Re: [Vo]:The first real NiH reactor
The next generation of gas cooled small modular reactors will offer high level process heat, useful for mobilizing oil sands and oil shale, fertilizer production and many other industrial processes. Thus more of the waste heat may be utilized, rather than lost to the environment. - Original Message - From: Chemical Engineer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 7:26 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The first real NiH reactor The travesty of the existing grid is that only 25-45% of the fossil energy produced in heat and elec. at the utility company ever makes it to the end user. The rest goes out the stack/cooling tower/river or ocean water as Polution to the environment On Monday, February 20, 2012, Alain Sepeda wrote: I agree. the grid will not die, but will change from a delivery grid to an exchange grid. for me it is like internet. internet did nt kill the mainframe, but replaced it by servers that behave like big or small mainframes, providing different services, organized according to the needs, but also to the orgianization of the producer of content... of course ther is still home production, but less than at the begining, and alos there is an organized exchange platform, like CHP can be. mainframe are no more the only allowed technology, but big internet servers exists 2012/2/20 Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com The key issue is that household electricity demand averages about 0.3-1.5kW, but can spike up to 10kW with aircon, ovens, hairdryers, clothes dryers, toasters, kettles, lawnmowers, powertools etc. It is very hard to make a system that can cover such a range efficiently or cheaply. Currently even the best batteries are very expensive ($0.03/kWh), but grid supplies are typically $0.07-0.01/kWh (on top of the cost of electricity at a large powerplant). A neighbourhood micro-grid is a good compromise - it evens out the loads and can handle the spikes in demand from individual houses with no trouble so you don't need to have a home generator capable of high peak power, or any energy storage, but you don't have to pay for the maintenance of large transformers, substations and transmission lines. And if your generator needs maintenance you will still have power. A neighbourhood microgrid will be low voltage, transformerless and will probably add $0.02/kWh to the cost of electricity. It might involve small generators in each house (heat and power) with electricity shared between all houses to cover power spikes, or it might be a centralized generator of 50-1000kW. That said all sizes of generators will be used from 100's of MW for industrial uses to 10's of kW for factories to 1-5kW with energy storage for stand alone and rural and 100's of W for communication towers or lighting. On 20 February 2012 22:13, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: In the future, I think the industrial sector will become independent power producers supplying all of their own needs and act as a backup for local communities. Utility companies will become obsolete long term. I hope LENR will be the boost that US manufacturing needs to cut costs, expand and boost production and get jobs back in the US (unless China gets it first...) On Monday, February 20, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The economy of scale says that one room sized CO2 supercritical electric turbine is far more economical then 10 million sterling electric power generators. I doubt it. Not when you include the cost of the wires, substations, the people who repair the wires after storms and so on. If you are a standalone survivalist, have the capital and the square footage to install your own power system . . . You are forgetting that a standalone system also functions as a heating and thermal airconditioning system. It eliminate electricity and gas and replaces the furnace, the airconditioner and the water heater. Your supercritical turbine cannot do all that. I have my open HVAC system at my house, and my own washer, dried and refrigerator. It might be more efficient to use district heating and pump steam through pipes for heat, the way they do at the campus at Cornell U. But it is not worth the trouble. Look at it this way. Automobiles are very inefficient. Everyone has his own, and they sit in the parking lot all day. Trains, buses or taxis make much better use of equipment, take up less space and cost far less. In cities such as Paris, the cars are crammed together. But we like to have individual ones because it is so convenient. It will not be more convenient to have one or two generators at home (one for backup) because no one cares where electricity comes from, but it will be cheaper and simpler in the long run,
Re: [Vo]:The first real NiH reactor
I agree, the market will decide the optimum scale and location for these types of generating facilities for the best economy. The risk is that govs will intervene with tax credits and regulations to influence how and where energy is produced - this invariably leads to distortions and inefficiencies. Tax credits and deductions for solar panels and electric cars being notable examples. - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 7:30 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The first real NiH reactor We are talking the cost effective generation of electricity here. Let us draw proper lessens from recent history and current reality. If the production of electric power was more cost efficient in the individual home, then natural gas turbines would be now found in everyone’s basement; but there are no home centric gas/electric home generation products on the market. The big centralized natural gas turbines operated by large electric utilities are now and will always be the low cost provider. The idea that the independence of the individual is critical in the upcoming peak energy apocalypse according to the green renewable power doctrinaire is false. So it is extremely important that this groundless green concept must not be transferred to LENR electric power production. NiH power production is a highly concentrated nuclear based form of power production. In the same way as fission power, high COP and huge economies of scale can be translated into ultra-low cost centralized electric power production by statewide or even regional electric utilities. On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: good design, but I think it is not adapted to the need. your design save energy, but at the cost of investment. the structure of LENR is that it is investment that cost, not fuel. so my vision is that classic water, moderate temperature, will will, because it will ensure the least total cost LENR is really a violent paradigm change in energy management. we were preparing for starvation, and it is bonanza. . . . Yup. Well said. see the nuclear reactors, working at low temperature for incresed safety and simplicity... LENR is even less expensive about consumption. I agree. I was going to make these points. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
