[Vo]:NASA’s New Shortcut to Fusion Power

[Jack Cole]

You could, at a minimum, say this approach was inspired by all the CF
research.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/lattice-confinement-fusion

[Vo]:Popular Mechanics: Scientists Just Killed the EmDrive

[Jack Cole]

Popular Mechanics: Scientists Just Killed the EmDrive.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a35991457/emdrive-thruster-fails-tests/

Re: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice Confinement Fusion

[Jack Cole]

By "our" last experiments I mean you and I.  The idea was mostly yours if I
recall correctly.  I don't have the site up anymore, but you can see it
here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20180613041630/http://lenr-coldfusion.com/

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 7:45 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Jack Cole wrote:
>
> It is also hard to not see some parallels with our last experiments (2016)
> with TiH2, nickel sheets, and light.
>
>
> Jack
>
> Do you have an online citation for this work?
>

Re: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice Confinement Fusion

[Jack Cole]

It is also hard to not see some parallels with our last experiments (2016)
with TiH2, nickel sheets, and light.

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:58 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Ha! The new and improved new wording is interesting in a semantic sense...
> but get real...
>
> Of course it is the demon cold fusion, but now we can pivot around that
> stigma and instead present it all in on a different geometry... very little
> changes but the word salad.
>
> IOW it is the same old cold fusion (of P/F) that we know and lover ... no
> substantial difference at all... but now we differentiate so that it is
> very hot at the femtoscale and warm everywhere else... exactly like it has
> been for the past 31 years when the perspective is the much larger
> dimensional frame of reference.
>
> I think Larry Forsley must be getting a big laugh out of this  :-)
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 5, 2020, 7:31:16 PM PDT, Jack Cole 
> wrote:
>
>
> They are careful to say it's not CF.  Sure seems like it originated in CF
> methods.
>
>
> https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/nuclear-fusiontokamak-not-included
>

[Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice Confinement Fusion

[Jack Cole]

They are careful to say it's not CF.  Sure seems like it originated in CF
methods.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/nuclear-fusiontokamak-not-included

Re: [Vo]:Mizuno experiment replication at Hokkaido University of Science

[Jack Cole]

What do you make of the fact that the calibration runs were done after the
apparent excess heat runs (based on the dates on the charts)?  Would be
nice to have a full step-up and step-down calibration and raw data rather
than results.  It's hard to know what to make of the report without more
data.

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 3:24 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I added some information from Saito et al., including a schematic, and
> calibrations and excess heat tests at 72 W, 345 W and 750 W. See pages 6 -
> 12:
>
> https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTsupplement.pdf
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jack Cole]

I'm not sure what work you are referring to:

This one had an open top and claimed excess heat.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTproduction.pdf

Here's one where he had a top on it and showed mostly no excess heat, but
supposedly excess hydrogen.  The alleged episodes of excess heat are pretty
weak.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTgenerationa.pdf

 Has a top on.  Doesn't even talk about excess heat, but instead focused on
excess hydrogen.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoThydrogenev.pdf

Looks like he had trouble replicating his own results.  Because he had a
top on the beaker?

Jack


On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 9:23 AM Jack Cole  wrote:

> Thank you.  If true, that refutes my point about his work being debunked.
>
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 8:33 AM Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Jack Cole  wrote:
>>
>> We disagree, so I'll drop it as not being productive.  I believe that the
>>> falseness of Mizuno's previous results was exposed and he/you are unwilling
>>> to spend the time to address the issues that showed how his experiments
>>> were likely compromised.
>>>
>>
>> I did, at the time. I just reiterated the main reason. The method of
>> calorimetry was different. Only part of the water boiled, and none of it
>> left the cell. It is a bomb calorimeter.
>>
>>
>>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jack Cole]

Thank you.  If true, that refutes my point about his work being debunked.

On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 8:33 AM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jack Cole  wrote:
>
> We disagree, so I'll drop it as not being productive.  I believe that the
>> falseness of Mizuno's previous results was exposed and he/you are unwilling
>> to spend the time to address the issues that showed how his experiments
>> were likely compromised.
>>
>
> I did, at the time. I just reiterated the main reason. The method of
> calorimetry was different. Only part of the water boiled, and none of it
> left the cell. It is a bomb calorimeter.
>
>
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jack Cole]

We disagree, so I'll drop it as not being productive.  I believe that the
falseness of Mizuno's previous results was exposed and he/you are unwilling
to spend the time to address the issues that showed how his experiments
were likely compromised.  This reminds me of the profs who refused to
address the results of MFMP and others who demonstrated the errors in
Lugano.  Why?  We don't know for certain the reasons for all of them, but
heard from some that they were satisfied with the results because they got
some colleagues to agree with them.  Ok.

I wanted this research to be true, but there's no evidence that it was.
Ugo Abundo kind of revived it and then it suffered the same problems as BEC
(decreasing COP) to the point that we hear nothing else from him.

My main point again was just caution and humility about Mizuno's current
results.  There is precedent for large errors.

Jack


On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:32 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>
>> Unless Mizuno can/did address the following problems addressed in the
>> paper I linked
>> <https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KowalskiLsearchingfa.pdf> to in the
>> previous email, his work has been debunked.
>>
>
> I strongly disagree.
>
>
>
>> He [Piantelli] supposedly was going to teach MFMP how to replicate, but I
>> think they got tired of him talking about all the supposed complexities
>> without giving them any clear protocol to follow.
>>
>
> Okay, so they did not try to replicate him. As I said, only one person has
> tried as far as I know. You cannot draw any conclusion from one failed
> replication.
>
>
>
>>   Unless that can be produced, there is no reason to assume he has
>> anything (other than his word).  If I'm not mistaken, CERN tried to
>> replicate some of his work and failed.
>>
>
> Correct. That's the only attempt I know of.
>
>
>
>>   Nobody has replicated BEC's electrolysis results.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What is BEC?
>>>
>>> Brillouin Energy Corp.
>>
>
> Has anyone tried to replicate their electrolysis results? If not, no one
> knows.
>
> Disproved by who? In what paper? After how many tests?
>>>
>>> At least 3.  One of the supposed replicators retracted their results
>> after learning about the problems.  They refuted their own results!
>>
>
> So what? People often retract. The only attempts I know of were not
> adequate. The one you cited above is not adequate.
>
> You cannot tell whether the original experiment is at fault, or the
> replication is. No one can tell.
>
>
>
>> You claimed that most or all of his work had been replicated.
>>
>
> I did not. Or if I did, I certainly did not mean to say that. Anyone can
> read his papers and see they have not been replicated.
>
>
>
>>  I'm not confusing terms.  I meant debunked.
>>
>
> Then I think you are wrong. Note that the term "debunk" means "expose as a
> sham" or:
>
> expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).
> "the magazine that debunks claims of the paranormal"
> synonyms: explode, deflate, puncture, quash,
>
> I think that is too strong a term for what you cite.
>
>
>
>> You have to address the issues that Kowalski et. al. raised and I quoted
>> above.
>>
>
> I am not obligated. I do not agree, and I am not going to take the time to
> explain why.
>
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jack Cole]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 7:50 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>
>> Parkhomov, Defkalion, me356, Rossi of course (consider the connected
>> papers conducted by academics) . . .
>>
>
> Parkhomov maybe. I don't know if he a professional, and he never
> published. I meant published results in the scientific literature.
>
> He is and he did (more than once).  You can look it up.


>
>
>> , possibly Brillouin (evident from decreasing COP) . . .
>>
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Anyway, the decreasing COP is not "evidence" in the
> scientific sense. It is a fact that gives you a bad feeling. A gut feeling
> that something is not right. That's reasonable, but it ain't evidence.
> Unless you know a lot more about the experiment than I do, you can't call
> it "evidence."
>
>
>
It is evidence.  You may disagree with the meaning of that evidence.


> , Mizuno's (and many others) old plasma electrolysis work, BLP (even
>> though they point to a different mechanism - they claim high SNR).
>>
>
> Definitely not. Very few have tried to replicate. Some who did saw
> positive results. I don't think it should be called confirmed, but it was
> no disproved by any means.
>
>
>
You have to read the paper.  It is pretty convincing.  There were several
replications before that (like 5+).


> Not true.  Mizuno has made such claims himself with plasma electrolysis,
>> which were later replicated, and even later debunked.
>>
>
> No, that did not happen. A few people replicated. No one has "debunked"
> anything. I have been following this closely, and I know a lot about the
> replication attempts. Most of them failed to achieve the necessary
> conditions. Not for lack of trying.
>
>
>
I don't know what kind of evidence you require to call something debunked,
but I think it is thoroughly debunked unless Mizuno has responded and
conducted follow-up experiments taking into account splashing out of the
electrolyte.

Here is what one attempted replicator said
<https://earthtech.org/cold-fusion/mizuno/incandescent-pt/>:

> Mizuno claims in his report2 that “the reaction is 100% reproducible.” A
> casual observer would certainly have to agree that we have replicated the
> basic phenomenon that Mizuno, et al were investigating. However, we see no
> sign of excess heat in our experiments. Our calorimetry has an overall
> accuracy of about 1% relative and this results in an excess heat detection
> limit of about 3% relative. Therefore we have not accidentally missed “high
> heat output of the order of several hundred watts…from input power of tens
> of watts”.


Unless Mizuno can/did address the following problems addressed in the paper
I linked <https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KowalskiLsearchingfa.pdf> to in
the previous email, his work has been debunked.

The challenge presented by ejection of liquid water is indeed very serious
> becase the latent heat of evaporation is large. Mist ejection, at the rate
> of 50 milligrams per second, results in the overestimation of Pout by
> 2260*0.05 = 113 W. This, however, is only one possible explanation of
> discrepancies. Another might be associated with microexplosions we
> occasionally observed during plasma electrolysis, expecially at higher
> voltages (see Appendix 3). Such explosions are accompanied by loud popping
> noise and very intensive arcing. We suspect that escaping hydrogen and
> oxygen occasionally combine under the influence of arcing. That could be a
> possible non-nuclear source of excess heat repored by several researchers.


   Piantelli has made high output claims -- never replicated.
>>
>
> Only one person tried to replicate as far as I know. The conditions were
> probably not met, according to Piantelli. Anyway, one test is not
> reasonable grounds to dismiss a claim.
>
>
He supposedly was going to teach MFMP how to replicate, but I think they
got tired of him talking about all the supposed complexities without giving
them any clear protocol to follow.  Unless that can be produced, there is
no reason to assume he has anything (other than his word).  If I'm not
mistaken, CERN tried to replicate some of his work and failed.



>
>
>>   Nobody has replicated BEC's electrolysis results.
>>
>
> What is BEC?
>
> Brillouin Energy Corp.


>
> Recall the previous results that were debated here about a Mizuno
>> experiment and calorimetry, which Dave Roberson was able to determine the
>> error that had been made (through very clever simulation work).
>>
>
> I myself made a mistake in it, but you said "big" errors, meaning large
> excess heat. That was what appeared to be a tiny result.
>
>

>
>>   Recall the p

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jack Cole]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 6:51 AM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jack Cole  wrote:
>
> We've seen errors this big before.
>>
>
> I do not think so. Rossi apparently made errors this big, and much bigger:
> 1 MW. (I think this was fraud, not error.) But I do not know recall any
> professional scientist who has published a paper which was later shown to
> have errors on this scale. Not in absolute power, or in the O/I ratio.
>
> If you disagree, which paper do you have in mind? Who made errors this big
> before?
>
>
Parkhomov, Defkalion, me356, Rossi of course (consider the connected papers
conducted by academics), possibly Brillouin (evident from decreasing COP),
Mizuno's (and many others) old plasma electrolysis work, BLP (even though
they point to a different mechanism - they claim high SNR).  There were
other papers claiming replication of Rossi that could never be replicated.
It's not hard to get it wrong and in a big way.  The experimenter needs to
be his or her own biggest critic.  In particular, because he (MIzuno) has
the most intimate knowledge of his apparatus.


>
>> Best to not get too excited until there is a replication.
>>
>
> I agree.
>
>
>
>>   Based on history, every time there has been an amazing result like
>> this, it has turned out to be either a huge mistake, unreplicable, or
>> fraudulent (I don't suspect fraud at all in this case).
>>
>
> I do not think so, as I said. Give some examples. Who made a huge mistake?
> What was not replicatable? The only fraudulent results in the history of
> the field were Defkalion and Rossi, as far as I know. There may be others
> that were fraud, but I thought they were mistakes that could not be
> replicated. However, all the results I know of that could not be replicated
> were very small. They were marginal. They look like mistakes.
>
> I have never heard of anyone claiming 40 to 250 W that turned out to be a
> mistake. Very few claims in cold fusion exceeded 10 or 20 W. As far as I
> know, the only reaction of ~20 W that could not be replicated is Dardik's
> heat after death:
>
> https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIprogressin.pdf
>
> The only major large claim, of ~100 W, was Fleischmann and Pons boil-off
> experiment. As far as I know, only one group tried to replicate, Lonchampt
> and Biberian. They succeeded. Lonchampt was a nuclear engineer, so he
> followed instructions, so it worked.
>
> There was a molten salt claim of over 100 W, but no one tried to replicate.
>
>
Not true.  Mizuno has made such claims himself with plasma electrolysis,
which were later replicated, and even later debunked.   Piantelli has made
high output claims -- never replicated.  Nobody has replicated BEC's
electrolysis results.  You could argue that nobody has replicated his gas
loading experiments either (though there is some possible support through
testing).

>
> How many times have people failed to replicate Mizuno and/or shown his
>> results to be in error in the past?
>>
>
> Never, as far as I know. All of his claims were either replicated, or no
> one tried to replicate. Mostly the latter. IH tried to replicate one claim
> but they never got started, as far as I know. There were problems with the
> equipment. This resembles the situation with the Google researchers in
> *Nature* for their Pd-D claims. It was not a replication because they
> never reached high loading. It was an attempt that failed for known
> reasons. (I cannot judge their Ni claims.)
>
>
Recall the previous results that were debated here about a Mizuno
experiment and calorimetry, which Dave Roberson was able to determine the
error that had been made (through very clever simulation work).  Recall the
previous claims of Mizuno and plasma electrolysis that had been initially
replicated, but later research convincingly disproved (at least to me).
What research of his do you feel is highly replicable?

Here's a replication claiming up to 120W excess.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FauvarqueJabnormalex.pdf

Non-replication explaining previous results by splashing out of water by
micro-explosions.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KowalskiLsearchingfa.pdf



>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jack Cole]

We've seen errors this big before.  Best to not get too excited until there
is a replication.  Based on history, every time there has been an amazing
result like this, it has turned out to be either a huge mistake,
unreplicable, or fraudulent (I don't suspect fraud at all in this case).  I
hope I'm wrong, and the issue has been solved once and for all.  How many
times have people failed to replicate Mizuno and/or shown his results to be
in error in the past?  This is not a criticism, but a call for tempered
expectations.

Jack

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:32 PM Dave Roberson  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Dave Roberson 
> *Sent: *Friday, June 28, 2019 1:40 PM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *RE: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake
>
>
>
> Interesting results.  One question I have is what material is used as a
> gasket between the end flanges and the SS reaction chamber?  It is hard to
> believe that nothing is required to prevent leaks.
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> With further reading I see that some thin gasket was used.  I answered my
> own question.  Of course the type of material is very critical for anyone
> wanting to replicate the experiment.
>
>
>
> Dave
>

Re: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat

[Jack Cole]

>
> It is a normal heating curve! It is a calibration. It looks pretty bumpy
> to me. That's ambient temp fluctuations, I think.


Not so.  I used the data from his active run to create that chart.

He re-calibrates everything, every time he puts reactors into the box and
> seals it up. He does the procedures graphed in the Calorimetry section of
> the new paper. The traverse test and so on. He leaves the reactors in for a
> long time in some cases. Months. He can recalibrate anytime.
>
> He also cleans out the fan and does other maintenance before starting a
> run.
>

He probably needs to include more data.  We're kind of left taking his word
for it.  It is such an amazing result that he should at least end with
another calibration.

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 7:10 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jack Cole  wrote:
>
> It's not really clear to me whether he re-calibrated everything with the
>> new reactor.
>>
>
> He re-calibrates everything, every time he puts reactors into the box and
> seals it up. He does the procedures graphed in the Calorimetry section of
> the new paper. The traverse test and so on. He leaves the reactors in for a
> long time in some cases. Months. He can recalibrate anytime.
>
> He also cleans out the fan and does other maintenance before starting a
> run.
>
>
>
>>   In the first set of experiments (first paper), he had two reactors and
>> would switch between them.
>>
>
> Still does.
>
>
>
>> The second set, he only shows a 50W calibration and 0W.  I graphed input
>> power by reactor temp, and it looks awfully uniform (and quite similar to a
>> normal heating curve).
>>
>
> It is a normal heating curve! It is a calibration. It looks pretty bumpy
> to me. That's ambient temp fluctuations, I think.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat

[Jack Cole]

It's not really clear to me whether he re-calibrated everything with the
new reactor.  In the first set of experiments (first paper), he had two
reactors and would switch between them.  The second set, he only shows a
50W calibration and 0W.  I graphed input power by reactor temp, and it
looks awfully uniform (and quite similar to a normal heating curve).  It
would be nice to have calibration data to add to the chart.

[image: image.png]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 3:28 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Here is some more info. from the invoice for the nickel meshes, from Inada
> Kanaami, Inc. It says:
>
> ニッケル200 綾織金網 0.055Ｘ180mesh 200X300 5枚
>
> Let me insert commas. That means:
>
> Nickel 200, twill wire mesh, 0.055 x 180 mesh, 200 x 300, 5 sheets
>
> Nickel-200 is 99.6% nickel. It is described here:
>
> https://www.magellanmetals.com/nickel-200
>
>

[Vo]:CNBC: Brad Pitt and Laurene Powell Jobs are reportedly invested in a mysterious 'cold fusion' energy company

[Jack Cole]

CNBC: Brad Pitt and Laurene Powell Jobs are reportedly invested in a
mysterious 'cold fusion' energy company.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/brad-pitt-and-laurene-powell-jobs-are-reportedly-invested-in-a-mysterious-cold-fusion-energy-company.html

[Vo]:Physicists spot the signatures of nuclear fusion in a table-top device – Physics World

[Jack Cole]

https://physicsworld.com/a/physicists-spot-the-signatures-of-nuclear-fusion-in-a-table-top-device/

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Jack Cole]

Yes, if they put the whole thing in a calorimeter, they could measure the
input power at the wall.  I could be convinced by that kind of a setup.

