientifically Literate Public

[a.ashfield]

I wrote this comment to the piece but I see it disappeared...

Pity you used such a bad example for pathological science.LENR aka cold 
fusion is alive and well, so you are completely wrong about that.


Industrial Heat LLC has built a commercial 1 MW LENR thermal plant that 
according to Norway’s largest newspaper Aftenposten has been working 
well.Consisting of four 250 kW E-Cats It has been operating for nine 
months as part of a one year trial.The results will be published in 
Feb/Mar 2016.Andrea Rossi has also developed a high temperature E-Cat X, 
that operates at over 1000C, that is now in early trials.Industrial Heat 
is now funded with $59 million.See www.lenrproof.com


Even the original Fleischmann and Pons experiment has since been 
duplicated.It is now known that the hot fusion scientists, who attempted 
the earlier failed replications, did not load the Palladium sufficiently 
with Deuterium for the process to work.


To me, the greater danger is group-think.It shows not only with the 
academic response to LENR and by their unquestioning acceptance a 
AGW.Judging from the ~19 years of no warming shown by satellite 
temperature measurements the effect of CO2 has been exaggerated and the 
science certainly is not "settled."


http://today.ucf.edu/toward-a-more-scientifically-literate-public/

[Vo]:Re: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Bob Cook]

What is being discussed seems to  reflect what might happen in a small system 
with a new particle being introduced to that system with significant kinetic 
energy.  What happens in a coherent system (with many particles with their 
mass, charge and spin) that hosts the introduction of a new particle with 
significant kinetic energy may be a different story, since the inertia and 
angular momentum  of many particles of that system may be involved in the 
kinetics that happen.  For example, kinetic energy of the incoming particle may 
be distributed evenly as a in-phase vibration, phonon, of the lattice electrons 
of the coherent system.  

In other words the many-particles of a large coherent system is a tough problem 
to solve.  However,   I suspect the  wave length of the incoming particle and 
its relation to the vibrational modes of a coherent system is a pertinent 
parameter as to what will happen in way of sharing the incoming kinetic energy, 
momentum, angular momentum etc.  

An additional consideration may be the geometry of the coherent system as to 
whether or not Casmir effects prevail and change the effective dimensions and 
normal electric field directional arrangements.   

IMHO empirical correlation of known parameters is the key to understanding the 
situation being discussed in this thread.  I wish there was a better instrument 
to measure in-phase lattice vibrations of nano particles on a short time frame. 
 Maybe a fast infrared spectrum analyzer to look for peaks in a given frequency 
with large intensity would be such an instrument.  

Bob Cook

From: David Roberson 
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 8:24 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

Robin, I agree that the field strength originating from the central tiny charge 
would be the same as without the presence of the external ring once the alpha 
breaches that ring.   The main idea is that the alpha would only require an 
incoming amount of energy associated with passage from that outer ring to the 
center charge.  This would of course be a smaller energy requirement than 
without the ring being in place.

The reduction in alpha incoming energy is inversely proportional to the square 
of the radius of the outer ring.   That implies that the central charge will 
dominate the total required energy to a very large extent unless the radius of 
the outer spherical ring of negative charge is small compared to that of the 
central charge.   For this reason I also would not expect the energy reduction 
to be very large, but it should be present.

You are correct in suggesting that a symmetrical sphere of negative charge 
surrounding a nucleus would not impact the field within that nucleus.  And, one 
would not expect the alpha to be encouraged to leave a nucleus for that reason. 
 On the other hand, one leaving should enjoy less net energy than an alpha 
ejected from a bare nucleus once it has left the near region.  This appears to 
be an interesting concept.  I suppose that it implies that since the alpha was 
once part of the nucleus, it shares a portion of the energy loss that occurs 
when the external electrons shed orbital energy as the atom reaches ground 
state by electromagnetic radiation.

Robin, are you aware of any direct correlation between the energy emitted by a 
particle and its decay rate?  The spherical symmetrical shell structure should 
likely result in a slightly lower energy alpha emission by the process outlined 
above.  Even though the electric field within the nucleus would remain the 
same, the energy of the released alpha would be less.  At the moment it is not 
clear as to how to handle the energy associated with the electrons that are 
released from the atom at the same time as the alpha.