...what is happening inside ...the ovaries of a chicken. http://www.rexresearch.com/goldfein/goldfein.htm ?? - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 1:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cross-over technology It might well be that there are multiple reactions possible in the very broad concept of cold fusion. It is my current humble opinion that it is a mistake to try to cover all the instances of cold fusion with only one theory. One theory that might explain what is causing transmutation of elements in an electric arc of a Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann reactor or in an exploding metal foil experiment might not fit what is happening inside a Rossi reactor or the ovaries of a chicken. The W-L theory might well apply to reactions involving high energy electrons; but I can’t see its application in a system involving the NiH reaction. On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: W-L theory is already dead in the water for Ni-H for two reasons: 1)There is no neutron activation, which could not be avoided if the theory was valid 2)The technology of “ultra low temperature” neutrons is well know and bears no resemblance to the invented species: “ultra low momentum” neutrons Note: SPAWAR claimed to see neutrons with deuterium - therefore W-L may apply to deuterium– not to Ni-H since no neutron is seen. They relatively are easy to detect when present. From: James Bowery The fervor with which W-L adherence advocate that theory is appropriate for a theory that has been strongly inferred experimentally against the array of competing theories. However, I see no such strong inference in evidence. Assuming nanotech can fabricate structures at the 15nm feature size, what sort of experiment would falsify the competing theories while producing results predicted by W-L? Jones Beene wrote: It is possible that somewhere down the road, a cross-over technology from a completely different field (like information technology) may be needed to take Ni-H to the required level of true on demand repeatability - over many months. To wit, something like this: http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/02/Information-Tech-Computing-Materials-Fabri cation-method-pushes-recording-density-to-3-3-Tb-per-square-inch/ Imagine a nickel alloy film which is etched into perfectly sized excitons (or Casimir Cavities, or a combination or the two as pictured) ... They are down to below 30 nm now and 15 nm is mentioned. Getting below 10 nm will be optimum (the Forster radius and FRET defines the required range) but the space between the excitons as shown in this image is already there (for Casimir pits). This story is emblematic of the kind of engineering effort that should be going into Ni-H now. We need to expend - not simply millions for RD for this technology - but billions annually. It is that important. In the end the amount spent will be 'chump change' compared to the trillions saved - most of it now ending up in the coffers of OPEC. Jones
Re: FW: [Vo]:Putting the nuclear debate into perspective
Agree. It is these unjustified upper limits on radiation and chemical toxins that put huge undue costs on society. Cancer risks are lower with hormetic levels of radiation, optimized at no less than 100 mSv/yr. 100 to 1000 mSv spread over the year's time stimulates the immune and DNA repair mechanisms, reduces neoplasms. Higher radon levels in house reduces (!) lung cancer incidences. http://www.radpro.com/641luckey.pdf http://radiationhormesis.vpinf.com/ has links Whether LENR turns out to be more economic than fission plants will be seen. The small modular buried fission plants coming up are more costly per KWh than traditional large fission plants, but can be located close to the load in each city. These may have an important interim future (misguided greens and reluctant regulators notwithstanding.) - Original Message - From: Alain Sepeda To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 1:03 PM Subject: Re: FW: [Vo]:Putting the nuclear debate into perspective where did you get that numbers. probably bad usage of the false no threshold linear law, that green abuse despite it is proved false since long. the estimated death toll, taking into account - the fast response - the facts that even the worst evacuated zone don't cause more tha 30mSv/year and that small long term effect start from 200mSv fast dose for adult, and 100mSv fast dose for kids - the fact that only few workers get less than 1Sv (level where short terme effet appears, better cured today that in the 50s), about 600mSv - the fact that in tchernobyl the main health problem where family violence, alcoolism, suicide, caused by stress of moving, and fear or radiation, with a rate of 1000 suicide, plus violences... - the fact that the main radiation death were 10-20% of the few hundred suicide firemen that receive many Sv, yet survive (if you survive after 2 month, the only risk then are cancer, but about 15%more cancer per sievert) - then few of the thousands of kids with 131iode inudced thyroid cancer (amplified by late evacuation, and malnutrition ) is 0 in the population because of radiation (no effect, even hormesis to be expected) 0.1 in the workers because of the cancer induced (1Sv induce 5% death by cancer, 600mSv much less, few workers concerned) many thousands of suicide because of traumatic syndrome, linked to tsunami, death of all their family (28000 dead because of living near the sea. we should shutdown the sea), forced evacuation and moving,loss of their jobs and family history ans possesions... many more thousands dead because alcoholism and family violence. maybe the death toll, of fukushima but much even more of the tsunami, could be reduced by cleaning the zone, occupying the victims in that big heroic mission, and then letting them settle back when they feel safe. it seems to be what they are doing, cleaning , measuring dose, even thinking about robotized farming in the tsunami washed zone. when numbers will be published people will understand that the fear is over... anyway nuke will be dead, because lenr is cheaper. sorry to be rough, but here we can talk of scientific data rejected by the media, yet validated by peer review. 