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:18 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Good point, they would have been smart to place everything in a large
> calorimeter box like the one Earth-tech designed.
>
> Why not?
>
> MOAC Overview - Earth Tech
> 
>
> MOAC Overview - Earth Tech
>
> 
>
> Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> > If the waveform generator itself consumes a lot of power, that does make
> it difficult to account for input power. Perhaps the generator itself could
> be placed in an air-flow calorimeter, like Mizuno's.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Jack Cole]

There can be non-malicious reasons for not reporting that data as Jones
notes.  I would add self-deception to that list, which I think is likely in
this case.  Everyone close to the matter believes Godes couldn't have made
a mistake on the input power measurement.  While understandable, it is
likely the Achilles heal of the whole thing.

Ultimately, if you can't get more power out than you put in from the wall,
it is useless, and is most probably an error.  To prove it isn't, you have
to do a lot more convincing experiments than have been presented by Godes
et. al. so far.  You have to answer every skeptical question that is
reasonable with data and/or explanation.  They have not even come close to
doing this, but instead try to rely on the authority of the inventor /
tester.

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:21 AM Jones Beene  wrote:

> To be fair, the pulse creation of Godes (as well as all of the other
> Dardik spin-off techniques for superwaves) would be expected to be
> extremely lossy, especially if one tries to superimpose waves from multiple
> signal generators, all of which carry their own losses.
>
> No meter or measurement can change that underlying situation, so the
> discussion about accurate meters could be premature.
>
> From there on, everything is supposition. We can probably agree that if
> anyone were to meter the power going into say a three pulse generator setup
> - versus the effective power of the complex single waveform which is
> generated and going into the cell, then the combined losses could be HUGE -
> as high as 90%.
>
> Thus - it is no secret why that kind of data would not be available. It
> does not accurately reflect the true power balance. Neither does ignoring
> the losses, as they are presently doing. It is likely that the inventor did
> not want SRI to include that information since - having a high apparent COP
> is what funders want to see.
>
> There is an obvious solution to this situation. A custom circuit could be
> constructed to create a known waveform which works to enhance the energy
> localization effect - and which is designed from the start to efficiently
> generate the exact waveform. Was this done? This solution provides almost
> no flexibility, so maybe it was not done. With a dedicated circuit driven
> by a DC source, which is easily measured, the losses would be expected to
> be much less - and that situation would then accurately reflect the true
> thermodynamic balance. A DC source eliminates the need to rectify wall
> power at the start for one thing. One can imagine that Godes did not do
> this yet (or did he?) since perhaps he is not certain that he knows the
> most efficient waveform. He would not want to get locked in and perhaps he
> is still searching for more.
>
> Ideally, this kind of information should have been more fully covered in
> the report, or better yet - some of the money used to build the most
> efficient superwave generator possible, assuming that the waveform can be
> static as opposed to dependent of feedback and constant hand tuning.
>
> We would all like to know more. Especially the Dardik connection and the
> similarities with what was going on with Duncan, at the University of
> Missouri moving to Texas Tech along with staff some of whom had been with
> Dardik long ago, and who is almost never mentioned any more.
>
>
> Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>
> Jones Beene wrote:
>
> A clamp meter does KVA - and power factor correction (but not spell
> checking :-)
>
>
> To clarify, you are saying that a simple $20 wattmeter might not be
> accurate in this case, and a $200 clamp-on meter is better. Right?
>
> You could use both, I suppose. The input power to the signal generator is
> not too high for a $20 meter.
>
> This one has good reviews:
>
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Poniie-PN2000-Electricity-Electrical-Consumption/dp/B0777H8MS8/ref=sr_1_28?crid=26UG8JE9S0Q3T
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Jack Cole]

At one time, I had high hopes for Godes.  The more I followed him, it
became more evident that he and everyone else were enamored with his skills
and credentials as an EE.  Neither he, nor others, are skeptical enough of
his results to figure out what he has done wrong.  It probably wouldn't be
that hard to disprove--simply measure input power at the wall before his
generation of high voltage / frequency AC waveform.  Both he and others
have assumed that he is such a good electrical engineer that he never could
have made a mistake at measuring that power.  In the meantime, millions of
dollars have potentially been wasted.  I remain happy to apologize and
stand corrected should Godes or Tanzella of SRI say, "Look here, we
measured input power at the wall."  He supposedly had this electrolysis
system years ago that could give you a COP of 2 years ago and could turn
LENR on at will.  But in all this time, input power at the wall has never
been reported.

Jack

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 2:02 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> See:
>
> https://coldfusionnow.org/cfnpodcast/
>
> I was disappointed in this presentation. I think it is misguided. Godes'
> business strategy makes no sense. He makes absurd assertions such as: he
> must produce a finished product, and he has to reach a manufacturing level
> where fewer than 1% of the production line output fails and must be
> scrapped. This is like the Wright brothers claiming they cannot sell
> airplanes until they perfect a retractable landing gear. He says he is
> having trouble getting funded. Assuming the reactors work as claimed, if he
> would put five of them in the right hands, the skies would open up and
> billions of dollars would fall into his lap. This would happen even if the
> excess heat is only 10%. It would happen even if 99% of the reactors fail.
> For some types of transistors in the 1950s the failure rate was above 90%.
> That did not slow down the development of transistors. It just meant they
> were expensive for a while. (Some of them cost ~$16 where a vacuum tube for
> the same purpose cost $0.25, but there was a niche market for them despite
> this.)
>
> The present practicality of this device, and the engineering details that
> must be ironed out before it can be mass produced, are completely
> irrelevant.
>
> I do not understand the physics discussed in this podcast. I have not
> looked closely at the calorimetry, so I cannot judge whether the claims
> have merit.
>
>

[Vo]:DARPA invests in propellant-free rocket theory

[Jack Cole]

https://www.upi.com/DARPA-invests-in-propellant-free-rocket-theory/7121537904594/

[Vo]:EM Drive artifact

[Jack Cole]

New research seems to point to probable systematic error for the EM drive.
I have thought for quite some time that this was the most likely outcome
(based on a lack of correlation between input power and output thrust).
They believe that the EM field of the cabling was most likely interacting
with the Earth's magnetic field (resulting in apparent thrust).  I think
they are continuing research, so all may not be lost yet.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/nasas-em-drive-is-a-magnetic-wtf-thruster/

Jack

[Vo]:Article: Physicists Demonstrate How to Reverse of the Arrow of Time - MIT Technology Review

[Jack Cole]

Physicists Demonstrate How to Reverse of the Arrow of Time - MIT Technology
Review

http://flip.it/Kq0KC4

Re: [Vo]:Physicists just found a loophole in graphene that could unlock clean, limitless energy - ScienceAlert

[Jack Cole]

It's not completely clear to me where the energy is coming from beyond
heat.  The occasional anomalous vibrational waves are converted to
electricity.  The researcher makes basically the same claims in the video
as is made in the article.

I found a link to the full paper.  Maybe that will help us understand more.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.06301.pdf

Jack

On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 6:23 PM JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>
>
> *From: *Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> https://www.sciencealert.com/graphene-levy-flights-limitless-power-future-electronic-devices
>
>
>
> The abstract here reads very different from the article above and doesn’t
> mention limitless energy
>
>
>
> https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.126801
>
>
>
> Where is the supposed excess energy coming from?  ZPE ?
>
>
>
>
>
> BTW - Graphene is easy to make. Robert Murray-Smith has a number of videos
> on this.
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4AkVj-qnJxNtKuz3rkq16A
>
>
>
> He has an ink which can be printed on paper and is more electrically
>  conductive than metal.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:Physicists just found a loophole in graphene that could unlock clean, limitless energy - ScienceAlert

[Jack Cole]

https://www.sciencealert.com/graphene-levy-flights-limitless-power-future-electronic-devices

[Vo]:Article: This Overlooked Theory Could Be The Missing Piece That Explains How The EM Drive Works

[Jack Cole]

This Overlooked Theory Could Be The Missing Piece That Explains How The EM
Drive Works

http://flip.it/R11OHO

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

[Jack Cole]

>From what I can tell in their live document, me356 is there with them
tweaking things.  Doesn't really seem to be making any difference.

Jack

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 11:41 AM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Brian Ahern  wrote:
>
>> Jed is being too generous. His failure to test today is unforgivable!
>>
> Apparently they are performing a test in his absence.
>
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5228-me356-photos-of-aura-control-unit/?postID=60623#post60623
>
> If he allows some of the MFMP team to stay several extra days next week, I
> will forgive him.
>
> He is being rude, unless a family member has some sort of emergency. If I
> had people coming all the way from the Czech Republic to visit me, I would
> put aside time and cancel all family events.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

[Jack Cole]

Looks like he has already punted for the day citing family obligations.
The Americans are leaving Monday, I believe, so there may be tomorrow.
Were he planning to be objective, I think he would have said, "either I
made a mistake and it doesn't work, or it is not getting up to a high
enough temperature."  Maybe if he has the time to think about it today, he
can overcome the embarrassment, and allow the test to continue tomorrow.

Jack

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 7:02 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> As of now, this is looking worse than an objective observer would have
> predicted from the circumstances. I agree with Jed that just by letting
> these people in the door, me356 has enhanced his credibility... possibly
> less than being an early Porsche owner but at least he is open to
> scrutiny. Yet he is not the first self-deluded inventor to seek 15
> minutes of fame without good advice and proper preparation.
>
> Like it or not, this story is mostly about Rossi - another chapter in
> that disgusting legacy of failure - the man is poison. Even a dilettante
> should be able to show unity or modest gain by going back to the
> Thermacore technique. The new guy  has few credentials, no valid theory,
> no known expertise or even prior experience in LENR and no objective
> prior indication of success, but yet he gathers the rapt attention of
> the field (hoping to revive Rossi and the level of false hope which has
> been instilled).
>
> Like most on Vortex, I want his result to be great, regardless of his
> motivations since I believe LENR is real. Others like Thermacore
> demonstrated Ni-H gain at low COP -- but the poor showing today is
> unlikely to improve above the level of disappointment, not clearly
> gainful, and more like the dozen or so failed Parkhomov replication
> attempts so far (close to unity). Hopefully me356 can get it up to
> slightly above unity before they leave.
>
> Rossi supporters, as expected, were fervently praying for quick and easy
> gain at high COP since that would serve to vindicate their tarnished
> hero and show they are not as gullible as they continue to appear.
> Instead this fiasco looks like another nail in the Rossi coffin.
>
> Please, please - me365, do something tomorrow to make this negative
> assessment wrong. Show us COP of 6... or 3... or even 1.5 !
>
> Many here would be very happy with COP of 1.5 if verified by Alan
> Goldwater.
>
> Bob Higgins wrote:
> > I was only working from data I extracted from the plots.  It may prove
> > to be a little better when the raw data itself is analyzed.
> >
> > The first 10 minutes would not necessarily be better because the
> > heater was being driven with more power.  It may measure more
> > accurately because the water was closer to room temp.
> >
> > The steam was very effectively sparged - no bubbles were coming out of
> > the water.  At the end, the copper cooling coil was raised from the
> > water and steam came out from the holes in the tubing.
> >
> >
>
>

[Vo]:Can 'Apollo Fusion' Bring Us Clean Nuclear Energy?

[Jack Cole]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25922/apollo-fusion-startup-googler-nuclear-power/

[Vo]:Cheap plastic film cools whatever it touches up to 10°C | Science | AAAS

[Jack Cole]

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/cheap-plastic-film-cools-whatever-it-touches-10-c

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy press release

[Jack Cole]

Yes, they would be wise to assume the results are false, and make every
effort to disprove the results.  Start with the thought process of,
"Assuming this is an artifact, what can explain it?"  The input power being
mis-measured is one possibility that has not been discussed in sufficient
detail to know if they have ruled this out.  Since Godes is an EE, it might
be presumed (falsely), that the electrical power measurement is
bullet-proof.


On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:22 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

>   Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> > I think Brian wants them to measure power going into the power
> > supplies. That sounds like a good idea to me. Probably a lot is lost
> > between the power supply input and the reactor core, but you could
> > still compare a null run to an excess heat run. You could confirm that
> > the apparent excess is not coming through the power supply that
> > produces the fancy waveform.
>
> Yes. That is the heart of the problem.
>
> If you need a complex waveform to show gain and it entails losses to
> produce that waveform, then that those losses are  part of the input
> requirement and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise.
>
> Thus a gain of say 150% is reduced to almost no gain... if the waveform
> is lossy... and the result is what Brillouin does not want to admit:
> almost no net gain.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[Jack Cole]

Dave,

The secondhand news is that it is not working in space FWIW.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1623141#msg1623141

Jack


On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 1:08 AM David Roberson  wrote:

> Russ,
>
> Can you verify that the Chinese actually have a functioning EM drive on
> their space station.  Also, how much thrust are they claiming?  Finally, is
> that device or group of devices capable of maintaining all of the
> orientation required for the station?
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Russ George 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:45 pm
> Subject: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft
>
> A curious facet of the EM drive, such as the one now operating on the
> Chinese space station is that it need not be on the outside of the
> spacecraft, it’s thrust is independent of the position and surrounding
> matter. This enables all manner of interesting spacecraft geometries.
>

Re: [Vo]:Article about Artificial Intelligence in NYT

[Jack Cole]

It is rather remarkable.  A recent story along these lines is that it can
even translate between two untrained languages.

For example, if the system has been trained to translate between English
and Spanish and English and Portuguese, then it can reasonably translate
between Spanish and Portuguese even though it has not been trained.

https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/22/googles-ai-translation-tool-seems-to-have-invented-its-own-secret-internal-language/

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:48 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> There was a long article about artificial intelligence (AI) in the New
> York Times:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/magazine/the-great-ai-awakening.html
>
> It was pretty good, with some technical detail. You will find more detail
> in recent Sci. Am. article by two of the leading people in the field. I
> can't find it on line . . .
>
> There has been an important breakthrough with neural networks. They have
> been around for decades, going back to the 1950s I think. The difference is
> they are now many orders of magnitude larger, and they are multi-level,
> with the output of one network connected to the input of another.
>
> This was the technique that led to a computer beating the world champion
> in go. The NYT reports that Google has applied this to their translation
> software, resulting in dramatic improvements. In a few months, the quality
> of the translations improved as much as it did in 10 years with the older
> technology. The article quotes an example. This sentence in Spanish by
> Borges:
>
> Uno no es lo que es por lo que escribe, sino por lo que ha leído.
>
> The old Google translate system rendered this:
>
> One is not what is for what he writes, but for what he has read.
>
> The new one:
>
> You are not what you write, but what you have read.
>
>
> I ran some Japanese and some English text through the latest Google
> translate. This is mainly text that I translated myself. The new Google
> translate is remarkable. A little unnerving. Because, you see, if you run
> some of my translated essays you will see that I took liberties, adding
> information I thought would help a native speaker understand. These are not
> literal or exact translations. Since I wrote the original text myself, I am
> allowed to to that. But, I also did it with Mike McKubre's paper. I am a
> little worried that someone may call me out on it! Sooner or later,
> Google's computers will be getting in touch with me, calling me out. Google
> sells a gadget that sits in the room listening to your conversations,
> awaiting your commands, the Google Home:
>
> https://madeby.google.com/home/
>
> I can see the day coming when the Google Home speaker will blare out:
> "ROTHWELL! Get over here. What is the meaning of this?!? McKubre wrote 'I
> was tasked' and you have it: 'the conference organizers asked me to . . .'
> We are now in the process of reviewing all of your work going back to 1998,
> which will henceforth be called Calendar Year 1 of Our Lord Google."
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionc.pdf
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Article: Diamonds turn nuclear waste into nuclear batteries

[Jack Cole]

Interesting association to the EM drive.  Maybe it would produce
reactionless thrust also?

Assuming the EM drive actually works, this would be an ideal application
for this kind of nuclear battery.  I am assuming this would be a very
expensive manufacturing process, but a battery working for 5000+ years and
a working EM drive would make for quite a nice space exploration probe.  It
would make interstellar probes feasible.

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:08 AM Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> The radioactive carbon diamond is probably acting as a diode, making it a
> self-powered diode. The beta emission would be similar to high voltage. It
> is a good bet that the physical shape must be tapered and brings to mind
> the Shawyer cavity.
>
> Schottky diodes made of artificial diamond are known to have extreme
> breakdown voltages >6 kV which is many times greater than semiconductor
> diodes.
>
>
> On Monday, November 28, 2016 8:11 AM, Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Diamonds turn nuclear waste into nuclear batteries
> http://flip.it/dKKukF
>
>
>

[Vo]:Article: Diamonds turn nuclear waste into nuclear batteries

[Jack Cole]

Diamonds turn nuclear waste into nuclear batteries

http://flip.it/dKKukF

[Vo]:Article: Physicists Observe Rydberg Molecule for The First Time

[Jack Cole]

Physicists Observe Rydberg Molecule for The First Time

http://flip.it/s9Qrqn

Re: [Vo]:new EM Drive paper

[Jack Cole]

Supposedly, this is being tested in space now by the US Air Force and
Chinese government.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/space-race-revealed-us-china-test-futuristic-emdrive-tiangong-2-mysterious-x-37b-plane-1590289

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 12:55 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I hope this is true. It would be good for space exploration, and good for
> cold fusion. I doubt it has any connection to cold fusion but it would be
> good for it because it would show the theorists they don't know everything
> after all.
>
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:new EM Drive paper

[Jack Cole]

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/new-nasa-emdrive-paper-shows-force-of.html?m=1

[Vo]:Article: Researchers accidentally turn carbon dioxide into ethanol

[Jack Cole]

Researchers accidentally turn carbon dioxide into ethanol

http://flip.it/gybUw4

[Vo]:Article: This new technology could save the troubled nuclear power industry

[Jack Cole]

This new technology could save the troubled nuclear power industry

http://flip.it/E7hMjZ

[Vo]:Article: Dirt Cheap Muon Detector Puts Particle Physics Within DIY Reach

[Jack Cole]

Dirt Cheap Muon Detector Puts Particle Physics Within DIY Reach

http://flip.it/0.QD-k

[Vo]:Article: Physicists just witnessed quasiparticles forming for the first time ever

[Jack Cole]

Physicists just witnessed quasiparticles forming for the first time ever

http://flip.it/_TVLi-

[Vo]:EmDrive: Controversial space propulsion to be discussed by top scientists at major conference

[Jack Cole]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-controversial-space-propulsion-will-be-discussed-by-scientists-actual-conference-1582115

[Vo]:Unruh radiation, plasmons, and possible implications for LENR?