Your description of the field fluctuations occurring due to random processes 
taking place does seem logical.   What would you expect to observe if a nucleus 
that typically emits alphas is placed within a strong electric field?  For 
example, placing some of these ions within the field located between the plates 
of a high voltage capacitor?  One might expect that type of arrangement to have 
an effect upon the alpha energy and decay rate.  In this structure the field 
could be adjusted to quantify the functional relationships.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 1, 2015 4:34 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:10:02 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]

Dave, I like your analysis. However it implies that if the field were
spherically symmetrical alpha decay would not be enhanced since the nucleus
would not feel the external electrons at all. Since increasing the electron
density is known to slightly increase the alpha decay rate, one can only draw
the conclusion that the field is not (always) spherically symmetrical. In fact
given the high mobility of electrons, I

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[David Roberson]

Axil, where did you see a description of the tiger?  I do not recall any 
reference to the use of one module to drive the other 15.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 1, 2015 10:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement



It has be recently revealed that each 250kVA E-Cat tiger reactor module is 
composed of 16 reactors. Only one of those reactors  is a powered 
activator(mouse). The other 15 are drones driven by the activator. The 
activator produces a reaction catalyst that drives the other drones. I say that 
the reaction catalyst is the magnetic Exotic Neutral Particle(ENP) that becomes 
mobile as its energy content level reaches a self sustaining threshold. At low 
temperatures the alumina tub reactor shell that all these reactors are 
comprised of confines the ENP. But as all these reactors heat up, the alumina 
shell becomes electrically conductive. At high temperatures, the alumina 
becomes magnetically transparent and this allows the ENP to leave the activator 
an enter the drone where the ENP catalyzes the LENR reaction.


http://www.thevalvepage.com/valvetek/heater/fig1.gif


Electrical conductivity Vs, temperature.



On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:


The so called Erzion phenomenon was discovered in a series of electrolytic 
experiments marked by unexplained changes in a pool of cooling water outside of 
the catalytic cell. After 40 minutes of electrolytic cell operation, water on 
the tungsten anode side of the cooling vessel started loosing its transparency.
Water on the stainless steel cathode of the pool of cooling water remained 
transparent, at the same 40 C temperature. A sample of bubbly water, removed 
from the anode side, was tested for induced gamma radioactivity. No such 
radioactivity was found in it; the sample became transparent after 24 hours. 
Attempts to reproduce the long-term loss of cooling water transparency with 
other electrolytes, and under different electrical discharge conditions, were 
not successful. But the effect was highly reproducible when experimenting with 
the tungsten-anode electrolytic cell and the 7 M KF electrolyte containing 50% 
of heavy water.





That cooling water on the outside of the electrolytic cell's glass reactor 
shell at the right side (see Figure 1) is close to the anode while cooling 
water on the left side is close to the cathode. The disappearance of bubbles, 
after the electrolysis, was very slow (half-life of about 10 hrs). Attempts to 
explain the phenomenon in terms of cavitation, and other ultrasonic effects, 
were not successful. The only satisfactory explanation was possible within the 
framework of the erzion model. Authors believe that bubbles are produced 
through the action of neutral Erzions.
The Erzons phenomenon behavior is consistent with the magnetic based Exotic 
Neutral Particle(ENP). To begin with, the glass container is transparent to the 
magnetically based ENPs both optically and magnetically. The LENR reaction that 
keeps the ENPs viable produce the vapor that forms the water bubbles. The ENPs 
become energetically self sufficient in the water of the cooling pool where the 
ENPs remain viable for hours.
If the Erzons phenomenon is produced by magnetically based ENPs, an iron plate 
placed just on the outside of the glass wall adjacent to the anode would 
prevent the ENPs from exiting the glass electrolytic cell. With the ENPs 
blocked from travel, bubble production would be eliminated.




On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

In my opinion, the fundamental nature of the Rossi effect is based on 
magnetism. The catalytic particle that produces the reaction is magnetic in 
nature. This particle is produced by heat pumping and EMF stimulation. The 
nature of this Exotic Neutral Particle (ENP)is reflected by the behaviour of 
the E-Cat itself and reflect how the E-Cat operates. 