2012/1/28 Mark Goldes mgol...@chavaenergy.com From: Mark Goldes Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 9:55 AM To: Yamali Yamali Subject: RE: [Vo]:Putting the nuclear debate into perspective The eventual death toll from Fukushima is estimated to reach as high as one million. The Northern Lights are particularly beautiful lately for a little recognized reason. Here are some comments from the nuclear scientist who publishes pissinontheroses.com The recent solar event will interact with high atomic weight fallout (both radioactive and NON-radioactive) in the upper atmosphere and produce a witches' brew of new radioactive fallout via nuclear spallation processes.” Experts are starting to get a glimpse into how little they know about the witches' brew coming out of Fukushima. Today's revelation is that FukushimaUranium is forming Bucky Balls via the action of salt water. So what is so bad about Radioactive Uranium Bucky balls? Well, picture some one throwing very fine, non caking, radioactive talcum powder into the air; that in essence is the outcome of this finding. But it gets worse, imagine that radioactive talcum powder behaving and dispersing the exact same way when thrown into the water. But it gets worse, notice in the picture above that the Buck Ball is actually a cage, now picture plutonium atoms trapped inside that cage. But it gets worse, now picture how much greater a target these Bucky Balls are for spallation in the upper atmosphere. What this finding means is that ALL the dispersion models are wrong, and NOT in the good way. It also means that the internal impact and
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
What about the reactor wall as a sheet of nickel or nickel alloy with the surface of the sheet treated to form the type of micro characteristics necessary for this reaction? Is there a way to make the sheet surface look like the powder surfaces? If so, a pair of sheets could be formed into a long flat tube, welded or crimped along the edges, with H2 pressure applied within. These flat tubes in a auto type radiator like arrangement with the H2 circulating like radiator fluid in them, and the glycol coolant passing over the tubes like air does in an auto radiator. - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 1:50 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance IMHO, quiescence is caused by deterioration of the micro-powder surface due to inadequate heat control. I speculate that DGT has move the heat producing powder zone to the reactor vessel wall. The powder is mechanically affixed to the reactor vessel wall with excellent heat transfer characteristics. Because of this design change, the temperature of the powder will never exceed the coolant temperature and therefore is idiot proofed But in order to get the powder above the Curie temperature of nickel, the coolant must support very high temperature heat transfer in excess of 400C. On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I don't have the answer, but it was my assumption, about control. Quiescence does not seems to be a problem with DGT according to their talk and (more important) to their test protocol (which does talk about continuous heat). 2012/1/24 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Question: Could the quiescence be something as simple as heat not being extracted fast enough from the Ni-core material and it eventually builds up to begin melting the Ni tubercles, slowly quenching the ‘active area’? If so, then my initial thoughts don’t apply and it is an engineering problem.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
What about the reactor wall as a sheet of nickel or nickel alloy with the surface of the sheet treated to form the type of micro characteristics necessary for this reaction? Is there a way to make the sheet surface look like the powder surfaces? If so, a pair of sheets could be formed into a long flat tube, welded or crimped along the edges, with H2 pressure applied within. These flat tubes in a auto type radiator like arrangement with the H2 circulating like radiator fluid in them, and the glycol coolant passing over the tubes like air does in an auto radiator. - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 1:50 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance IMHO, quiescence is caused by deterioration of the micro-powder surface due to inadequate heat control. I speculate that DGT has move the heat producing powder zone to the reactor vessel wall. The powder is mechanically affixed to the reactor vessel wall with excellent heat transfer characteristics. Because of this design change, the temperature of the powder will never exceed the coolant temperature and therefore is idiot proofed But in order to get the powder above the Curie temperature of nickel, the coolant must support very high temperature heat transfer in excess of 400C. On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I don't have the answer, but it was my assumption, about control. Quiescence does not seems to be a problem with DGT according to their talk and (more important) to their test protocol (which does talk about continuous heat). 2012/1/24 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Question: Could the quiescence be something as simple as heat not being extracted fast enough from the Ni-core material and it eventually builds up to begin melting the Ni tubercles, slowly quenching the ‘active area’? If so, then my initial thoughts don’t apply and it is an engineering problem.