[Jack Cole]

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/09/unruh-radiation-confirmed.html

[Vo]:Article: Electrons with no mass acquire a mass in the presence of a high magnetic field

[Jack Cole]

Electrons with no mass acquire a mass in the presence of a high magnetic
field

http://flip.it/bkDC21

[Vo]:Article: Australian scientists just set a world record for solar thermal efficiency

[Jack Cole]

Australian scientists just set a world record for solar thermal efficiency

http://flip.it/ZSMW9I

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

[Jack Cole]

Dave wrote:
"Why question the steam temperature and pressure readings if they were
performed with calibrated meters?  Is this merely an attempt to explain
away the possible excess heat?

There remains a valid concern about where all of the 1 MW of heat is
vented.  That at the moment, seems to be the main or only evidence that the
system did not function as expected."

Penon was asked about the pressure and apparently didn't answer according
to IH.  Some may disagree with me, but I would not trust the factory
calibration.  I think you need to calibrate within the configuration of the
plant.  You need to run it without fuel over the full range of temperatures
and flow rates as well as with fuel.  AR has never conducted a proper
calibration and this test is no different.

Also, that meter could handle a large flow rate.  There was no reason to
confuse the issue with steam at all unless it was needed to facilitate a
scam or those temperatures were needed by the mystery customer.  If the
latter, then he can prove his case by presenting the customer.

IH claims the plant didn't work in NC, but suddenly it starts working when
it is fully under AR's control in a different state.  If that is not fishy,
I don't know what is.  To my mind, either IH are lying or it doesn't work.
I think the chances or the former are minuscule.  The flow meter is a small
portion of the range of problems that could have already been answered.

Jack

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:38 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> Firstly, there is no point in speculating until there is sufficient
>> evidence.
>>
>
> Exhibit 5 and the photos of the ceiling are all the evidence anyone needs.
> It is physically impossible to operate a 1 MW reactor in that space. Even
> Rossi acknowledged this in a sense, when he suddenly began claiming there
> is a magic endothermic machine swallowing up the heat.
>
>
>
>> At this point I don't have a lot of sympathy for IH.  They have had a
>> year with access to the plant to figure this out and yet they wait until
>> the test is over and Rossi takes them to court to start complaining?
>>
>
> They were complaining long before that, as you saw in their Answer and in
> Exhibit 5.
>
> You need to stop making stuff up.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Article: This new equation might finally unite the two biggest theories in physics, physicist claims

[Jack Cole]

I agree Alain.  There are some elegant aspects to McCulloch's theory that
warrant investigation.  He needs a good experimentalist to test some of his
claims.

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 8:13 AM Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote:

> people interested in Grand Unification maye be interested by this approach
> of MiHsC that link basic newtonian graviation with Heisenberg Uncertainty
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ge_ukRbuOw
>
> MiHsC need to be studied, to be improved or refuted, as it is one of the
> few coherent way to make really QM and gravitation converge.
>
> Michael McCulloch claims it explains roughly without tuning the recently
> found anomalies in dwarf galaxies, EmDrive (even some negative=tiny
> results). His claims have to be confirmed sincerely (the hardes is to find
> someone skeptical but not in love with debunking methods), and then
> improved with good math.
>
> my feeling is that if Einstein GR geometry is in competition with MiHsC
> (which is based on SR and QM), the symmetry founding GR is respected by GU
> theories, as is Heisenberg Uncertainty.
>
> My naive feeling is that Michael McCulloch need some help from someone
> knowing well GR geometry, QM, and sincerely interested in improving MiHsC
> (Like was the mathematicien of Einstein).
>
> On point on which I wonder is if MiHsC can explain black hole observation,
> gravitational waves, gravitational lenses.
>
> 2016-08-18 14:06 GMT+02:00 Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com>:
>
>> This new equation might finally unite the two biggest theories in
>> physics, physicist claims
>>
>> http://flip.it/nxwTOa
>>
>
>

[Vo]:Article: This new equation might finally unite the two biggest theories in physics, physicist claims

[Jack Cole]

This new equation might finally unite the two biggest theories in physics,
physicist claims

http://flip.it/nxwTOa

[Vo]:Article: Ocean Waves Could Supply the World’s Power and Drinking Water

[Jack Cole]

A new kind of renewable energy technology in use off Australia’s coast
converts the relentless movement of the ocean’s waves into a virtually
endless supply of electricity. “Wave energy’s been …

http://flip.it/BXxDCF

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

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jack Cole]

Adrian,

Actually, people asked AR if the process was endothermic and he said "Yes."
 When later asked if the heat that was not used was collected in water, he
responded "Yes."

People should consider that they are engaging in crowd sourced excuse
making for him.  He just has to sit back and wait for someone to suggest a
possible explanation.

Imagine how the response (or non-response) may have been different if an
open ended question had been asked (e.g., what took place in the customer
side with the heat?).

In the case of the actual questions that were asked, a "Yes" can lend
itself to future contradiction.  For example, "Oh, I must have
misunderstood the question.  Language differences.  he, he, he"

Jack

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:10 PM a.ashfield  wrote:

> Sorry, you should read what Rossi actually said before making a statement
> like that.   Rossi said that the customer's process was endothermic and the
> excess heat beyond that was vented.   He didn't add how much was by air or
> radiation and how much through cooling water going to the drain.
>
>
> On 8/14/2016 8:34 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
>
> Daniel,
> The main discussion we had in the last few days was about where the heat
> is dumped. This is basic thermodynamics not sophisticated arguments about
> Coulomb barrier shielding and so on.
> Rossi claiming that the energy was used by chemical reactions and
> therefore this why it didn't leave a thermal signature is bs.
> Plain bs. No field of expertise needed.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Daniel Rocha 
> wrote:
>
>> What field of expertise? This kind of argument is also used to "show"
>> that cold fusion is bullshit.
>>
>> 2016-08-14 19:35 GMT-03:00 Giovanni Santostasi :
>>
>>> I have a PhD in Physics so I understand the basics of energy,
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jack Cole]

Bob,

We don't know how often Penon was there do we?  It seems to me like he
wasn't often there but was said to be remotely monitoring.

Fabiani, one of the contractors, was named as a co-counter defendant by
IH.  I have a feeling West was not a lackey of AR, since he was not named
in the counter-claims.  Fabiani is from Italy and had prior history with AR
as I understand it.  It seems his primary alliance (or only) all along was
to AR.

These things are addressed in the counter-claims by IH.  The agreement
makes clear that any derived technologies are to be shared with IH and
licensed by IH.  He has no right to keep that from them, but it doesn't
matter anyway.  It is a magic machine that generates anything you want
(i.e., too good to be true).  Part of Fabiani's contract included sharing
any modifications or advancements of the E-Cat IP with IH, which he did not
do.  He refused to turn over raw data as he was contractually obligated.

Jack

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 1:55 PM Bob Cook  wrote:

> What has happened to the two IH employees that manned the plant with
> Rossi, the ERV and the other Rossi helper?   I think that  they were part
> of the IH team Rossi frequently spoke of.   As I recall they were impressed
> with the plant’s performance.
>
>
>
> I would bet their actions and input to the plant ops are on video tape.
> It seemed to me that Rossi was intent on recording everything that went on
> to insure against naysayers.   That’s what I would have done,  if I were
> spending a year of intense effort to prove the plant operated as necessary
> to earn the additional $89 M.
>
>
>
> As I have said before,  if the Quark-X technology is successful, it would
> upstage the E-Cat.  However, that IP was Rossi’s and not part of the IP
> Rossi was selling to IH IMHO based on  reading the Agreement.  The one-
> year test was not intended to pertain to the Quark-X technology.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *a.ashfield 
> *Sent: *Saturday, August 13, 2016 10:14 AM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
>
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!
>
>
> As you think an IT's unsigned,report, who worked for IH, is as good as the
> ERV's report there is no point in discussing this further.
>
>
>
> On 8/13/2016 11:57 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> If IH had real concerns it is inconceivable to me they didn't do something
>> about it until after the test was completed.
>>
>
> It would be inconceivable to me, too. But I know they did various things
> long before the test ended.
>
> Once again, you assume that because you do not know what they did, that
> means they did nothing. You think that information you have not seen does
> not exist. This is a delusion.
>
>
>
>> You have never provided proof the flow was less than Rossi stated.  Still
>> no piping diagram, still no ERV report.
>>
>
> 1. The proof is in Exhibit 5. It is a good summary of the ERV report data.
> It is as believable as the ERV report itself.
>
> 2. Just because you have not seen the EVR report, that does not prove the
> summary is inadequate.
>
> 3. Even if I.H. or someone else were to hand you a copy of the ERV report,
> you would reject it, claiming it is fake. You claim that Murray and I are
> lying when we say the report lists 36,000 kg per day. (It is not possible
> we read a column of numbers incorrectly.) You do not trust any source
> except Rossi. So there is no point to giving you a piping diagram or the
> ERV report. You would insist the piping diagram and the ERV report are
> forgeries.
>
>
>
>> The contract called for ~ 1MW with a COP>6 for 340(?) days  What it was
>> on any particular day is another story.
>>
>
> The ERV report shows no significant variation from one day to the next. As
> Murray pointed out, the data shows 1 MW and a COP of 50 for every single
> day, including days when Rossi said in his blog that the machine was turned
> off, and days when witnesses saw it was off.
>
>
>
>> I see that IH are now claiming being manager of Investments for Cherokee
>> means Vaughn was not a legal manager.
>>
>
> Is there a problem with that? "Manager" has a legal definition. This is a
> court case. Legal, formal definitions should be used.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jack Cole]

Here is the previous post.  Again, not certain about whether it was the
configuration used.



Thanks to Brad for finding the comment from GoatGuy on Next Big Future.  I
have had a chance to examine and think through the arguments.  I'm not an
engineer, so maybe someone else can do a better analysis.  It seems like
this explanation would work only if the plumbing connected to the water
tanks in certain ways (e.g., outlets connecting to the central reservoir
near the top).  If they connected on the bottom of the tanks, there would
be mixing and prevention of air pockets.

Jack

   -
  -
 - F
 - T
 - V
 - s
  -
   [image: Avatar]
   ‒
   GoatGuy2Newcomer
   13 hours ago
   
<http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/rossi-1-megawatt-energy-catalyzer-is.html#sot_dee0c685b1afb34eb40f694d4a5fea575cec70b0>
   Hah! I got it… finally! (I see how the 'trick' is very likely being
   performed, and why IH decided on a different testing procedure from the
   'contract approved' one.)

   Its cute, subtle, and would result in an entirely misleading result.
   FIRST, you need to open the (
   http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/R_123621412_3.pdf )
   pdf file.

   Look at Figure 1. In the center of the “reactor shelter”, is a box
   labeled “water reservoir”, which has 2 inlets and 2 outlets.

   Inlet 1, top = tap water from municipal line
   Inlet 2, bot = return from steam condensers
   Outlet 1, top = water to first half of E-cats and then to water tank 1
   Outlet 2, bot = water to second half of E-cats and then to water tank 2

   All that would be needed would be for the steam-condensor loop to have a
   BUNCH of air in the line for this to be a really misleading COP > 1 system.
   Sensors that measure gas flow cannot discriminate 100% steam from 50:50
   steam from 0% hot air. Likewise, with a bit of flim-flam, most of the heat
   emitted could be combined back into the circulating loop (of which there
   are 2: (water tank 1) → (input to ECat₁) → (combine with reservoir tank
   water) → (back into ECat₁) → (back to water tank 1) … repeated for the
   bottom half.

   In this system most of the input power can heat the effluent stream, if
   needed. The amount of 'real steam' in the big old misdirection-device (the
   "condensers", which are huge, non-quantitative, impressive and so on), which
   thru air-in-the-lines becomes 'the ruse' looks great. Metrology is done.
   It all seems great because no one is alert to the intent-to-deviate from
   the patent diagram.

   The receiving tanks get both new tap water and a bunch of recirculated
   water, reheated. The bogosity of the experiment isn't easily revealed. No
   attempt is made to mass-heat a bunch of water (like a small swimming pool's
   worth) a finite amount. The whole thing runs at whatever rate it runs
   (which is carefully excluded from the PDF). The only measure left is the
   misdirected one.

   It is ingenious.
   And if I were 'there', I'd too be calling for different testing.
   Namely… substituting a liquid-liquid heat exchanger for the great big
   air blower.

   To heat the small swimming pool.
   Which REALLY becomes quantitative, fast.
   To at least 2 sig-figs.
   More than enough to expose the rat.
   Or to confirm the golden goose.

   Which (by my surmise) confirms why Rossi's so up tight about the testing.
   Which he shouldn't be if it is aiming toward MASS calorimetry.
   Which of course he's never done.
   Nor will he.

   Because it exposes rats.
   GoatGuy


On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:52 PM Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dave,
> There was a schematic that GoatGuy referenced some time ago.  His
> speculation of how it could be faked included air in the system registering
> on the flow meter.  I'm not certain the schematic was the ultimate
> configuration that was used.  I'll try to find it in the archives.
> Jack
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:36 PM David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Jed, I do not see any obvious reason why the flow meter can not be lower
>> than the reservoir.   Do you have some form of schematic that supports what
>> you are describing?
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>> Sent: Wed, Aug 10, 2016 4:29 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!
>>
>> Jed,
>> Your answer is too pathetic for words.
>> Placed so it was half full???   Show a diagram of the piping so an
>> engineer can judge it.
>> I note you still won't admit you were wrong on something else even after
>> I posted proof .
>>
>>
>> On 8/10/2016 3:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> Peter Gluck <peter.g

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jack Cole]

Dave,
There was a schematic that GoatGuy referenced some time ago.  His
speculation of how it could be faked included air in the system registering
on the flow meter.  I'm not certain the schematic was the ultimate
configuration that was used.  I'll try to find it in the archives.
Jack

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:36 PM David Roberson  wrote:

> Jed, I do not see any obvious reason why the flow meter can not be lower
> than the reservoir.   Do you have some form of schematic that supports what
> you are describing?
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: a.ashfield 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Aug 10, 2016 4:29 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!
>
> Jed,
> Your answer is too pathetic for words.
> Placed so it was half full???   Show a diagram of the piping so an
> engineer can judge it.
> I note you still won't admit you were wrong on something else even after I
> posted proof .
>
>
> On 8/10/2016 3:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> And what exactly is the truth, where was the flowmeter placed?
>>
>
> It was placed such that it was half full. That is what the rust marks
> shows, and what careful testing shows. Obviously it cannot be lower than
> the destination (the reservoir).
>
>
>
>> Can you tell or is it under NDA?
>>
>
> I just told you. I.H. told you. You don't believe us. You believe Rossi
> instead. He gave you no more proof than I did, but you believe him,
> unconditionally. So I see no reason to give you any more information. You
> will reject it and demand more, and more, and more.
>
> I expect I.H. will publish more in response to the lawsuit. You can wait
> until then. But, since you do not believe what they already published,
> there is no point to waiting. You have already made up your mind that Rossi
> is always right, no matter what he says, not matter how impossible it is.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jack Cole]

Jed,

Here is the information from the counter-complaint regarding data.

"85. As just one example, in late February 2016, shortly after the
conclusion of the purported Guaranteed Performance test, USQL and Fabiani
committed to send certain data and a report by the end of March 2016 that
would “bring to light all the flaws and functional deficiencies of the
system” and identify “the plant stop periods (total or partial).” In later
emails, USQL and Fabiani also committed to provide Industrial Heat with the
raw data that USQL and Fabiani collected while working with the Plant in
Doral, Florida. Despite repeated reminders, however, USQL and Fabiani have
refused to provide either the report or the raw data to Industrial Heat.
See, e.g., Ex. 21."

Back to the flow meter. It appears that flow was only measured into the
plant with no out flow measured.  I had previously thought this was an
output flow meter, but apparently not.

"86. For his part, among other things, Penon primarily contributed to the
scheme in a variety of ways relating to the purported measurement of the
Plant’s operations in Florida during the purported Guaranteed Performance
test.7 To start, his initial plan and design for measuring the power coming
into and out of the Plant was, as he well knew, fundamentally flawed –
including using improper equipment to measure the flow of fluid into the
Plant and no equipment to measure the flow of heated fluid out of the
Plant. Moreover, when the purported Guaranteed Performance test departed
from Penon’s plan and design almost immediately after the testing began –
including that the number of reactors being operated was far less than the
number of reactors specified in Penon’s plan and design – Penon simply
disregarded the massive deviation. See Ex. 5."