The ENP can exist at low energy pumping where the energy coming into the 
particle is equal to the energy leaving the particle. This is similar to the 
way Rossi keeps his reactor under control. Too much external energy pumping 
will result in the E-Cat going critical.

The same process of over pumping happens with the ENP. Overpumping brings it to 
the stage where it becomes self-sufficient requiring no additional EMF input. 
The energized ENP can get EMF from the environment around it not requiring 
external heat or EMF simulation to be applied.

The same is true for the E-Cat. When the E-Cat is subcritical, it requires heat 
and EMF stimulation to be applied. But when it is "over stimulated" it begins 
to meltdown since it has become independent from externally applied stimulation.

The ENP can live as long as it can catalyze energy production from the material 
around it. The ENP can live for days on its own as it brings in energy from the 
environment to sustain its internal LENR reaction processes.

Magnetic confinement increases

[Vo]:LENR NEWS FOR Dec2, 2015

[Peter Gluck]

For today, my friends

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/12/02-dec-2015-lenr-newsnot-bad-not-really.html

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

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[David Roberson]

Jed, you should follow that link and might conclude that a further look at 
other sources is in order.  I once assumed that global warming was an important 
issue until I began looking into the data that is available to the public.

The reference that 97% of scientists believe that man is responsible for 90% of 
the problem has been proven wildly wrong (<1% actually agree) but keeps being 
stated over and over.  And, the long term historical data shows that global 
climate temperature increases lead to greater carbon dioxide levels but not 
strongly in the other direction.  Also, keep in mind that water is by far the 
greatest contributor to the greenhouse effect (95%) but is beyond our control.  
Study sun spots and cosmic ray effects on cloud formation if you want to 
understand what is really happening.

I suspect that most of what we are witnessing in Paris is associated with an 
attempt to gain a greater degrees of control over world resources by the UN and 
member states.  I hope no one believes that any tax collected on the cost of 
carbon is going to be returned over the long term.  At first maybe so, but 
later these taxes will be used for general revenues.

One point to note is that the professor that started Gore on his quest many 
years ago later came to the conclusion that he was wrong about man caused 
warming.  Many others have followed suit but their perspectives are prevented 
from being widely exposed by a system that protects itself to maintain access 
to billions of dollars in research.  There is a parallel with LENR deniers who 
act in their own self interest.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 1, 2015 5:31 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments




a.ashfield  wrote:


  
Mats,
I have commented as shown below.

Global warming has been exaggerated.  To understand why see: 

http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf
  Note Fig 2b.

There is nothing unusual about the weather.  . . .



Beware of statements like this. You have cited one person who has one opinion. 
It is contrary to the opinions of a large number of climate experts. It is 
possible this one person is right and the experts are wrong but it is unlikely.


If there is one lesson the history of cold fusion teaches it is that the 
experts are usually right, and you should not listen to strange people from 
outside the scientific establishment. People often think that cold fusion 
teaches just the opposite lesson, but they have it wrong. In cold fusion, the 
established experts in electrochemistry and calorimetry were able to replicate 
and they published definitive proof that the effect is real.


Most of the people criticizing these results were either scientists in 
unrelated fields who did not bother to read the literature, blowhards such as 
Robert Park, or anonymous, ignorant fanatics at Wikipedia who name themselves 
after comic book characters. In other words, they are outside the 
establishment. They have no credibility.


As Fleischmann often said, "we are painfully conventional people."



- Jed

[Vo]:[OT]: Toward a More Scientifically Literate Public

[Mark Jurich]

FYI:

I think this opinion is crying out for a well written and thought out response.  Are you up to the task?  Not sure if replies get 
posted or they are just submitted to the web master:


http://today.ucf.edu/toward-a-more-scientifically-literate-public/ 

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Lennart Thornros]

OK Jed,
No, I do not think the government does anything for progress.
The problem is that we give them all the resources. The result is that we
fail to make changes at a pace we otherwise could.
I am the first to agree that many people in the government are good and
provide a service well within the expectation.
Every year we employ more and more people in that sector, then we request
more resources and that enables more employees in this enormous
organization. Maybe it starts with more resources but the cycle is there.
Of course there are good, able, willing people in the organization.The
problem is that the guidelines are changing. The primary guideline is CYA.
You said so your self '  No one gets money by revolting. They just fire you.
'. Sad isnt it?
I am not giving you any list. Mills and Defkalion are others for example.
However, that is not the issue. The thing is that entrepreneurial skills
gets killed in the bureaucracy. Fleischman was of course revolting. He did
not succeed in Toyota either you say. That should come as no surprise; that
is another (too) big organization and the rules are the same as in
government.