[Vo]:MgH2 as hydrogen source
I'd like to solicit comments from the list re the Chan/Phen/Ortiz postings using MgH2 as H source http://www.ecatplanet.net/showthread.php?100-Chan-Method-of-Ni-H-fusion as it would pertain to QM theory, to thermonuclear processes, and to the noted 'quiescence.' - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:26 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance Mark, The first question that must be answered is: it the Ni-H phenomena Quantum Mechanical in nature, or is it Thermonuclear, on a reduced scale? There are some that still believe Ni-H is thermonuclear and in fact, Pd-D could be. In fact W-L theory tries hard not to be forced into making that decision, and has QM features - but if the defining detail of that theory involves neutrons, neutron capture - and subsequent weak-force reactions, just as are seen in traditional physics - then it is a thermonuclear theory. Theories that involve tunneling of protons in one form or another are QM based - if no neutron is involved. QM is normally too low in probability to account for much heat. But one aftermath of the development of the modern CPU by Intel and others is that QM tunneling (of electrons) can be engineer and optimized to occur at very high rates. A CPU operating a 2 GHz will have electrons tunneling in predictable fashion the high terahertz range. The CPU is a QM electron tunneling device operating at high probability. The CPU is a good model to use for proton tunneling - where instead of a small chip needing to shed 30 watts of heat (and not gainful) you have much more heat, and importantly it is anomalous due to the tunneling. If there is gain, then it must be defined. Without going into great detail on defining the gain for now, except to say that it comes from the mass of the proton, and it comes without much radiation or transmutation (some of each, but way too little to account for the gain), then it is easier to account for the quiescence phenomenon. Stated simply, quiescence involves too much depletion in the mass of the hydrogen so that the high level of probability of tunneling is reduced. This is where anything that relates to QM probability come in, and you have already found papers suggestive of a few of these factors. Rossi has designed a reactor where hydrogen is not circulated and it is likely that he could eliminate the problem with periodic dumping of H2 and reloading (every few hours) on a set schedule. There is evidence that DGT may be doing this already. Jones From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint If quiescence is a reality, and *if* it will require a scientific/QM understanding, the I don't think any amount of 'control engineering' is going to be much help. one will need to find out the cause of the quiescence, which is a physics problem. If the quiescence is of a reasonable periodic nature (i.e., repeatable), or if it gives you adequate 'warning' that it has started, then one could have 2 or 3 reactor cores inside, only one of which is 'running'. When it begins to go into quiescence, one then starts up one of the 'idle' cores. while shutting down the quiescent one. This is a brainless kind of solution, and wouldn't work if the quiescent core needs to be unassembled in order to make it 'ignite' again. If reactive capability can be reinstated by shocking it with a hi-V pulse or cycling H2 pressure, things like that, then it could be automated and done while in-situ. These are engineering problems, not scientific ones. -m
Re: [Vo]:MgH2 as hydrogen source
No, I can't explain if there is any significance to the MgH2 as to QM; I'm probably hunkered down in the thermonuclear camp, sorry. As to the Chan/Phen/Ortiz postings, they are totally unsupported, but my experience of working with backyard 'engineers' and the language they used suggests to me that they are reporting actual results - I would not disregard the postings out of hand. The rate constants of H from MgH2 may be their key. H2 gas may form hot spots that melt the nano tubercules, whereas slow H from dispersed MgH2 may not. Also, not handling gaseous H2 simplifies the entire perspective. - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:17 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:MgH2 as hydrogen source Jay, Interesting idea, but Chan raises many red flags. Are there pictures? Video? Website? Can you explain how MgH2 would relate to QM in particular? From: Jay Caplan I'd like to solicit comments from the list re the Chan/Phen/Ortiz postings using MgH2 as H source http://www.ecatplanet.net/showthread.php?100-Chan-Method-of-Ni-H-fusion as it would pertain to QM theory, to thermonuclear processes, and to the noted 'quiescence.'