And here's more:

"87. Penon further knowingly relied on flawed or fabricated data
collections in his supposed evaluation of the Plant’s performance. For
example, Leonardo and Rossi have admitted (on their internet blog postings)
that there were days when portions of the Plant were not operating, but
Penon in his final report does not report any material decrease in output
of the Plant on those days. Rather, he makes the (inexplicable) claim in
his final report that on these days the Plant’s performance either did not
change or somehow even increased. 88. In February 2016 at an in-person
meeting with Penon, Murray identified a number of flaws in how Penon was
conducting his measurements of the Plant. Some of those flaws were also
presented in writing to Penon on March 25, 2016. See id. Despite have full
knowledge of the flaws, Penon nevertheless issued his false final report on
March 28, 2016, claiming that guaranteed performance was achieved – and
that the COPs achieved by the Plant were literally many multiples greater
than ever claimed by anyone else (other than Leonardo and Rossi) who had
ever tested an E-Cat reactor. Not surprisingly, since the day he left
Florida in February 2016, Penon has refused to discuss his measurements,
his measurement plan and design, or his report with Counter-Plaintiffs
(though he has requested that Counter-Plaintiffs pay him for his work)."

Jack



On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:15 PM Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The flow meter used only seems to read out visually in integer m^3 with a
>> mechanical digital roll-over indicator (probably readable to 1/2 digit).
>> However, the flow meter is available optionally with a pulse output that
>> apparently pulses for each 0.5 liter passing.  Do we know if there was
>> electronic acquisition of the flow count?
>>
>
> I have heard it did not, but I could be wrong about that. I have heard
> they kept handwritten logs, which were a mess. The data looks to me like it
> was transcribed from handwritten logs, with errors and truncation typical
> of that.
>
> Sigh . . . I am probably from the last generation of people who recognize
> data that was collected by hand. This is like being able to recognize
> computation done on a slide rule, with 1 or 2 digit precision.
>
> There could be electronic data elsewhere. There was something in the court
> filings about electronic data, as pointed out by Jack Cole above:
>
> "There supposedly is raw data, which AR as referred to as millions of data
> points.  Unfortunately, if this data exists, it was never shared with IH by
> either Fabiani or Penon despite multiple requests and contractual
> obligations. . . ."
>
>
> I have no knowledge of this.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jack Cole]

Dave,

There supposedly is raw data, which AR as referred to as millions of data
points.  Unfortunately, if this data exists, it was never shared with IH by
either Fabiani or Penon despite multiple requests and contractual
obligations.  I suspect if we could ever get our hands on this data, it
would be very useful in figuring out what happened.  That assumes it exists.

Fabiani refused to turn it over from what I can tell even when he would
have received his last check for doing so (according to IH's
counterclaims).  Penon wouldn't answer legitimate questions by Murray about
the flow meter and why the report showed 1MW output on days when the plant
was down.

I would expect this to be subpoenaed by the court, so maybe we'll see it
some day.

Jack

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 12:00 PM David Roberson  wrote:

> Jed, do your sources confirm that the readings were made on a daily basis
> and not calculated at the end of the experiment?  Does the flow meter reset
> its total reading at the end of each day?  Lewan says that the average was
> 36000 kg/day which can be derived in many different ways.
>
> Suppose you read a large number after the completion of the test.  If you
> divide that large number by the number of days during which the test takes
> place you will likely get a fractional value.  Now, if rounded off to the
> 1000 kg reading step size you might get 36000 kg/day.  Could that be what
> the guys did?
>
> We can eliminate that possibility if you can confirm that the meter was
> reset each day after the reading was taken.  Can you verify this occurred?
>
> I am attempting to uncover what actually took place during the testing and
> do not have a horse in the race.  This should not be a controversial
> question.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jed Rothwell 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 9:38 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court
> document
>
> David Roberson  wrote:
>
> I would hope that you could be convinced that Rossi is telling the truth
>> if he were to present a solid scientific proof to that fact.  Is that not
>> giving him the benefit of the doubt?  Can anyone be 100% confident that he
>> is completely lying?
>>
>
> Yes, I am 100% confident he is lying. Take Exhibit 5. If Rossi or Penon
> had legitimate answers to the issues raised in that document, they would
> have answered them. They had a contractual obligation to answer, and it
> would have been in their interests to do so. They did not respond at all.
> That tells me they have no answers and the damning assertions made in that
> document are correct. I have other proof of that. Independent observers
> told me these assertions are correct.
>
> I am also certain there was not 1 MW of waste heat coming out of the
> customer site.
>
> I have seen Penon's data, and I confirm it has 36,000 kg in every day, for
> weeks. As I explained here, that is impossible. If you reset the counter to
> zero every day it might go past 36,000 every day, for example, to 36,410,
> 36,228, etc., and with this meter that would show up as 36,000 every day.
> Except when daylight savings changes. But that is not what happened.
>
> 32,000 may be a reasonable approximation of what the meter showed, but it
> is definitely made-up data that was stuffed into the tables.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jack Cole]

A large part of the discussion about the flow meter ignores a bigger
problem.  Whether the meter could possibly have correct measurements at
that flow rate is irrelevant.  The numbers are fake!  36000 kg/day even
when the plant is not running.



On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 11:29 AM a.ashfield  wrote:

> Bob,
>
> If the flow meter was mounted at the bottom outlet of the water tank, that
> presumably is outside and therefore a couple of feet lower than the plant,
> it would always be full
>
>
> On 8/8/2016 10:06 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>
> Jed,
>
> Do you know the orientation of the flow meter?  It is only possible to
> have a pipe half full if the flow meter is mounted horizontally (a mistake
> for use of this type of flow meter).  That problem could have been totally
> eliminated if the flow meter were oriented vertically.
>
> An observation (agreeing with yours) is that turbine type flow
> measurements are really measurements of the flow speed of the medium
> (water).  The flow meter presumes a full pipe in calculation of the
> volumetric flow rate.  The turbine blade is meant to turn with the smallest
> possible friction so as to create as to minimize flow resistance.  If the
> flow meter was mounted horizontally, and the pipe was half full, the
> turbine would turn at the speed of the water (same as if it were full) -
> since a full pipe was presumed in the indication of rate, it would be in
> error by the volumetric difference between the pipe full volume and the
> pipe partly filled volume.
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> I wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Look at Exhibit 5, and also look at what Rossi told Lewan. The
>>> temperature is just over 100°C and the flow rate is 36,000 kg per day. The
>>> pressure is 0 bar. It is the same every day, including days when the
>>> reactor was shut down, according to Exhibit 5.
>>>
>>> If you assume there was actually some pressure, then there was only hot
>>> water, not steam, where the temperature went from 60°C to 100°C. Assume
>>> there was 20 kW of input power. That's 20,000 J/s = 4,780 cal. . . .
>>>
>>
>> Let me revise this using the numbers from Exhibit 5. Exhibit 5 shows the
>> water reservoir was 68.7°C and the fluid was 102.8°C, a temperature
>> difference of 34.1°C.
>>
>> As described in Exhibit 5, the pressure of 0.0 bar is unlikely because it
>> would mean the reactor room is in a vacuum. "Given the foregoing, this
>> would require that the pressure on the JMP side of the building was
>> significantly below atmospheric (vacuum) and that the steam would flow at
>> extraordinary velocity."
>>
>> Let me assume the pressure was a little higher than 1 atm. That means the
>> fluid was pressurized and it was probably not steam. It was probably hot
>> water. Assume it was hot water and the temperature increased by 34.1°C.
>> Input power was 20,000 J/s = 4,780 cal. Divide by 34.1°C gives a flow rate
>> of 140 g/s. That's 8.41 kg/minute or 12,111 kg/day. The flow meter
>> indicated 36,000 kg/day, so I estimate it was wrong by a factor of ~3.
>>
>> As I said, that is not a surprising error, given that the pipe was half
>> full and it was the wrong kind of flow meter.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jack Cole]

The flow meter problem is just a tiny part of the picture.  You don't need
to go beyond the paragraph below to throw it all out of the window.
Despite that fact, they do go well beyond what they say below in the
document.   Best to not get hung up on a debatable matter like the flow
meter.  You'd need empirical tests and expert testimony on that matter,
except it was operated outside of the accepted range which invalidates the
test.  It should have been empirically calibrated in situ and ran at proper
flow rates.  No further debate it needed there.

The flow meter is irrelevant to the extent that IH's experts even with AR's
help couldn't make the purported IP work.  Nobody else has credibly or
repeatedly done so despite trials probably numbering well over 200.
Massive fail and IH would be insane to pay for something they can't make
work.

"9. During the same time period, Counter-Plaintiffs continued their own
efforts to replicate Rossi’s purported results using the E-Cat IP that
Leonardo and Rossi had provided them when they received the $10 million
payment. Counter-Plaintiffs were unable to replicate any of Leonardo and
Rossi’s claimed results or otherwise generate measurable excess energy.
This led Counter-Plaintiffs to realize that there were only three possible
conclusions: 1) Leonardo and Rossi’s claimed results, including the
purported results from the Validation, were fabricated; 2) Leonardo and
Rossi did not provide all of the E-Cat IP to Counter-Plaintiffs as was
required under the License Agreement in exchange for the $10 million
payment; or 3) both."

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 11:41 AM a.ashfield  wrote:

> Jed,
> Just because you think he is an expert is not proof.  From his background
> he is an electronics engineer and you have not shown he knows anything
> about fluid flow and measurement, or stains.  He was the only one (that I
> have seen) who has pontificated on the flow rate and other measurement
> problems.  If there are others, why have they not also stated something
> specific?
>
> You keep repeating Penon is stupid but I have never seen a specific
> example - only your broad generalizations..
>
>
>
>
> On 8/7/2016 12:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>
>> In view of the above information on Mr. Murray, why do you think he is an
>> expert engineer . . .
>
>
> I know he is. But it does not take a rocket scientist super expert to
> compare the minimum flow rate shown on the face plate with the data in the
> log book. Even I had no trouble doing that.
>
> Also, it does not take an expert to see that the same flow rate was
> recorded every day, even on days when the log book showed the reactor was
> turned off and disassembled. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to see
> that's mighty suspicious!
>
>
>
>> and Dr. Penon, who has rated nuclear power plants, is an idiot?
>>
>
> Based on his reports and data, I think he is one of the stupidest people I
> have ever encountered. I think if he does not cooperate with the
> authorities and admit the customer site was faked, and much of his data was
> faked, he may end up in jail. I think anyone who would record a flow rate
> of 36,000 kg and 1 MW of excess heat on days when the log book shows the
> reactor was turned off and disassembled -- and when witnesses saw it was
> turned off -- is extraordinarily stupid. I would say he is Rossi's lab dog.
> I suspect Rossi is hoping to pin the blame on Penon and send him to jail,
> instead of going himself.
>
>  - Jed
>
>
>

[Vo]:Watch a Powerful Electromagnet Shrink a Quarter to Half Its Size

[Jack Cole]

I thought this was very interesting.  I wonder what would happen to a
loaded electrolytic cathode or TiH2.

"Shrinking a quarter down to half its size sounds like a magic trick, but
there’s nothing magic about this experiment highlighted by Physics Girl
 Dianna Cowern.
In the video above spotted by Nerdist
,
she explains the remarkable physics at play when a coin is at the center of
a powerful electromagnet.

The rig featured in the demonstration is powered by a 160-pound capacitor
capable of charging up to 8000 volts. For a little perspective, that’s
similar to the amount of power delivered by some electric fences
. "

http://mentalfloss.com/article/83302/watch-powerful-electromagnet-shrink-quarter-half-its-size

[Vo]:Article: The Air Conditioner That Makes Electricity

[Jack Cole]

The Air Conditioner That Makes Electricity

http://flip.it/mo_1Q

Re: [Vo]:LEM Drive testable hypothesis

[Jack Cole]

Jones,

Good points, thanks.  Not sure he took into account the fact of .7c speed
in the fiber optic cable.

On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 8:51 AM Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> *From:* Jack Cole
>
>
>
> Mike McCulloch has come up with a way to test his MiHsC theory, which he
> has applied to the EM Drive.  I have some skepticism about the EM Drive
> based on some negative reports that I have read, but more testing is
> needed.  Anyway, at least McCulloch has developed an idea for an experiment
> that would falsify his theory and would be an amazingly simple drive system
> for spacecraft if it works.  He proposes using a simple loop of fiber optic
> cable with a metal barrier on one side to dampen Unruh waves.
>
> http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/07/lemdrive.html
>
>
>
> Jack,
>
>
>
> There are possible problems with this approach which should be mentioned.
> One problem was coincidentally mentioned here a couple of days ago – the
> “preferred frame” (and aether). I did not comment on this when it was
> posted, since it opens up a Pandora’s box. The other problem is that light
> in a fiber optics cable travels about 30% slower than lightspeed (however,
> specialty optics could become available soon, to mollify that problem).
>
>
>
> A preferred frame is inherent in any definition of “aether” and its
> existence applies to the EM drive measurement - in the form of a number of
> baseline assumptions depending on how it is to be measured. Wiki has an
> incomplete entry on the Michelson/Morley experiment which is said to
> invalidate aether, but in fact did no such thing. When the experiment was
> repeated using lasers, 100 years later (Silvertooth) – aether was found,
> roughly as had been predicted. A few modern observers have offered lame
> excuses to keep M in place, but the issue is not yet closed, and
> consequently we should NOT assume the absence of aether.
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_loyzL9Wi4
>
>
>
> In short, in theories that presume that light travels at a fixed speed
> relative to a detectable aether, the  “preferred frame” would be where
> aether appears stationary and we must include the local vectors. But if
> light was travelling slower in a cable, you compound the problem and might
> believe there was acceleration where it doesn’t exist, or if aether does
> not exist we have the inverse problem. Amazingly, the majority of
> fizzicysts still quote the M mistake as if it meant something today - and
> blindly ignore the implications of real aether and a preferred frame, on
> measurements of this kind.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LEM Drive testable hypothesis

[Jack Cole]

Alain,

Interesting find.  Although I don't know if McCulloch's theories are
correct, I appreciate his clear thinking style and use of thought
experiments.  At least the theory is properly formulated and McCulloch
makes a number of predictions based on the theory.  It is falsifiable.

I would be interested to try a hobbyist experimental test as it may be
possible to do this with an apparatus floating in water to see if it is
propelled.  What I don't know is how big the loop would need to be and how
thick the metal would need to be.

Jack

On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 1:41 PM Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike just found a video explaining one of his paper
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ge_ukRbuOw
>
> how heisenberg uncertainty principle explains gravity
>
> 2016-07-16 12:41 GMT+02:00 Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Mike McCulloch has come up with a way to test his MiHsC theory, which he
>> has applied to the EM Drive.  I have some skepticism about the EM Drive
>> based on some negative reports that I have read, but more testing is
>> needed.  Anyway, at least McCulloch has developed an idea for an experiment
>> that would falsify his theory and would be an amazingly simple drive system
>> for spacecraft if it works.  He proposes using a simple loop of fiber optic
>> cable with a metal barrier on one side to dampen Unruh waves.
>>
>>  http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/07/lemdrive.html
>>
>> Jack
>>
>
>

[Vo]:LEM Drive testable hypothesis

[Jack Cole]

Mike McCulloch has come up with a way to test his MiHsC theory, which he
has applied to the EM Drive.  I have some skepticism about the EM Drive
based on some negative reports that I have read, but more testing is
needed.  Anyway, at least McCulloch has developed an idea for an experiment
that would falsify his theory and would be an amazingly simple drive system
for spacecraft if it works.  He proposes using a simple loop of fiber optic
cable with a metal barrier on one side to dampen Unruh waves.

 http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/07/lemdrive.html

Jack

Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov in ICCF19

[Jack Cole]

I was interested to see that SKINR was unable to replicate Celani using
sensitive calorimetry.  Quite a thorough paper.  Sad to see.

They wrote: "No excess heat was observed in a calorimeter of a sensitivity
<10 mW when running either the initial or later test protocols during ∼ 200
days of testing."

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 6:27 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Parkhomov, A. and E. Belousova, *Research into Heat Generators Similar to
> High-temperature Rossi Reactor.* J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci., 2016.
> *19*.
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedr.pdf#page=252
>

[Vo]:Article: Paper-Based Microbial Fuel Cell Operates without External Power

[Jack Cole]

A team of researchers from Iowa State University in Ames have demonstrated
a proof-of-concept three dimensional paper-based microbial fuel cell (or
MFC) that could take advantage of capillary action …

http://flip.it/WQ4L9

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

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Jack Cole]

I understand Adrian.  You give AR the benefit of the doubt, but everyone
else gets the doubt.  "AR says" carries more weight in your opinion than
Jed, the people Jed has talked to who have seen the data, Dewey Weaver, and
IH.  Multiple sources say the swapped out flow meter was inappropriate, so
it's not just "Dewey said."

If the patent does not include the necessary details, then it is invalid.
He either lied or it doesn't work as specified (and he still lied).

It is not likely productive for us to continue this discussion, since we're
not likely to agree or have much influence on each other's opinions.