I am not rewriting history. As you say facts are facts. Any progress
initiated within a large organization has an uphill battle. It has its pros
and cons a sieve if you will that let good ideas that sustain the process
to succeed while stopping others is the positive thing. However, its format
is totally devastating for radical changes and risk taking. All I am saying
it needs to be a balance. Unfortunately we are skewing the balance and
eliminating the possibilities for 'progress by revolution' (my expression
not literally meant) in favor of 'progress by evolution'.

Just to think about; ' Organizations cannot make result but people can'.
This in response to your statement about how all good ideas are born by the
government in GB and the US. Sorry, that reminds me about when I was in the
sandbox and the adversary said 'my dad is bigger than yours'.:)

You said 'Rossi would not *exist* were it not for Fleischmann and Pons!
Plus he got a lot of help from Focardi and other government researchers. He
may be ahead of government researchers now, but they discovered the
effect.' Yes,
if almost all resources are within one organization, then people in that
organization make contributions some more (get zapped) and some after CYA
can still work in government. BTW are you including the Italian government
in the sphere of GB and the US? Long time since I visited but that
government works a little different:)

Then you say that government are entitled to 'steal' (my expression) the
show as they have monopoly but no factories. I am not commenting - your
statement is enough.

You go on saying: (as a response to those among us that think
government suppression of technology is a reality) 'That is not possible.
This can only be done with patents, and patents are public by definition.
If there are no patents then other countries will take the technology for
free.'
It has happened many times, in the US and Russia more than elsewhere. I am
not a believer of that will happen with LENR.  Your ideas about patents are
naive. Patents are a good source for information and protects nobody. They
do create wealth - for lawyers. A well documented patent written by
somebody with small resources (an entrepreneur/inventor) will be
immediately stolen. Countries will issue patents to protect their own
industry and therefore eliminate the protection you are dreaming about. I
am not sure about the next but I do think there is a provision for the
government to suppress technology by classify it as a 'national
interest' in the US. In my opinion that is terrible. What is national
interest? Is there an interest to allow some but not others? (Reminds me
about Orwell and that 'All animals are equal' - '*but pigs are more equal*'.
I thought WWll showed that it does not hold water - we are all on the same
planet and need to find ways to co-exist. That requires less envy and more
empowerment of others. It is NOT a zero sum game. It is the opposite - the
more you put in for others the more you will gain.

I could respond to all your statements about the government but it all ends
up as; Organizations cannot make result but people can.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> Read about Fleischmann; sounds to me like an entrepreneur. F was
>>> certainly not supported by the government.
>>>
>>
>> He was a professor at a national university his entire working life. The
>> University of Southampton is a public research university. He never worked
>> for anyone other than the British Government.
>>
>
> Correction: He worked for Toyota (IMRA) for a while in France after he
> retired from U. Southampton

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:24 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

Robin, are you aware of any direct correlation between the energy emitted
> by a particle and its decay rate?


This is a well-established finding.  Alpha decays in nature are between 4
and 9 MeV (approx.).  The more energy, the shorter the decay, and the less
energy, the longer the decay.  The decay rates are logarithmic in the
energy, going from 10e-3 s at 9 MeV to 4.4e17 s at 4 MeV for thorium
isotopes.  If you have a copy of Krane's "Introductory Nuclear Physics" (I
highly recommend it), this phenomenon is discussed starting on p. 251 (I'm
having trouble finding a comparable discussion on the Internet).

Eric

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[David Roberson]

Robin, I agree that the field strength originating from the central tiny charge 
would be the same as without the presence of the external ring once the alpha 
breaches that ring.   The main idea is that the alpha would only require an 
incoming amount of energy associated with passage from that outer ring to the 
center charge.  This would of course be a smaller energy requirement than 
without the ring being in place.