On Sun, Jul 3, 2016, 5:38 PM a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Jack,
> I give Rossi the benefit of the doubt, until proven otherwise.  As I said,
> I don't know, but neither do the skeptics.
> If you don't think there have been wild flights of imagination you have
> not been following the story.  GG's analysis means nothing: it is just
> another possible way of cheating.  There are many of those and most are
> simpler than his suggestion.
> So Dewy said the flow meter was switched.  Did you read my last post?
> Rossi pointed out that it was the ERV's instrument and he sent it away for
> calibration at the end of the test.
> AR didn't "prevent access to the customer's site."  He pointed out this
> was the agreement made in the contract and the ERV backed this up saying it
> was not necessary.
>
> I don't know if Rossi lied in the patent.  I'm don't think you could lie
> without invalidating the patent.  There are other possibilities such as
> pretreatment of the materials and how the operation is controlled that
> effect the operation.
>
> Any more "Dewey said" items to shoot down?
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/3/2016 4:00 PM, Jack Cole wrote:
>
> "I have no reason to think Dewey Weaver is a credible witness.
> I don't know what happened and am quite willing to wait for solid facts.
> The pathological skeptics jump on every wild flight of imagination and
> state that is what happened, while in fact being clueless.
>
> Rossi was right when he forecast that no test would ever be accepted but
> it would take the sale of working commercial reactors to quiet the
> critics.  As he says he hopes to have at least one commercial reactor
> working for the parent company of J M Products by the end of 2016 perhaps
> we will see then."
>
> Do you have a reason to true AR more than Jed, DW, IH, and many others?
>
> There is no wild flight of imagination here.  It is all based on facts and
> reasoning.  GG's analysis is based on how the apparatus design could be
> used to produce false results.  I gave a reasonable scenario for how and
> hypothesis for how AR could have approached the problem of faking the
> results.  DW provided an account of AR switching out the flow meters.  AR
> himself told you he prevented access to the "customer" site.  These are not
> flights of imagination.
>
> Do you disagree that AR lied in his patent and to IH about the formula
> needed to produce the effect?
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 2:23 PM a.ashfield < <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
> a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> I have no reason to think Dewey Weaver is a credible witness.
>> I don't know what happened and am quite willing to wait for solid facts.
>> The pathological skeptics jump on every wild flight of imagination and
>> state that is what happened, while in fact being clueless.
>>
>> Rossi was right when he forecast that no test would ever be accepted but
>> it would take the sale of working commercial reactors to quiet the
>> critics.  As he says he hopes to have at least one commercial reactor
>> working for the parent company of J M Products by the end of 2016 perhaps
>> we will see then.
>>
>>
>>
>>1. Frank Acland
>>July 3, 2016 at 12:42 PM
>>
>> <http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892=136#comment-1204468>
>>
>>Dear Andrea Rossi:
>>
>>There are some accusations apparently coming from the IH group
>>regarding the 1 MW plant test.
>>
>>a) The flow meter used in the test was not fit for purpose
>>b) 1 MW plant did not have the required legal authorizations to work
>>c) JM Products did not have any employees
>>d) IH had proposed another customer to you, but you refused them
>>e) JM did not use the heat you produced in any manufacturing process,
>>and the only heat supplied by your plant was 20kW, not 1MW
>>
>>Can you respond to any of these points?
>>
>>Thank you,
>>
>>Frank Acland
>>2. Andr

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Jack Cole]

"I have no reason to think Dewey Weaver is a credible witness.
I don't know what happened and am quite willing to wait for solid facts.
The pathological skeptics jump on every wild flight of imagination and
state that is what happened, while in fact being clueless.

Rossi was right when he forecast that no test would ever be accepted but it
would take the sale of working commercial reactors to quiet the critics.
As he says he hopes to have at least one commercial reactor working for the
parent company of J M Products by the end of 2016 perhaps we will see then."

Do you have a reason to true AR more than Jed, DW, IH, and many others?

There is no wild flight of imagination here.  It is all based on facts and
reasoning.  GG's analysis is based on how the apparatus design could be
used to produce false results.  I gave a reasonable scenario for how and
hypothesis for how AR could have approached the problem of faking the
results.  DW provided an account of AR switching out the flow meters.  AR
himself told you he prevented access to the "customer" site.  These are not
flights of imagination.

Do you disagree that AR lied in his patent and to IH about the formula
needed to produce the effect?



On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 2:23 PM a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:

> I have no reason to think Dewey Weaver is a credible witness.
> I don't know what happened and am quite willing to wait for solid facts.
> The pathological skeptics jump on every wild flight of imagination and
> state that is what happened, while in fact being clueless.
>
> Rossi was right when he forecast that no test would ever be accepted but
> it would take the sale of working commercial reactors to quiet the
> critics.  As he says he hopes to have at least one commercial reactor
> working for the parent company of J M Products by the end of 2016 perhaps
> we will see then.
>
>
>
>1. Frank Acland
>July 3, 2016 at 12:42 PM
>
> <http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892=136#comment-1204468>
>
>Dear Andrea Rossi:
>
>There are some accusations apparently coming from the IH group
>regarding the 1 MW plant test.
>
>a) The flow meter used in the test was not fit for purpose
>b) 1 MW plant did not have the required legal authorizations to work
>c) JM Products did not have any employees
>d) IH had proposed another customer to you, but you refused them
>e) JM did not use the heat you produced in any manufacturing process,
>and the only heat supplied by your plant was 20kW, not 1MW
>
>Can you respond to any of these points?
>
>Thank you,
>
>Frank Acland
>2. Andrea Rossi
>July 3, 2016 at 2:03 PM
>
> <http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892=136#comment-1204478>
>
>Frank Acland:
>Independently from who is the imbecile that wrote such things, please
>find hereunder my answers, confined within the limits allowed not to touch
>issues that have to be discussed exclusively in Court, with due evidence.
>a) The flowmeter used in the test is property of the ERV. The ERV has
>chosen that instrument based on his experience. It is, by the way, a very
>common flowmeter, that everybody can buy, even if it is quite expensive.
>The flowmeter has been certified and after the test the ERV has retrieved
>it and sent it to make a certification of its margin of error after the
>test of 1 year, specifically with a flow of water with the same temperature
>and the same flows of water that we had during the test, minimum, maximum,
>average. So the ERV told us he was going to do when he retrieved his
>flowmeter after the shut down of the plant at the end of the test.
>b) Obviously it is false, otherwise the plant would have been closed
>after the inspections
>c) False
>d) Tragicomic: Leonardo Corporation delivered, as per contract, the
>plant on August 2013, and we were ready to start immediately the test, as a
>continuation of the preliminar test made in Ferrara two months before with
>IH. IH had 1 year of time to start the 1 year test, but they always delayed
>with the excuse that they did not have the authorization from the
>Healthcare Office of North Carolina, due to the fact that there was the
>“nuclear reactions” issue. I have been able to get such permission in
>Florida and therefore I proposed the Customer, that has been accepted by
>IH. Evidence of it is the contract that IH made with JM. Since the plant
>was property of IH and it was in the factory of IH, obviously they could
>choose the Customer they wanted, if they had one.
>e) When you have not the burden to give evidence of what you say, you
>can say every stupidity. 

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Jack Cole]

"Your bias is showing again.  Goatguy suggested a possible method to scam
the results and then you take it as read that that was done.  Really?"

It is altogether possible that he was not so clever as GG thinks, as Jed
suggests, but could have still taken advantage of the design flaw noted by
GG.  I hope we get to see the raw data from the very beginning of the test
eventually.  My speculation previously was that, if the test were to be
faked, he would have played around with the variables he could tweak to get
the meters to show what he wanted.  This would have taken some time, so the
closer to the beginning of the test, the more likely you would be to see a
COP of 1.  We know from Dewey Weaver that the Rascal was caught sneaking
the flow meter out by some folks from IH who arrived early for the
post-test inspection.  Photographs are said to reveal that the serial
number of the flow meter used did not match the one used originally.  If he
had trouble fooling the original meters, he must have had to switch them
out.  So again, if there is raw data that was not deleted from the
beginning of the test, I would expect this to be the most accurate.

Maybe people think there is a conspiracy of lies by DW and IH that would
have to extend to others.  Although it is not completely impossible (very
low probability) that IH and others have conspired to lie, it is much
easier to believe that a known Rascal is the one doing the lying.  In fact,
nearly everyone agrees that he has been known to lie about a number of
things along the way.  The hopeful ones hold out hope that the lies stop at
having a working formula.  A formula even hidden from IP patent protection,
because he would have had to lie there too.  Or, best case scenario, works
very rarely producing a COP between 1.1 and 1.3.

In short, to believe the Rascal, you must accept a whole truckload of lies
and hold out hope that the one thing he is not lying about, is that the
reactor works.  He has not even asserted that he has held anything back
from the patent or from IH, and is quick to praise anything that looks like
a replication.  Now, if you know you are holding something back, and the
reaction won't work without it, would you praise something that you know
probably doesn't work?  It is easier to believe the simpler alternative: he
doesn't have anything else to share and it doesn't work.


On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 10:49 AM a.ashfield  wrote:

> "It was clever on Rossi’s part, but the type of cleaver
> that can cost him dearly, in the end."
>
> Your bias is showing again.  Goatguy suggested a possible method to scam
> the results and then you take it as read that that was done.  Really?
>
> It would have been easier to fudge the sensors or the instrumentation
> reading them.  That does not mean that was what happened either.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Jack Cole]

Bob Higgens wrote:
"I am not a lawyer.  However, I believe at this moment Rossi has a duly
executed license agreement with IH.  He cannot unilaterally cancel that
after money has changed hands.  Pragmatically he could not even give the
$11.5M back and take back his license unless IH accepted that deal with
other signed documents.  The courts will decide (eventually) to whom the
license belongs.  In the mean time, Rossi could be inviting himself back to
jail by offering the license to anyone else."

I agree Bob.  Also, what does he suppose the $267,000,000 (triple damages)
that he demands from IH in the lawsuit will be payment for?  Not the
license since he supposedly canceled it through a press release.

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 5:31 PM Bob Higgins  wrote:

> Of course, Rossi may have a case.  Also, he may not have a case.  This
> would be for the courts to decide.  No matter what, Rossi cannot
> unilaterally nullify the license.  He would have to sue in civil courts to
> have the license contract dissolved for cause.  Until the court says
> otherwise, the license is as valid as it was the day it was signed and
> money changed hands.  We do not know whether the court will side with IH or
> Rossi.  If, in the mean time, Rossi sold another license for the same
> region, there would be no question that he would be getting fitted for a
> striped suit immediately.
>
> Basically this means that Rossi cannot sell licenses for anything that
> could even potentially fall under the original license agreement with IH in
> any of the regions licensed to IH until a court rules the license contract
> is dissolved.  This probably puts licensing of his "quarkX" technology in
> limbo in all of those regions as well.  Rossi seems happy with the 400+
> days to trial, which I cannot understand.  Unless he gets some kind of
> motion to have the license dissolved in the mean time, he could go to jail
> for selling licenses to regions already licensed to IH, and anyone who
> bought such a license from him would stand to lose all of their money.
>
> Of course, it is important for his case for Rossi to keep up appearances
> of being in the high ground.  However, this will not keep him out of jail
> if he commits fraud.
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:42 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>> Bob,
>> He has a case if IH have not fulfilled their side of the contract and
>> paid him for a successful trial of the 1 MW plant.
>>
>> On 7/1/2016 5:12 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>>
>> I am not a lawyer.  However, I believe at this moment Rossi has a duly
>> executed license agreement with IH.  He cannot unilaterally cancel that
>> after money has changed hands.  Pragmatically he could not even give the
>> $11.5M back and take back his license unless IH accepted that deal with
>> other signed documents.  The courts will decide (eventually) to whom the
>> license belongs.  In the mean time, Rossi could be inviting himself back to
>> jail by offering the license to anyone else.
>>
>> It seems to me that selling something you don't own is the very
>> definition of fraud.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Craig Haynie < 
>> cchayniepub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No way Rossi's actions are fraud, from reselling the licensing, (unless
>>> he has a known faulty product). The best IH can hope for is a null
>>> contract; not the rights to the IP.
>>>
>>> On 07/01/2016 03:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>>>
 It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have
 unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH is null and void.  Having
 accepted money for that license, he is in a legally binding contract.  Yet
 Rossi seems intent to market that license to others as though he had no
 other contract.  This is clearly fraud, and a fraud that will quickly put
 Rossi back in jail for a good long contemplative period.  He should be
 collecting his reading material on antigravity.

 I couldn't help myself.


>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Jack Cole]

Yes, but sadly people are jumping the gun in interpreting this.  Seems like
probably just something that they have to do should the judge rule it will
go to trial.  But, I don't know that either.  Best to wait to hear from the
judge.

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:34 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> Sorry but this document is not a ruling on the motion to dismiss.
>
> If there has been such an ruling, where is it?
>
> It is doubtful that the motion to dismiss has been heard, since it was
> only filed recently.
>
> This document does not imply that the motion has been heard.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: a.ashfield
>
> The motion to dismiss has been rejected.  Rossi v. Darden will go to a
> trial by jury starting on Sept 18th 2018
>
>
> http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0020.1.pdf
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:Article: Layer of strange "dark hydrogen" believed to exist on Jupiter-like planets

[Jack Cole]

Layer of strange "dark hydrogen" believed to exist on Jupiter-like planets

http://flip.it/E3JjC

[Vo]:The Pull of the Distant Horizon

[Jack Cole]

MiHsC (the first model that explains inertia) works using horizons, which
are boundaries in space between areas that can get information to us at
light speed, and areas which can't, like black hole event horizons. If you
accelerate away from a region of space fast enough it means that
information there suddenly cannot get to you and an information horizon
forms cutting it off. In MiHsC this horizon damps the zero point field on
the side opposite to your acceleration vector, so you roll down a gradient
in the zpf towards the horizon, and this models inertial mass.

...  by Mike McCulloch (one theory to explain EM drive)

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-pull-of-distant-horizon.html

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and Leonardo Corp legal position improves

[Jack Cole]

Steve High wrote: "Why presume that the Court suspects IH as being the
party who has committed economic crime?"

Yes, that is a painfully presumptive article written as if the presumptions
are facts.  It is by an anonymous blogger.  It's not worth reading unless
you enjoy reading propaganda.



On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:43 AM Steve High  wrote:

> Why presume that the Court suspects IH as being the party who has
> committed economic crime?
>
> On Monday, June 6, 2016, H LV  wrote:
>
>> ​from
>>
>>
>> https://thenewfire.wordpress.com/good-prospects-for-rossi-and-leonardo-corp-lawsuit/
>> ​
>>
>> ​<<​
>> The reassignment of the lawsuit to the District Court Judge Cecilia
>> Altonaga and the consulting of the economic crime specialist Magistrate
>> John O’Sullivan, indicates that the court already has an initial suspicion
>> towards economic crime and therefore the lawsuit will not be rejected on
>> the basis of technicalities.
>> ​>>​
>>
>> ​Harry​
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jack Cole]

Eric Walker wrote:

*It is hard to by any stretch of imagination to describe Rossi's behavior
as that of a reasonable person. Rossi has been his own worst enemy, as even
his admirers will attest. He succeeded in obtaining millions of dollars in
funding, with the possibility of many more, in a field that has been
starved of funding for many years, and yet he managed to alienate the
people trying to help them and then used the money he obtained to sue
them.  He has filed many patent applications with gross deficiencies and
even obtained a few patents, but none are enabling.  He has carried out
test after test that experts that have debated them for years agree are
lacking.  He has claimed that he was shipping this many units to this
customer or about to build a factory full of robots, while nothing of the
sort was happening.  He claimed that everything was good between him and IH
only a few weeks before launching a lawsuit that he must have known was in
the works for weeks or months. I hope these are not actions that reasonable
people take.*

Eric, his behavior is not reasonable if you assume he has a working
product.  If he is running a con, then his apparently erratic behavior all
has the purpose of keeping his secret (it doesn't work).  Of course there
is evidence of laziness or an utterly poor understanding of measurement
instruments with the presentation of the apparently fake measurements (3 or
4 trailing zeros according to Jed).  Rossi can do almost anything, and
people will make excuses for him because they understandably want the E-Cat
to work so we can have a better world.  What a dream that would be, a
device that makes heat, light, electricity, and do not forget,
propellant-less thrust.

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 11:14 PM Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 10:50 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
> Not clear how you arrived at that conclusion.
>>
>
> I got that impression from observing Rossi's poor behavior over many
> years, and from observing what seems like forbearance on the part of IH,
> especially as seen from hindsight, as more information trickles in. I do
> not require that you arrive at the same conclusion.  You clearly have a
> different take on things, one that seems naive to me.
>
> Another story is that IH never tried to find a customer and then blamed
>> Rossi for starting late.  Or maybe didn't get all the partners to sign the
>> agreement with the modified test procedures so they could claim it was
>> invalid?  Of accepted instrumentation that they knew was unsatisfactory and
>> then at the end complained about it?
>>
>
> If IH have rebutted in a reply to a US federal court to a lawsuit raised
> against it that Rossi was at fault for starting the test late when it was
> in fact their own failure to obtain a customer, Rossi will have an
> opportunity in Leonardo's reply to clear up this error, making IH look very
> bad indeed.  If IH maliciously took note a lack of a signature on the
> second amendment so that they could use it to attack the validity of the
> second amendment to the license agreement later on, while playing along as
> though nothing were amiss, this would definitely have been playing hardball
> on the part of a party negotiating "at arm's length" with Leonardo.  Again,
> Rossi will have an opportunity to clarify the situation, making IH look
> bad.  If IH accepted instrumentation that they knew was unsatisfactory and
> then at the end complained about it, this will no doubt come up in
> Leonardo's reply.
>
> The test is what a reasonable man would do.
>>
>
> It is hard to by any stretch of imagination to describe Rossi's behavior
> as that of a reasonable person. Rossi has been his own worst enemy, as even
> his admirers will attest. He succeeded in obtaining millions of dollars in
> funding, with the possibility of many more, in a field that has been
> starved of funding for many years, and yet he managed to alienate the
> people trying to help them and then used the money he obtained to sue
> them.  He has filed many patent applications with gross deficiencies and
> even obtained a few patents, but none are enabling.  He has carried out
> test after test that experts that have debated them for years agree are
> lacking.  He has claimed that he was shipping this many units to this
> customer or about to build a factory full of robots, while nothing of the
> sort was happening.  He claimed that everything was good between him and IH
> only a few weeks before launching a lawsuit that he must have known was in
> the works for weeks or months. I hope these are not actions that reasonable
> people take.
>
> In the circumstances described by Jed (that it was impossible to know the
>> results) a reasonable man would have fired the ERV and shut it down after
>> say a week, not waited a year.
>>
>
> Not being privy to the details of the situation, it is difficult to say
> what IH have attempted to do and what they've done, 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Jack Cole]

Steven,

Good post in my opinion.  Very respectful to all.

It is a painful thing to come to the realization that the hope you place in
a person for changing the world is now lost (not to mention all the hours
and work spent following the topic).  It is a good and painful life
lesson.  When
you embark on such an investment of time and effort, place value on the
process of finding the truth per se rather than on the outcome.  Fortunately,
life often affords other opportunities to use knowledge gained even in
apparently fruitless past efforts.

Jack

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 3:14 AM Alain Sepeda  wrote:

> Just forget calorimetry.
>
> IH have a licend to E-cat technology and derivation.
> If E-cat work they will make billions of $ of benefits, sharing par with
> Rossi, who will also make billion on other geographic zones like EU...
>
> It would be stupid thus to be in trouble with Rossi, to risk to lose the
> license, and nobody even POTUS can pay enough to  convince someone of
> abandoning those billions.
>
> if IH have reasonable hope that E-cat works they will care not to hurt the
> personality of Rossi because they are dependent on him.
>
>
> conclusion :
> IH have never succeeded in making an E-cat work ("could not substantiate")
> IH think they will never be able to make an E-cat work as the process is
> engaged (need to force IP transfer or dump the contract).
>
> now this does not says is the 1MW*350days calorimetry was good, if the
> client was real or dummy, ...
>
> This just say this is unimportant.
>
> I don't care if Ford won Formula 1 championchip, if my Ford car cannot
> start.
>
>
> 2016-05-23 4:37 GMT+02:00 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
> orionwo...@charter.net>:
>
>> I have rejoined vortex briefly to express a couple of cents. I don't
>> expect to stay her long. It's too damned addictive.
>>
>>
>>
>> OK... Regarding the latest Rossi vs I.H. saga:
>>
>>
>>
>> Having observed Jed's eclectic contributions to the Vort Collective since
>> the 1990s it's been my experience that few Vort members have been as
>> thorough, meticulously so, or as objective, as Mr. Rothwell has been when
>> it comes to evaluating basic calorimetry. Because I'm not an expert in
>> calorimetry it behooves me to carefully evaluate the opinions and
>> assessments of those who, in my opinion, are experienced experts in the
>> field. Having observed the quality of Mr. Rothwell's posts for more than
>> three decades I have no problem yielding to most of his extensive
>> experience (and opinion) on such matters. I should also mention that I'm
>> willing to listen to Ed Storm's opinions and evaluations as well,. I gather
>> Ed may have possibly concluded a very different scenario concerning Rossi's
>> alleged professional proclivities. Evaluating Mr. Rothwell's opinions,
>> combined with Ed Storms, and perhaps a few others can certainly give me a
>> lot to chew on!
>>
>>
>>
>> I am not in a position to determine whether Rossi is or isn't a fraud.
>> Meanwhile, Jed has access to crucial I.H. calorimetric data that most of us
>> in the peanut gallery don't possess. Jed appears to have come to the
>> conclusion that Rossi's recent actions concerning his dealings with I.H.
>> indicate strong fraudulent activity. Again, I yield to Jed's extensive
>> experience (and opinion) concerning calorimetric issues while I also
>> continue to keep Ed Storm's opinions on the matter in the mixture as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> One can come up with a million different reasons as to why we flawed
>> human beings occasionally behave in seemingly evasive and dishonest ways.
>> Buyer beware.
>>
>>
>>
>> While I remain fascinated by this latest Rossi saga, a saga which is
>> still unfolding, I find myself even more fascinated by the amount of
>> bargaining (of the Elisabeth Kubler-Ross kind) that I see coming from
>> certain Vort participants as they go about challenging Mr. Rothwell's,
>> latest Rossi criticisms. I remain fascinated that some of these posters
>> seem incapable of entertaining the possibility that Rossi's calorimetric
>> claims might indeed be worthless, or worse, possibly even fraudulent. Why
>> is it important to cast so much doubt on Mr. Rothwell's latest Rossi
>> assessments? I can think of one possibility:
>>
>>
>>
>> As a former member of Dr. Mills SCP Yahoo group I observed a lot of smart
>> observant posters occasionally asking difficult questions of the good
>> doctor. Unfortunately, I also observed a lot of hero worshiping of the good
>> doctor. I suspect certain posts I made concerning observations I made that
>> seemed to suggest there existed an ardent cheerleading section may have
>> contributed to me being kicked out by Dr. Mills himself. Lately, I see a
>> similar kind of hero worshipping occurring within the Vort Collective among
>> certain posters. I find myself wondering what are the chances are that any
>> of these worshipers have accumulated anywhere near the amount of
>> calorimetric 

Re: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996

[Jack Cole]

Yes, all good reasons to carefully consider the safety of such an
experiment.

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:52 PM Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Now that you mention it, and realizing how enticing/dangerous it would be
> to a certain segment of the population, the hope is that no one gets hurt
> trying it.
>
> We have seen crazy stunts with thermite and other energetic materials on
> YouTube. In a worst case, we are talking about something which could be
> far more energetic than thermite. Yikes.
>
> *From:* Jack Cole
>
> Very interesting account.  I have occasionally had the fantasy of
> modifying a pressure cooker, adding 10 pounds of nickel powder, and adding
> hydrogen (after degassing).
>
> Most observers of the LENR/nickel hydride scene are unaware of the details
> of the Thermacore, Inc. runaway reaction back in 1996.
>
> Unfortunately, this was the last effort that this company made in the
> field, and the main reason that they dropped LENR
>

Re: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996

[Jack Cole]

Jones,

Very interesting account.  I have occasionally had the fantasy of modifying
a pressure cooker, adding 10 pounds of nickel powder, and adding hydrogen
(after degassing).

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 1:09 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Most observers of the LENR/nickel hydride scene are unaware of the details
> of the Thermacore, Inc. runaway reaction back in 1996.
>
> Unfortunately, this was the last effort that this company made in the
> field, and the main reason that they dropped LENR. The incident echoes
> other thermal runaways, including P, Mizuno, Mark Snoswell in Australia
> and Ahern. However, it was far more energetic than any of the prior
> incidents.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Jack Cole]

Daniel,

Of the ones I mentioned, none exhibited COP > 1.  I will let MFMP speak to
whether they think they might have gotten COP>1, but I would say that they
have not convincingly.  Some of my early experiments looked promising, but
I must conclude them in error since I saw nothing when I improved my
instrumentation and methods.  Same for Brian Albiston.  There is no
convincing / repeatable demonstration to of COP > 1.  With respect to Bob,
this is really reaching and hoping.  IH  was supposedly given everything
they needed to replicate, and they were unable to.  The tests of Rossi's
devices fall into the same category with other purported positive
replications:  No convincing evidence of excess heat or not repeatable /
poor methodology / poor disclosure (e.g., Parkhomov, Songshen Jiang,
me356).  There has not been one high quality repeatable experiment
demonstrating excess heat.

If you have been following replication efforts, MFMP and Brian Albiston
have tried about every suggestion.

I'll not try to convince you further.  All the information is there for you
to make up your own mind.

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:10 AM Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That is not the same as testing Rossi's devices. But some of them did
> yield COP>1, at least that's what I understand from Bob Higgins. And these
> are not perfect replications. Check his new patent out to know what you
> missed.
>
>
> 2016-05-18 10:02 GMT-03:00 Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Yes, of course.  I should have probably said at least a 100 instead of
>> 100s, although 100s would probably be valid as people often don't publish
>> negative results.
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Jack Cole]

Yes, of course.  I should have probably said at least a 100 instead of
100s, although 100s would probably be valid as people often don't publish
negative results.

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:58 AM Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Are referring to replications?
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Jack Cole]

Personally, I have conducted ~30.  Ed Storms has conducted "dozens."  Budko
& Korshunov conducted 17.  Jeff Morris has conducted at least 3 in a
calorimeter.  JPB has conducted 20+.  How many has Brian Albiston conducted
now (20-40)?  Oh yes, almost forgot Brian Ahern, Mizzou, Lugano, MFMP.



On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:39 AM Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> How do you know that?
>
>
> 2016-05-18 9:30 GMT-03:00 Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com>:
>
>>   On the contrary, hundreds of experiments say it doesn't work at all.
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Jack Cole]

Daniel Rocha wrote:
"My views on this matter are the same as they were one month ago. Still
waiting for new information. There is no new pattern here. "

There is no new pattern, but the previous patterns have been elucidated.
One too many cards were added to the house of cards, and now it is
falling.  No longer can one rationally attribute his behavior to being an
eccentric inventor.  If his reactors work, he need not be shy about
allowing any measurement instrument or test.  If his patent is accurate,
his IP is protected.  But as we have seen, there is no high quality or
repeatable evidence that his formula works at all based on the patent.  On
the contrary, hundreds of experiments say it doesn't work at all.  What is
more likely, that he is hiding some secret ingredient or method or that it
doesn't work?

Let's consider a scenario.  Say you come to my basement lab to see an
experimental device that I say is generating 10kw of electricity from 1kw
of input.  I show you a power meter on the output that reads 10kw.  While I
walk upstairs to get you a drink, you hook up your own meter and it shows
800w of output.  Which meter do you believe?

The best explanation is that his behavior is planned and intentional to
create the image he wants to project and prevent any objective analysis.
This can extend all the way down to salting comments on his blog (and other
blogs) to ask questions he wants to answer or to manipulate opinions.  It
is painfully obvious once you are looking for it.

It is a sad thing.  There are so many sincere people wishing for a good
outcome that could change the world.  I'm with them on that, but the
solution will not come from an electric heater locked up in Miami or an
inventor with devices that are shy about being measured.

Jack



On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:26 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Daniel Rocha  wrote:
>
> My views on this matter are the same as they were one month ago. Still
>> waiting for new information. There is no new pattern here. There's nothing
>>  that Rossi did in this test that he had not done before.
>>
>
> So, you have no problem with hiding the customer equipment? You would pay
> $89 million without confirming there is industrial equipment back there
> that uses 1 MW of process heat?
>
> And you say this is nothing new? Do I have that right?
>
>
>
>> What I think crazy it is that you are bashing Rossi with much more
>> emphasis than in the other occasion.
>>
>
> I never had such clear-cut proof that Rossi is either stupid or
> fraudulent. In previous tests, he did not allow anyone to take any data or
> look closely. In this test, he could not prevent the I.H. people from
> looking, although he did stop them from doing the most important test of
> all -- examining the customer's equipment.
>
>
>
>> A blind test is important to avoid cheats. Like using a thermometer too
>> close to the junction of hot water/close waterl. Steam quality and issues
>> related to its measurement. Measuring AC currents and hiding extra power in
>> the form of a DC form. Calibration of a IR camera and its lack of
>> sensibility where sign is stronger. Changing powder in a rather dubious
>> way. If both sides see each other as a black box, with arbiter agreed by
>> both sides, Penon, to check if they are reading the same power
>> output/input, the chance of cheating decreases, since neither won't be able
>> to know how the change parameter in order to change reading.
>>
>
> Do I take you are using this word-salad blather as justification for
> hiding the customer's machinery? Is that what you mean?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Jack Cole]

When I put on my skeptic hat about this report from Mats, I think the
following.  This is speculation and opinion.

Rossi found out about Darden causing doubt among the Lugano scientists.
Scared that they may be convinced of the truth (as well as Mats), he
plotted a scheme to shore up his support.  He goes to Sweden  allegedly to
attempt to find a building for a factory and visits with the professors and
Mats while there.  The factory building is actually part of the scheme to
convince both Mats and the professors of just how serious Rossi is about
moving forward (who tries to buy a factory if he is only interested in
bilking 267 million dollars from IH?).  He's got to keep the Lugano profs
from jumping ship because he may lose the 11 M in addition to fatally
damaging his case were they to do the right thing and retract their paper.
Mats is a wildcard, because he could end up being objective despite having
invested so much time and effort in following Rossi.  Rossi can't risk
losing Mats' support, so a rare personal visit was in order.




On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:48 AM a.ashfield  wrote:

> This got left off my original post.
>
> Read Mats full report here.
>
>
> 
> https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Jack Cole]

Lennart,

Many of us sounded different before.  It has taken us awhile to get more
information about the situation (e.g., negative replications galore,
repeated patterns of egregious mistakes made by Rossi / the people he
chooses to conduct "tests").

I very much understand the desire to believe Rossi.  Those of us who have
changed our minds about the situation have not arrived at this position
easily.

I think Jed cares about the truth and hates that the situation has turned
out the way it has.  This is not what I would have ever expected a year
ago.  It is a sad time LENR.

We need not wait long.  It will be interesting to see IH's response to the
lawsuit.

Jack

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:41 PM Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> Jed - nobody but Rossi has a claim with IH.
> I think you need to tell what you know and how that makes you so sure
> about the situation. I still do not agree with the way you have thrown
> Rossi under the bus. Not long ago you sounded different. You have other
> info you need to present it or your say is just BS,
>
> 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 Mon, May 9, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Bob Cook  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I  forgot to mention the Japanese ( I think Misuno) R work.  They are
>>> not above spoon feeding.  They even pay as a dessert course.  I trust you
>>> remember your job as a consultant on calorimetric measurements for their
>>> experiments.
>>>
>>
>> That has nothing to do with the Japanese government. Mizuno has been
>> retired for a decade. He did that with his own money. The government knows
>> nothing about it.
>>
>>
>>
>>>   As I recall Dave Robertson with my input finally convinced you that
>>> the ambient air temperature had an influence on the water cooling system
>>> temperatures in the Japanese tests.  So much for the adequacy of HVAC
>>> knowhow.
>>>
>>
>> You did not convince me of anything. As I wrote in the first version of
>> the report, a calibration is needed. Mizuno agreed with me. It took him a
>> few months to do the calibration. As soon as he did, the problem was
>> apparent. That is what I wrote:
>>
>> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonmi.pdf
>>
>> This was his mistake, his problem, and his lack of HVAC equipment. I will
>> grant that I should have seen it earlier, but I did say we need a
>> calibration to be sure.
>>
>>
>>
>>> You have a short memory, if you think the Government’s opposition to
>>> cold fusion is “simply absurd.”
>>>
>>
>> As I said, some factions oppose it. However, nearly all funding for cold
>> fusion from 1989 to the present has come from governments, including the
>> U.S. government. The would have been forgotten long ago if it were not for
>> government support and funding. You can confirm that easily.
>>
>> Governments have spent millions, and they have published their reports.
>> Some of the best research was done with government money at Los Alamos and
>> China Lake, and the Italian ENEA. SRI was funded by DARPA. To suggest that
>> these agencies and researchers are also secretly plotting to discredit
>> Rossi or to fool me is absurd. Rossi has discredited himself. Time after
>> time, he has failed to meet his obligations, or do what he said he would
>> do. He promises to do a test and then reneges. Then he becomes furious
>> because the people who agreed to fund him based on the test pull out.
>>
>> To suggest that I.H. spent $11 million and now for some mysterious reason
>> they are lying and claiming it does not work is utterly absurd. It is
>> crazy. They want it to work! Why would they spend all that money if their
>> purpose was to discredit him? They could have ignored him. He would be long
>> gone by now. They did everything they could to make it work. They gave
>> Rossi all that he asked for. They were prepared to give him $89 million
>> more. If it worked, they would be thrilled to give him the money. But he
>> failed to show any sign of excess heat, just as he failed so many previous
>> tests with other private venture capitalists, and with the Navy, NASA and
>> others.
>>
>> I.H. will get nothing out of the deal. No intellectual property. Nothing.
>> Because they did not pay the $89 million. If they actually thought it
>> worked, why would they turn their backs on it now, and write off the $11
>> million?
>>
>> There is no intellectual property in any case, because the gadget does
>> not work.
>>
>> Everyone else working with I.H. agrees with me that they are honest,
>> knowledgeable, they offer generous terms, and they stick with the
>> researchers through thick and thin. Only Rossi claims they have been unfair.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

[Vo]:Article: Hints of a New Particle Could Completely Change Physics as We Know It

[Jack Cole]

A fluctuation in the data from the world's most powerful particle smasher
could be a random blip — or a breakthrough that could turn all of physics
on its head. The problem is, we don't which it …

http://flip.it/R1bSH

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

Re: [Vo]:DCE, PEC and TiH2

[Jack Cole]

It is a little hard to argue with the results since there is no added
heating.  It would be nice to see the cell pressure plotted along with the
temp.

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 4:23 PM Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> One interesting detail to add: It is somewhat outrageous to imagine that
> cyclical loading/unloading of hydrogen into a hydride storage metal such as
> palladium - and that alone - can cause temperature increase in both
> directions.
>
> Mainstream physics, and most hands-on experimentation, teaches that there
> is symmetry and that conservation of energy prevails in such a common
> system - and that exotherm on loading is balanced by endotherm on unloading.
>
> But here is a understated paper found by Jack Cole, from a couple of years
> ago where George Miley, Xiaoling Yang and their postgrads at
> Illinois-Urbana manage to easily find and document a massive and glaring
> asymmetry with loading/unloading of deuterium in palladium… and hello…
> somehow the mainstream of physics manages to ignore the profound
> implications. Go figure.
>
> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf
>
> ---
>
> This is the first part of a formative hypothesis for anomalous thermal
> gain, which explains terminology and acronyms but does not dig deeply into
> Holmlid’s past work, nor into Mills, but instead presents a hybridized
> alternative to thermal gain. The gain is ostensibly non-nuclear so long
> as the laser is not used.
>
> The dynamical Casimir effect, DCE - is a proved relativistic effect of
> nanoscale geometry. It was first demonstrated in 2011 as a mechanism for
> anomalous energy gain involving photons being “created” (from virtual
> photons). Heretofore that type of gain has been too small to use in a
> practical device. Curiously, the DCE was first seen in Gothenburg, the
> home of Leif Holmlid, but the Professor has not yet seen the connection of
> DCE to hydrogen densification - nor to excess energy which will be
> presented here. This proposed route does not involve a vacuum or the
> laser per se, but is a new route using what is called PEC and would be
> powered by DCE.
>
> PEC is short for photo-electric-catalysis and is one of the hottest
> topics in chemistry these days, thanks to nano-geometry. PEC has been
> most often used to split water using solar radiation, but that is the tip
> of an iceberg of applications. PEC - at least as it will be used in this
> hypothesis, can be employed without vacuum condition - as the major
> pathway for hydrogen densification, leading to UDH or to an intermediate
> form of f/H (fractional hydrogen) operating in the gas phase (as opposed to
> plasma phase). PEC is boosted by the surface plasmon polariton, or else
> is intrinsic to SPP – but operates without the substantial ionization
> necessary for Mills version - which means low temperature operation.
>
> TiH2 is the nominal hydride of titanium when fully loaded, but the average 
> amount
> of hydrogen per atom of Ti can vary substantially, causing major
> structural changes and stress in the packing arrangement of the crystal
> structure as the ratio changes. TiH(1.95) is a typical ratio as supplied
> commercially. Note that with palladium, the loading of hydrogen almost
> never gets to a full 1:1 but with Ti it is relatively easy to get to 2:1,
> but the important thing is that phase-change accompanies the various
> ratios, and this has profound thermal repercussions without invoking
> nuclear reactions.
>
> TiHx approaches stoichiometry as TiH2 and it wants to adopt a distorted
> body-centered tetragonal structure but there are at least two other phase
> structures “competing for space” along the way, and in a narrow range. At
> ratios of H:Ti which are between 1.5:1 and 1.9:1 this crystal can become
> unstable with respect to isothermal decomposition (dehydrogenation). The
> crystal can rapidly decompose even at room temperature until an
> approximate composition of TiH(1.74) is reached. Normally dehydrogenation
> is endothermic but some of the phases of titanium hydride are unique, and
> this points to eventual asymmetry.
>
> If there is an intrinsic asymmetry in titanium hydride, in sequential
> cycles of loading-unloading, and one unloading is isothermal but the loading
> is exothermic, then the stage is set. Gibbs “free energy” for the first
> time becomes really free. There can be a further boost in the exotherm of
> loading – if and when UDU expands on loading.
>
> It is worthwhile to take a moment to reintroduce “recalescence” as a
> known example of an surprisingly intense thermal anomaly of certain hydrides.
> Recalescence is related to rapid phase-change in a few alloys with
> soaring temperatu

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's missing secret or E-CatX description or both?