The reduction in alpha incoming energy is inversely proportional to the square 
of the radius of the outer ring.   That implies that the central charge will 
dominate the total required energy to a very large extent unless the radius of 
the outer spherical ring of negative charge is small compared to that of the 
central charge.   For this reason I also would not expect the energy reduction 
to be very large, but it should be present.

You are correct in suggesting that a symmetrical sphere of negative charge 
surrounding a nucleus would not impact the field within that nucleus.  And, one 
would not expect the alpha to be encouraged to leave a nucleus for that reason. 
 On the other hand, one leaving should enjoy less net energy than an alpha 
ejected from a bare nucleus once it has left the near region.  This appears to 
be an interesting concept.  I suppose that it implies that since the alpha was 
once part of the nucleus, it shares a portion of the energy loss that occurs 
when the external electrons shed orbital energy as the atom reaches ground 
state by electromagnetic radiation.

Robin, are you aware of any direct correlation between the energy emitted by a 
particle and its decay rate?  The spherical symmetrical shell structure should 
likely result in a slightly lower energy alpha emission by the process outlined 
above.  Even though the electric field within the nucleus would remain the 
same, the energy of the released alpha would be less.  At the moment it is not 
clear as to how to handle the energy associated with the electrons that are 
released from the atom at the same time as the alpha.

Your description of the field fluctuations occurring due to random processes 
taking place does seem logical.   What would you expect to observe if a nucleus 
that typically emits alphas is placed within a strong electric field?  For 
example, placing some of these ions within the field located between the plates 
of a high voltage capacitor?  One might expect that type of arrangement to have 
an effect upon the alpha energy and decay rate.  In this structure the field 
could be adjusted to quantify the functional relationships.

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 1, 2015 4:34 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:10:02 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]

Dave, I like your analysis. However it implies that if the field were
spherically symmetrical alpha decay would not be enhanced since the nucleus
would not feel the external electrons at all. Since increasing the electron
density is known to slightly increase the alpha decay rate, one can only draw
the conclusion that the field is not (always) spherically symmetrical. In fact
given the high mobility of electrons, I would expect there to be very high
frequency and essentially random fluctuations in the local electron density at
any given point. A momentary peak would temporarily enhance the chances of alpha
decay. Furthermore a specific arrangement of atoms in a molecule or lattice may
well create an asymmetric field. Such fields may play a role in catalysis. (I'm
thinking especially of active sites in enzymes here.)


>I was thinking along the same lines as you Eric.  If you take a positive 
>charge of tiny size and surround it with an equal amount of symmetrically 
>distributed negative charge the structure is overall electrically neutral when 
>viewed at a distance.   An alpha approaching from the outside would not 
>encounter any force until it passes through the negative electrical spherical 
>shell.
>
>Once the alpha passes through the negative charge shell it encounters a 
>portion of the original positive field that is the same as previously observed 
>without the negative charge shell present.  In effect the alpha has avoided 
>the energy required to breach the negative shell distance from the central 
>charge.  The negative field is balanced out within the region from its surface 
>all the way to the central charge due to its symmetrical structure. 
>
>Dave
>
> 
>
> 
>
> 
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Eric Walker 
>To: vortex-l 
>Sent: Mon, Nov 30, 2015 4:03 pm
>Subject: Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?
>
>
>
>
>On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 2:41 PM,   wrote:
>
>
>
>No, I'm saying it does both. When the alpha particle is far away it enhances 
>it,
>
>but when it get close to a target nucleus it works against it. I'm not sure 
>what
>the net result would be.
>
>
>
>
>If the volume of the surplu

Re: [Vo]:Steorn: Orbo 28th October 2015 Transcript from Webinar

[Marcus Winckers]

Hey Esa,

I see  that you, like me, are interested in the Cube.  I  am planning on
buying one  later in the day if possible. My christmass present for
myself.  Shall we keep in touch and exchange thoughts and experiences?