[Jack Cole]

Yes, I think Andrew et al believe this has nothing to do with LENR, but
theorize a different process.  It may end up being the case that nickel
will need to be abandoned altogether in powder form.  Last I knew, Andrew
was going back to work on repeating some of the titanium experiments with
better instrumentation.

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:09 PM Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> *From:* Jack Cole
>
>
>
> Maybe Rossi has finally found something that will work (e.g., using a
> method similar to Andrew Hrischanovich with titanium
> <http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/05/tales-from-the-laboratory-of-experimental-physics-lenr-research-in-ukraine-and-russia-by-andrew-hrischanovich-alan-smith/>
> ).
>
>
>
> This is interesting work from Ukraine/Russia. One of the claims, according
> to Alan Smith who translated the documents - is that they have a system
> where the adsorption / desorption of hydrogen by titanium is exothermic in
> both directions. That is huge – if true, since it gets us away from the
> potential problem of inviting scrutiny from the NRC.
>
>
>
> IOW - this is not LENR and probably not related to Parkhomov.
>
>
>
> What is most interesting is that it operates like asymmetric phase change,
> since the volume of material changes at the subnanometer level, and phase
> change is known to be very energetic is certain circumstances.
>
>
>
> The precise mechanism for gain could be another instance of DCE – or the
> Dynamical Casimir Effect – which is a proved phenomenon but heretofore was
> not very robust and only involved light emission.
>
>
>
> And we can see why such a system which is cycling around what are
> operative phase-changes -- would benefit from on/off cycling of the power
> supply… which… come to think of it… makes the details even more interesting
> to anyone using TiH2 in an experiment…
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's missing secret or E-CatX description or both?

[Jack Cole]

Maybe Rossi has finally found something that will work (e.g., using a
method similar to Andrew Hrischanovich with titanium
).


On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:53 AM a.ashfield  wrote:

> I cut and pasted the address that Bob Cook used, without noticing the Vo
> and Re were reversed.
> So my comment should be here.
>
> Bob Cook,
>
> Elsewhere Rossi has described the Quark X as being like a pencil and
> producing 100 W. I assume the casing is made out of a ceramic if the
> reactor can run at 1400C.
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:Has the 'impossible' EM drive being tested by NASA finally been explained? | Examiner.com

[Jack Cole]

http://www.examiner.com/article/has-the-impossible-em-drive-being-tested-by-nasa-finally-been-explained

[Vo]:Article: Glowing nanomaterial to drive new generation of solar cells

[Jack Cole]

Implications for LENR?


Glowing nanomaterial to drive new generation of solar cells: Physicists
have discovered radical new properties in a nanomaterial which opens new
possibilities for highly efficient thermophotovoltaic cells, which could
one day harvest heat in the dark and turn it into electricity

http://flip.it/bwVad

[Vo]:Alternative View and Methods to the Holmlid Effect

[Jack Cole]

Jones Beene has put together an experimental reactor to attempt an
alternative method of producing the Holmlid effect.  Jones theorizes that
SPP could be a factor and hopes to test this without using laser light.
Instead, he theorizes that a highly efficient sodium vapor light may induce
SPP.   It is interesting to note that Jones gets much more light out of his
reactor running at 12 watts during a calibration run than was seen with the
hot cat.  Jones has christened his first reactor, "the tanning booth
reactor."

We have put together a page for discussion and tracking progress.
Hopefully, others will join the effort (or make their own efforts) and
generate more ideas for producing the Holmlid effect.

http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/replicating-holmlid-effect/

Jack

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Jack Cole]

Jed wrote:
"One side or the other is definitely, drastically, 100% certainly wrong.
One says the device produces 80 times input, and the other says it produces
1 times input. As I said, I cannot imagine why anyone here thinks Rossi is
likely to be right, given his track record of making terrible technical
mistakes."

Yes, and the null result is the most likely.  You could easily find 1000's
of scientists who would assert the same without even seeing the report.
Some may argue that is the wrong approach, but it is the most likely to be
valid in this case (or in fact any case of apparent excess heat).
Therefore, you must take extraordinary measures to make sure the results
are valid.  That includes actually calibrating the plant (running it under
the full range of parameters without the fuel - flow rates, temperature
ranges, input and output powers).  Does anyone here want to go out on a
limb to assert that the test was likely properly calibrated?  Of course we
don't know for sure, but we do know calibration is not standard practice
for any Rossi-involved test.

This is not the first time a major investment has been lost for large
errors.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/10/nyteknik-reports-on-halted-swedish-investment-in-hydrofusion-following-tests/

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:15 AM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Craig Haynie  wrote:
>
>
>> It is for the courts to decide whether the omission of a clause like this
>>> prevents the application of common sense...
>>>
>>
>> But I think we agree that 'common sense' does not necessarily mean that
>> either side would have the option to opt-out if they didn't like the report.
>>
>
> You misunderstand. The issue is not "they didn't like the report." Likes,
> dislikes and preferences play no part in this. The issue is whether the
> report is technically correct. In a court case over a technical dispute of
> this nature, expert witnesses are brought in to render an opinion on the
> analyses from Rossi and I.H. If the expert witnesses convincingly show that
> one side or the other is correct, that is how the judge will rule.
>
> No judge will compel I.H. to pay if several HVAC engineers certified and
> licensed by the state of Florida testify that the Penon report is wrong;
> Penon's methods do not meet boiler inspection standards (calorimetry) set
> by the state of Florida; and the device did not produce eighty times input,
> or even 6 times input.
>
> Suppose you commission a contractor to build a house in the state of
> Florida. Six months later they say it is finished and they demand their
> money. You go to the site and you find a hole in the ground and a pile of
> rotting lumber. No judge will say "you signed a contract, they say it is
> finished, so you have to pay." Penon has worked for Rossi in the past and
> he obviously works for him now. No matter what the contract says, if
> experts testify that Penon is wrong, I.H. will be released from it.
>
> One side or the other is definitely, drastically, 100% certainly wrong.
> One says the device produces 80 times input, and the other says it produces
> 1 times input. As I said, I cannot imagine why anyone here thinks Rossi is
> likely to be right, given his track record of making terrible technical
> mistakes.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Jack Cole]

But unfortunately Axil, there is nothing to compare the bill to.  They set
up the factory just for the test in contrast to many of Rossi's early
statements on the matter (if I am recalling correctly).

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 8:00 PM Axil Axil  wrote:

> There is another measure of performance that could be used to replace the
> ERV. The customer's electric meter shows how much electric power fed unto
> the E-Cat and the customer paid for the steam that the E-Cat produced. If
> the COP of the E-Cat is high enough, these gross input and output power
> levels will show a COP over 6,
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> a.ashfield  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Jed.  "I hereby certify that this reactor produces anomalous heat with a
>>> COP exceeding 6. Please remit $89 million."
>>>
>>> That is a gross over simplification.
>>
>>
>> Yes, that is what I said. It is meant to be. This is an extreme example
>> of a report that no judge would uphold. The point is, whatever the contract
>> says, if it comes to trial, expert witnesses will have to render an opinion
>> on the report and the equipment. The judge is not going to rule in favor of
>> Rossi just because the contract says the Penon report will decide the issue.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The contract states that the ERV must be acceptable to both parties and
>>> that the outcome would indeed depend on his report.
>>
>>
>> But not if the report is bad enough. If the report claims output is is 80
>> times input, and a series of expert witnesses say it was 1 times input, no
>> judge or jury will rule in favor of Rossi, no matter what the contract
>> says. Judges apply common sense to contract disputes. You do not get $89
>> million when all the experts agree you made a drastic error in calorimetry.
>>
>>
>>
>>>   He had his own instruments and it should not be hard to measure the
>>> performance with reasonable accuracy.  I know I could have done so.
>>>
>>
>> He, who? Penon? You or I could have done it with reasonable accuracy but
>> as you saw in 2012 he was even worse then Levi et al. The I.H. people did
>> measure it with reasonable accuracy, they say. They they got a different
>> answer. You will have to read the two reports (or at least the Penon
>> report) before you can judge. Or, you can trust my judgement of the
>> abilities of the two parties. That is not as good a metric as reading the
>> reports, but it is better than nothing.
>>
>> They both claim they measured with reasonable accuracy. One of them has
>> to be drastically wrong. Do you have any reason to assume I.H. is making
>> the mistake, rather than Rossi? Why are you on Rossi's side?
>>
>> You can easily discover that Penon and Rossi have a history of making
>> extraordinarily stupid mistakes in calorimetry.
>>
>>
>>
>>> What is fishy is that IH apparently made no effort to allow the trial to
>>> start (delaying it for almost a year?).
>>>
>>
>> I don't see what is fishy about that, and I do not recall it was delayed
>> that long. That is discussed in the lawsuit documents.
>>
>>
>>
>>> As I think you wrote $89 million is peanuts if the plant works as well
>>> as has been reported
>>>
>>
>> Which is another reason to think it does not work. Because even if it
>> produced only 30% excess instead of 80 times input, I expect I.H. would
>> continue the research. They would not declare it did not work, and abandon
>> it.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi states his reason for not publishing Penon report

[Jack Cole]

Jed,

Now he says it will be published after it is disclosed in court.  Probably
hoping that it won't be widely refuted before a decision is reached and
reducing the number of experts who could be called by IH to refute the
report.  It can't think of any reason to do this beyond the fact that it
would be damaging.  Besides, once disclosed in court, it is part of the
public record.  He's not doing anybody favors by releasing it at that
point.  If he feels good about the report, I say release it and the raw
data.

Andrea Rossi
April 13, 2016 at 5:30 PM


Patrick Ellul:
The Report will be published after it will have been disclosed in the Court.
Everything you are reading now is just toilet paper, diffused by
professionals of the same and the ones they have paid for.
I can only repeat what my Attorney wrote in our press release, it is that
we are pleased by the results. The results are coherent with what I have
repeatedly written on this blog during the 352 days of test: the plant has
worked mostly in SSM mode. As all the visitors have seen.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892=95#comment-1172432

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 7:17 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> Jed.  I do not know why. I wish they would. I do not want to ask them why,
>> because it is none of my business. I don't want to ask questions relating
>> to a lawsuit. I prefer to stick to technical questions.
>>
>
>
>> That didn't stop you speculating that Penon was an idiot . . .
>
>
> I am not speculating. I know he is an idiot. I read his 2012 report.
>
>
> , the report was rubbish  . . .
>
>
> If I.H. is correct, and there is no excess heat, then obviously the report
> is rubbish. According to Rossi's press release the report claims output is
> 80 times input. A mistake on that scale is inept. It is not unheard of, but
> it is inept.
>
> If Rossi is right, then I.H. is inept. One or the other must be
> drastically wrong. There is no middle ground.
>
>
>
>> & Rossi did not release it because it damned him.
>>
>
> Obviously if it is off by a factor of 80 it will damn him.
>
> You do not have to take my word for any of this. You can confirm or
> disprove everything I say with published sources from Rossi and I.H.:
>
> You can read Penon's 2012 report and decide for yourself whether he is an
> idiot.
>
> You can learn about the mistakes Rossi made at various times, especially
> with the NASA tests with the blocked flow. He has a track record of making
> drastic mistakes. That does not mean he is making one now, but it is is
> plausible.
>
> You can read the two press releases and decide for yourself which is more
> likely right, to the best of your own knowledge. I happen to have more
> knowledge of I.H.'s ability than you do, so I have the advantage here.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Jack Cole]

Imagine how far a person can go with the support of crowd sourced enabling
and excuse making.  ;)

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:29 AM a.ashfield  wrote:

> Jed,
>
> My reading of IH's statement is quite different.  I don't recall them
> saying there was no heat.  They said THEY could not duplicate Rossi's
> results.  That is not the same thing.
>
> There has been quite a lot of speculation that the dispute is really about
> whether they have received sufficient know how from Rossi to make E-Cats
> that run with a high COP for a long time.  Not that the 1 MW plant does not
> work.  IH did not SAY that it didn't.  As far as we know the ERV report
> said that it did work.
>
> Jed wrote.
>
> I do not know if there is another complete report, but I do know that the
>> I.H. observer disagrees with the Penon report, for good reasons."
>>
>> Earlier I thought you wrote that Penon was incompetent and the report
>> valueless
>
>
> I think he is incompetent based on his 2012 report, as I said. I.H. says
> they disagree with the report. They say there is no heat. That makes the
> report valueless. I trust I.H.'s expertise in calorimetry more than I trust
> Penon's.
>
>
>
>>Now you say the report damns Rossi.
>>
>
> That's what I.H. says, not me. They say there is no heat. That damns the
> report.
>
>
>
>> Earlier you wrote there were two ERV's.  Now it seems there is only one.
>>
>
> I think there are three people involved, Penon, Barry West and Fulvio
> Fabiani. That is my reading of the legal paper that Eric Walker kindly dug
> up. I do not know who is responsible for what, or how many reports were
> written, but in any case, I am sure that I.H. strongly disagrees with the
> Penon report. They made that clear in the press release and in additional
> comments to me. I hope the details will all be published eventually, but I
> cannot say when that might happen.
>
>
>
>> Rossi stated that he wanted to release the report but had not on his
>> attorney;s advice.  How dO you know better?
>>
>
> I cannot discuss that now. I hope I can later today. Sorry to be
> mysterious, but I really do hope I can say something definitive about that
> topic soon. The rest, including the report, may remain shrouded in mystery.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Lets work out some useful definitions

[Jack Cole]

Bob,

Thank you for putting this together.  May I add these definitions to a
resource page I'm making for hobbyist replicators of the Holmlid Effect
(with credit to you of course).  What should we actually call this?
Holmlid Effect or something else?

Jack

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 12:10 PM Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> It strikes me that as we are using some of the acronyms we are losing
> sight of their properties.
>
> Holmlid describes his Ultra-Dense Hydrogen (UDH), and Ultra-Dense
> Deuterium (UDD) as forming from Rydberg Matter (RM).  Rydberg Matter (RM)
> is a cluster of atoms in the Rydberg state.  So, lets start with a
> description of Rydberg state (please help me to get these correct):
>
> *Rydberg state:*  As an atom becomes increasingly excited, the electron
> orbitals change to larger orbitals (let's stick with hydrogen for the
> moment).  As the atom absorbs more and more energy, the orbital diameter
> generally increases.  At some excitation, just before ionization of the
> atom, the orbitals are huge and largely flattened into a disk.  The Rydberg
> states is a very excited, HIGH ENERGY STATE of the atom with a large
> diameter flattened disk-like orbital.  Then energy is just below the energy
> for ionization of the atom.  Because of the huge electron orbital radius,
> the Rydberg atom has a huge magnetic moment.
>
> *Rydberg Matter:*  RM could be variously described as a molecular form of
> atoms each in a Rydberg state, or a cluster or condensed matter in Rydberg
> state.  Rydberg clusters/molecules are huge because, the orbitals of the
> individual atoms, each of which is in a Rydberg state, is huge.  Rydberg
> matter hydrogen forms with large numbers of Rydberg state hydrogen (or
> deuterium) atoms into a large flat hexagonal cluster.  The cluster can be
> fairly stable; lasting for long periods of time if not disturbed (like in
> space).  The RM cluster is strongly affected by electric and magnetic
> field.  Note that the total energy in a RM cluster is VERY HIGH because
> each of the atoms is in a high energy Rydberg state.  The existence of
> Rydberg Matter is well documented with many experiments.
>
> *UDH or UDD:*  Ultra-Dense Hydrogen or Ultra-Dense Deuterium is a
> controversially described and poorly understood form of matter.  Its
> existence is purely speculative/hypothetical - based on measurements made
> of particle energies leaving Holmlid's experiments.  Holmlid believes his
> evidence suggests the spontaneous formation of UDH and UDD from RM.
> Spontaneous transformations normally occur from a higher energy state to a
> lower energy state, so the UDH/UDD would likely be lower energy than the
> RM.  Transition from the high energy RM state to the UDH/UDD state should
> then be accompanied by the emission of energy in some form.  Winterberg
> proposes a theory that stacks of the flat RM can form into super-dense
> states inside of an Fe2O3 catalyst pore, and subsequently "switch" to a UDD
> form.  According to Winterberg, UDH cannot form.  In Winterberg's theory,
> the "switch" seems to be presented as a swap between two nearly identical
> energy states, not requiring energy emission/absorbtion.  If that is the
> case, then the UDD state would be a HIGH energy state of deuterium.  There
> is very little evidence supporting the existence or nature of UDH or UDD.
>
> *Inverted Rydberg Hydrogen:*  IRH is a coined term to describe an atom
> that has lost energy and entered a state BELOW the ground level.  It is
> equivalent to the *Hydrino* of Mills, and to some of the Deep Dirac
> Levels (DDL) described by Maly & Va'vra, Naudts (sort of), Meulenberg, and
> Paillet.  IRH is a LOW energy form of a hydrogen atom, because its energy
> is below the ground level.
>
> *Deep Dirac Level (DDL):*  DDL comprises a set of states BELOW the ground
> level of the atom.  Existence of these sub-ground level states was first
> predicted using the relativistic form of the Schrodinger equation, the
> Klein-Gordon equation, by Naudts.  Naudts showed that the K-G equation had
> a solution at a very deep level that was about 500 keV below the ground
> level for hydrogen.  Note, the Schrodinger equation is only an
> approximation - it accounts for spin, but not special relativistic
> effects.  The Klein-Gordon equation includes the effects of special
> relativity, but not spin.  Dirac derived a beautiful general equation that
> included both spin and special relativity.  Solutions to the Dirac equation
> predict more accurately (than Schrodinger) the normal states of hydrogen
> (ground level and above), and also predicts many solutions for levels below
> the ground state.  It is quite hard to prove that these levels below the
> ground state of hydrogen (the DDL levels) exist, because the transition
> between DDL levels apparently cannot be accomplished via photon emission
> (our normal means for detecting level transition).  Meulenberg states that
> photon emission/absorption for 

[Vo]:GoatGuy's 1MW Explanation

[Jack Cole]

Thanks to Brad for finding the comment from GoatGuy on Next Big Future.  I
have had a chance to examine and think through the arguments.  I'm not an
engineer, so maybe someone else can do a better analysis.  It seems like
this explanation would work only if the plumbing connected to the water
tanks in certain ways (e.g., outlets connecting to the central reservoir
near the top).  If they connected on the bottom of the tanks, there would
be mixing and prevention of air pockets.

Jack

   -
  -
 - F
 - T
 - V
 - s
  -
   [image: Avatar]
   *‒*
   GoatGuy2Newcomer
   13 hours ago
   

   Hah! I got it… finally! (I see how the 'trick' is very likely being
   performed, and why IH decided on a different testing procedure from the
   'contract approved' one.)

   Its cute, subtle, and would result in an entirely misleading result.
   FIRST, you need to open the (
   http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/R_123621412_3.pdf )
   pdf file.

   Look at Figure 1. In the center of the “reactor shelter”, is a box
   labeled “water reservoir”, which has 2 inlets and 2 outlets.

   Inlet 1, top = tap water from municipal line
   Inlet 2, bot = return from steam condensers
   Outlet 1, top = water to first half of E-cats and then to water tank 1
   Outlet 2, bot = water to second half of E-cats and then to water tank 2

   All that would be needed would be for the steam-condensor loop to have a
   BUNCH of air in the line for this to be a really misleading COP > 1 system.
   Sensors that measure gas flow cannot discriminate 100% steam from 50:50
   steam from 0% hot air. Likewise, with a bit of flim-flam, most of the heat
   emitted could be combined back into the circulating loop (of which there
   are 2: (water tank 1) → (input to ECat₁) → (combine with reservoir tank
   water) → (back into ECat₁) → (back to water tank 1) … repeated for the
   bottom half.

   In this system most of the input power can heat the effluent stream, if
   needed. The amount of 'real steam' in the big old misdirection-device (the
   "condensers", which are huge, non-quantitative, impressive and so on), which
   thru air-in-the-lines becomes 'the ruse' looks great. Metrology is done.
   It all seems great because no one is alert to the intent-to-deviate from
   the patent diagram.

   The receiving tanks get both new tap water and a bunch of recirculated
   water, reheated. The bogosity of the experiment isn't easily revealed. No
   attempt is made to mass-heat a bunch of water (like a small swimming pool's
   worth) a finite amount. The whole thing runs at whatever rate it runs
   (which is carefully excluded from the PDF). The only measure left is the
   misdirected one.

   It is ingenious.
   And if I were 'there', I'd too be calling for different testing.
   Namely… substituting a liquid-liquid heat exchanger for the great big
   air blower.

   To heat the small swimming pool.
   Which REALLY becomes quantitative, fast.
   To at least 2 sig-figs.
   More than enough to expose the rat.
   Or to confirm the golden goose.

   Which (by my surmise) confirms why Rossi's so up tight about the testing.
   Which he shouldn't be if it is aiming toward MASS calorimetry.
   Which of course he's never done.
   Nor will he.

   Because it exposes rats.
   GoatGuy

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Jack Cole]

Thanks Dave.  I would love to see a solid report.  I still have no
alternative explanation for some of the early results I saw in my own
experiments, but the lack of reproducibility makes me suspect that I missed
some unknown error.

I just have trouble believing that Rossi would send a lawsuit to IH rather
than even one of his old supposedly working 10KW units if he had anything
that worked reliably!  I think 100M dollars is worth a week in NC
demonstrating to anyone at IH how to make it work.

Jack



On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 9:14 PM Dave  wrote:

> It is unfair to characterize Jack in this way.  He devoted a great deal of
> effort attempting to prove LENR was viable and it appeared to me that he
> was seeing some interesting results in early experiments.  Perhaps he has
> changed his beliefs as of this time due to taking a second look at his
> procedures.
>
> I can understand how demoralized he must feel after all of that effort but
> I feel confident that his opinions will change to a more positive stance if
> the ERV report has substance.  Give him some slack.
>
> My work regarding positive thermal feedback modeling tends to support many
> of the statements originating from Rossi.  Until I see evidence that energy
> is not generated by subjecting the magic formula fuel to high temperatures
> I will hold my positive views.  The earlier experiments that has suggested
> that LENR was present also fit into my model parameters.
>
> So lets all hold off on the personal attacks since they are not
> productive.  Besides, it is against the rules of vortex to engage in such
> behavior!
>
>
> Dave
>
>
> On 04/10/2016 06:25 PM, a.ashfield wrote:
>
> Jack,
> Thank you for proving my  point  (Skeptics will not believe any test)
> You have no idea what tests were run on the 1 MW plant by the EVR but you
> have already dismissed it sight unseen.
>
> "Brad,
>
> I concur.  Nobody talking here is a pseudo-skeptic.  Every one of us who
> is skeptical here has devoted a large amount of time (and money for some of
> us) to reading, analyzing, thinking, and even directly conducting many
> experiments.  I have wanted the E-cat to work as much as anyone, and
> understand how it is hard to give up that hope when you have invested so
> much in seeing it through to a positive outcome.  But we can't let that
> cognitive dissonance cause us to continue down a path of waste when there
> may be other more fruitful avenues.  Eventually, a person must say, "enough
> is enough" and realize a dream is just a dream and open our eyes to look
> around for something real and worth investing effort in.  It is painful to
> do, but better than continuing down that path.
>
> Jack
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 3:36 PM Brad Lowe < 
> ecatbuil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wait for another inconclusive report written by a dunce or a paid
> stooge? Rossi has wasted many man-years of our collective time. I am
> done waiting.
>
> And don't call me a pseudo-skeptic. We all would have been happy with
> any report where a gas generator ran the E-cat which heated a body of
> water. With a 1MW output, he could run that in a day to prove his
> claim and win back his millions. Rossi doesn't have anything of
> commercial value. Time to admit Rossi's grandfatherly demeanor and
> confident lies fooled me and many others.
>
> - Brad
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:05 PM, a.ashfield < 
> a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Brad Lowe wrote.  "Goat-guy made a great comment on next big future
> where he
> > makes a very good guess as to how Rossi is faking the results of the
> tests."
> >
> > Wait and see what the ERV report shows.
> >
> > I doesn't mater what the test it will not be enough to persuade pseudo
> > skeptics.  As Rossi said long ago, the only proof will be sales of
> working
> > reactors."
> >.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Jack Cole]

Brad,

I concur.  Nobody talking here is a pseudo-skeptic.  Every one of us who is
skeptical here has devoted a large amount of time (and money for some of
us) to reading, analyzing, thinking, and even directly conducting many
experiments.  I have wanted the E-cat to work as much as anyone, and
understand how it is hard to give up that hope when you have invested so
much in seeing it through to a positive outcome.  But we can't let that
cognitive dissonance cause us to continue down a path of waste when there
may be other more fruitful avenues.  Eventually, a person must say, "enough
is enough" and realize a dream is just a dream and open our eyes to look
around for something real and worth investing effort in.  It is painful to
do, but better than continuing down that path.

Jack


On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 3:36 PM Brad Lowe  wrote:

> Wait for another inconclusive report written by a dunce or a paid
> stooge? Rossi has wasted many man-years of our collective time. I am
> done waiting.
>
> And don't call me a pseudo-skeptic. We all would have been happy with
> any report where a gas generator ran the E-cat which heated a body of
> water. With a 1MW output, he could run that in a day to prove his
> claim and win back his millions. Rossi doesn't have anything of
> commercial value. Time to admit Rossi's grandfatherly demeanor and
> confident lies fooled me and many others.
>
> - Brad
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:05 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
> > Brad Lowe wrote.  "Goat-guy made a great comment on next big future
> where he
> > makes a very good guess as to how Rossi is faking the results of the
> tests."
> >
> > Wait and see what the ERV report shows.
> >
> > I doesn't mater what the test it will not be enough to persuade pseudo
> > skeptics.  As Rossi said long ago, the only proof will be sales of
> working
> > reactors.
> >
> >
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Jack Cole]

If I'm not mistaken,  GoatGuy was the first to speculate about the
transparency of alumina accounting for the apparent excess heat in Lugano.
His analysis seems plausible,  but would take some thought and analysis to
fully evaluate.

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016, 2:17 PM Brad Lowe  wrote:

> Goat-guy made a great comment on next big future where he makes a very
> good guess as to how Rossi is faking the results of the tests.
> http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/rossi-1-megawatt-energy-catalyzer-is.html
> He also states the obvious--why Rossi doesn't heat a pool of water to
> demonstrate heat output..
>
> Copying his response in full:
>
> Hah! I got it… finally! (I see how the 'trick' is very likely being
> performed, and why IH decided on a different testing procedure from
> the 'contract approved' one.)
>
> Its cute, subtle, and would result in an entirely misleading result.
> FIRST, you need to open the (
> http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/R_123621412_3.pdf
> ) pdf file.
>
> Look at Figure 1. In the center of the “reactor shelter”, is a box
> labeled “water reservoir”, which has 2 inlets and 2 outlets.
>
> Inlet 1, top = tap water from municipal line
> Inlet 2, bot = return from steam condensers
> Outlet 1, top = water to first half of E-cats and then to water tank 1
> Outlet 2, bot = water to second half of E-cats and then to water tank 2
>
> All that would be needed would be for the steam-condensor loop to have
> a BUNCH of air in the line for this to be a really misleading COP > 1
> system. Sensors that measure gas flow cannot discriminate 100% steam
> from 50:50 steam from 0% hot air. Likewise, with a bit of flim-flam,
> most of the heat emitted could be combined back into the circulating
> loop (of which there are 2: (water tank 1) → (input to ECat₁) →
> (combine with reservoir tank water) → (back into ECat₁) → (back to
> water tank 1) … repeated for the bottom half.
>
> In this system most of the input power can heat the effluent stream,
> if needed. The amount of 'real steam' in the big old
> misdirection-device (the "condensers", which are huge,
> non-quantitative, impressive and so on), which thru air-in-the-lines
> becomes 'the ruse' looks great. Metrology is done. It all seems great
> because no one is alert to the intent-to-deviate from the patent
> diagram.
>
> The receiving tanks get both new tap water and a bunch of recirculated
> water, reheated. The bogosity of the experiment isn't easily revealed.
> No attempt is made to mass-heat a bunch of water (like a small
> swimming pool's worth) a finite amount. The whole thing runs at
> whatever rate it runs (which is carefully excluded from the PDF). The
> only measure left is the misdirected one.
>
> It is ingenious.
> And if I were 'there', I'd too be calling for different testing.
> Namely… substituting a liquid-liquid heat exchanger for the great big
> air blower.
>
> To heat the small swimming pool.
> Which REALLY becomes quantitative, fast.
> To at least 2 sig-figs.
> More than enough to expose the rat.
> Or to confirm the golden goose.
>
> Which (by my surmise) confirms why Rossi's so up tight about the testing.
> Which he shouldn't be if it is aiming toward MASS calorimetry.
> Which of course he's never done.
> Nor will he.
>
> Because it exposes rats.
> GoatGuy
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Lennart Thornros 
> wrote:
> > Jones, both you and Ahern take on the issue with Ecat by accusing Rossi
> of
> > being a person with lower moral than for example you.
> > That is an judgmental attitude that takes you nowhere and in addition has
> > nothing to do with LENR.
> > I have not any qualifications to judge about ECAT. (BTW English is my
> second
> > or third languish so we do not have to debate that).
> > I do have experience of investment in high tech start ups ( VC industry
> ), I
> > have even more experience as an entrepreneur.
> > In my opinion Rossi is a true entrepreneur. I appreciate that quality. It
> > would amaze me if Rossi has been able to lie to IH and make them pay
> $11M.
> > That would indicate flaws in IH ways of invest.
> > I can imagine that there is problem with replication of performance of
> the
> > Ecat.
> > It can be a reluctance from Rossi to provide the info required by
> agreement
> > due to IH are involved with other LENR business without handling the
> > communication between those entities over the board.
> > Then there is the possibility of totally unknown reasons for the
> conflict.
> > Disturbing to me is that IH, which I consider being a professional
> investor,
> > let this be played out in court.
> > Yes, one can have different opinions until we have all the fact and they
> > will be here rather soon I understand.
> > Rossi might have his flaws but to call him unethical with no proof is
> worse
> > and tells more about the one "who throws the first rock . . ."
> >
> > Best Regards ,
> > Lennart Thornros
> >
> >
> > lenn...@thornros.com
> > +1 

Re: [Vo]:Industrial Heat Patent?

[Jack Cole]

This is another silly argument used by Rossi to cast himself as the
victim.  That patent was filed for on 2/20/15.  It took IH awhile to a)
figure out that the previous results were questionable, and b) attempt to
replicate with better methodology.  It also took time for the results of
other replicators to come in (with the results of expert scientists being
consistent with hobbyist replicators).  Of course we have a few tantalizing
results here and there that suggest either the results are in error or that
the effect is unpredictable and unreliable.

I would almost bet that Rossi pulled the "charges" from the plant when IH
said the test was over.  The end result is that no qualified scientists can
examine a "working" E-cat plant.  That way he can say something like, "It
was working and I was just getting ready to put in new charges, but here
comes the evil IH to shut down the test.  It was working well (just less
efficiently) before that!  Look, I worked 16 hours a day for the last month
compiling 12 volumes of how evil they are and I'm putting together a
blockbuster chronicle of how this company used me.  In the meantime, I'm
continuing with my heat, electricity, and propellant thrust making super
E-cat quarkX to be produced with a fully robotized plant in millions of
pieces per year, F8!"  Can people not see how ridiculous this has become?

Meanwhile, companies like Brillouin and Lenuco continue working in relative
silence to produce technology that may (we hope) actually work.  Hopefully,
IH will stay the course and continue investing in reputable companies as
they seem to be doing.

Jack


On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 7:41 AM Craig Haynie 
wrote:

> If Industrial Heat says that the reactor doesn't work, then why did they
> apply for a patent with Rossi's technology?
>
>
> https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2015127263=1==PCT+Biblio
>
> https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015127263A3?cl=en
>
> Rossi is now saying that they have just applied for another one:
>
> "Today I have been informed that IH has again made another patent using
> my name as the inventor and my invention, to make a patent assigned to
> Industrial Heat, without my authorization."
>
> If they are patenting Rossi's intellectual property, which he sold to
> them in this deal which IH did not finalize, then this would explain why
> Rossi is suing, instead of just letting it go.
>
> Craig
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Jack Cole]

Yes!  I second the motion to release all the raw data.  It would help to
evaluate the claims.

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016, 12:06 PM Bob Higgins  wrote:

> It is amazing that there are so many lofty positions being taken on the
> basis of little-to-no released data.  If IH and Rossi each believe their
> positions, then I say, "PUBLICLY RELEASE THE RAW DATA ALONG WITH OBSERVER
> COMMENTS".  Play chicken.  See who objects to release of the data.
>
> Let the internet use its thousands of eyes to dig out the real truth.
> There is a great wealth of technical acumen in the internet - many of whom
> really want to know the truth.  There will be analyses of the data that
> reveal the truth, which could range from validation to ambiguity to
> deception.  In the absence of data we can concoct a position to support any
> of these - as we are seeing in this forum.  Phrases like, "at times had a
> COP of 50", are specious propaganda and meaningless.  Of course, there
> could be bursts of COP=50, and what is not said would make all the
> difference - for example, were the bursts of COP=50 more than averaged out
> by long bursts of COP=0.9?
>
> The actual data would speak for itself.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:29 AM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> Have a look at Mats Lewan's analysis.  It seems much more comprehensive
>> and less biased to me
>> https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/04/09/heres-my-hypothesis-on-the-rossi-ih-affair/
>> He is a science reporter who is MUCH more knowledgeable about LENR than
>> Wang.
>>
>> Jones, further to your belief in Clarke's analysis of the Lugano
>> experiment.  I have had hundreds of on-line duels with him over the years.
>> He is absolutely certain LENR is impossible and no experiment has ever
>> shown anomalous heat.  Also absolutely certain that the IPCC is right about
>> global warming and the effect of CO2.
>>
>>
>