Marcus Winckers
Utrecht
Netherlands.
Op 29 okt. 2015 07:38 schreef "Esa Ruoho" :

> If you guys like the internets more, the transcript is mirrored here:
> http://freeenergy.news/steorn/steorn-o-cube-webinar-full-transcript/
>
>
> On 29 October 2015 at 02:17, Esa Ruoho  wrote:
>
>> Hi, here's my transcript of the Orbo Steorn Webinar broadcast on the 28th
>> October 2015.
>>
>> If you use any of it, please credit accordingly.
>> the video is at http://orbo.com/
>> --
>>
>> Pat: Welcome to the Orbo Webinar. We're here today to introduce you to
>> the first Orbo product, the O-Cube. Orbo is a highly controversial
>> technology ... (Shaun places the O-Cube on the table) ..and we're going to
>> demonstrate the functionality of the O-Cube. Before we do that, however, we
>> want to just give you a brief flavour of who we are and the journey that
>> we've taken over the last fifteen years.
>> ---
>> Shaun: So, twelve and a half years ago, yeah? Tell me, how on earth, you
>> got into this crazy company.
>> Pat: The beginning's actually going back fourteen years ago, because,
>> what happened was, in 2001, I was looking to evaluate a particular piece of
>> technology, nothing to do with Steorn.. And, I didn't know how to evaluate
>> it, and I made a number of calls, and I was put in contact with yourselves.
>> So, I met Mike and yourself in 2001 and you looked at the proposition, the
>> technology we're looking at, and you evaluated it and you said look,
>> listen, this is not, you know, something to look at.. so, that was the way
>> it was left. And, I went to meet you then in April 2004 and the purpose of
>> that conversation was.. ahm..
>> Shaun: "Where's me fucking money" (laughs)
>> Pat: Well, it wasn't, it wasn't even at that, because I knew, like, the
>> proposition for what is.. But the point you were putting to me, was you
>> said, "Look, we're looking for a venture capital..".. you said to me, first
>> of all, you said to me, "I'm looking for a VC company", and what I did
>> was.. I.. The first thing I did probably before I even looked beyond them
>> was, I got a friend of mine who's a, you know, he's an engineer and I got
>> him to go in and spend some time with yourself and Mike and to evaluate
>> what it was. And.. I can remember walking out of Fumberly Court as it was
>> on a Friday afternoon and.. the two of yous were walking along side by
>> side.. I said "What you think?" and he just said "Can I invest?". And it
>> was, it was kind of like that, and I said "Are you serious?" and he said,
>> "Pat, If this is right" he said, "This is gonna to be very very serious."
>> 
>> Mike: So Shaun, looking a bit tired.. Understandable. Ten years defending
>> your claims and yourself. Ahm, give us a little bit of background about
>> Steorn, for a bit, new people tuning in today.
>> Shaun: Steorn was a company that you and me founded, Mike. Back in 2000,
>> and we started doing project management.. We were in the world of fruit, a
>> lot of bananas. And then we started developing technology for others, as
>> you know, that's when we developed forensic systems for companies like
>> Microsoft and credit card companies, and we did expert witnessing, in,
>> fraud..
>> Mike: (interrupts) So you get on..
>> Shaun: And then one day..
>> Mike: (interrupts) And then one day you're sitting there at your desk,
>> magnets spinning around, and you decide: "I need an ad in the Economist".
>> Shaun: One day we made a discovery, whatever you gonna call it, a
>> mistake, depending on where you sit, where we went, yeah, look..
>> We can get more energy out of these bizarre magnetic fields than we're
>> putting in, isn't that really cool? And wouldn't it be great to build
>> something that uses this, put it in the market, and hopefully make a lot of
>> money.
>> ---
>> Alex?: When I saw yous guys coming in, and meeting up after work, I
>> realized that yous were doing a lot of brainstorming, and once I, you know,
>> I didn't really know much about it, because I kept hearing the name Steorn,
>> and I didn't really know how to pronounce it or anything like that, but I
>> realized that yous were doing some interesting stuff, but it's been
>> enjoyable seeing the progression over the years, and, you know, we're
>> really, really really interested in what's going on, ahm, you know..
>> Shaun: And you.. You see all the lads from Steorn, outside and about, in
>> and out of there, these lads that just (heard) about every provocation and
>> word and insult in the world, they're called conman, scam-artist, and so
>> on, you've seen them at their most vulnerable. Honestly what do you think
>> of them?
>> Alex?:  I've never seen them worry, I've never seen them. I like them,
>> genuinely like, I know yous all, right down