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion is open for testing as from now
Need publicity as well as trained people to test it. There are many qualified persons to set up the test. I suggest John Stossel to video the testing and edit to use in his show. - Original Message - From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 11:00 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Defkalion is open for testing as from now A few thoughts come to mind. I think this forum can put together a team that would do a great job of testing. I know who would NOT be a good choice: - NOT a university that has any involvement with hot fusion, CERN, etc. - NOT a govt agency; can't trust them to be honest, or to do it efficiently. - NOT a major corporation either; for the same reasons as above. - SRI/McKubre, since they already have at least some support from their management. - Bockris at Texas AM. but think he retired. -Mark On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Douglas Hill hil...@lemoyne.edu wrote: If we could pick any team in the world to do this testing, who would you trust? Who would be the Super Star team of scientists, skeptics and journalists who would be the most credible? On Jan 23, 2012, at 9:14 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/files/2012-01-23_Independent_Testing_on_Hyperion_Reactors.pdf Interesting to say the least. Who will take up the challenge? -- Patrick
Re: [Vo]:Kiplinger Letter, Jan 6 2012, Topic: ENERGY
Gas is the operative term. It is the expanding gas that makes internal combustion the best choice for most transportation. Steam engines and condensers for light transportation are just not feasible. - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 6:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kiplinger Letter, Jan 6 2012, Topic: ENERGY In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:20:46 -0500: Hi, [snip] Turbines are kind of slow to respond to controls. Jet engine aircraft are less responsive than propeller-driven ones. There was a gas turbine automobile prototype in the 1970s. I do not know what it was like to drive. It made a heck of a noise, I think. There have been gas turbine powered race cars, so the response can't have been too bad. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on the Smart Scarecrow Show
With air as coolant in the 10 KW space heater, the suggested narrow range of useful reactor temps is more easily achieved - compared to water or heat transfer fluid. The mechanics of moving air are simpler, as is the transfer of heat to the air - compared to liquids. Sounds like the 2.6KW element heats until temp and reaction achieved, then the fan starts and electric heater element stops, fan air holding reactor at proper temps. - Original Message - From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 5:42 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi on the Smart Scarecrow Show Wolf, With a reactor temp around 600 deg C and the coolant at 120 deg C there is a wide operational margin. As the coolant temp get to 450 deg C it is only 150 deg C below the reactor temp. A lot less fat to play with. I would speculate there is a much higher chance of a runaway and Ni powder meltdown at 450 deg C. Can't wait to get my hands on a unit and study the dynamics of the energy release / control system even if the home E-Cat systems can't generate steam with a high enough temperature to generate electricity. Never did like the Carnot cycle. Physics is so.limiting. I do wonder what would happen if I put 2 or more of the home units in series? AG On 1/15/2012 9:42 PM, Wolf Fischer wrote: Just another point from the interview: Rossi has admitted that last year they had peaks even when the reactor should just produce about 120C°. This problem seems to have been resolved (because of NI), so no more peaks. Besides that NI is especially helping in the problem of getting the reactor up to 400C° in order to produce electricity. Somehow the customer of the first 1MW plant is helping in solving those problems, as it is not as trivial as just putting the Ecats in serial in order to reach higher temperatures.
Re: [Vo]:Kiplinger Letter, Jan 6 2012, Topic: ENERGY
Sure, possible, but not feasible due to economics. Just the lithium requirements for batteries will undo this scheme. Internal combustion will win out over steam piston generators or thermoelectric. Need to be careful not to ascribe uses for cold fusion that are too expensive - it tempts govts to use tax credits and subsidies (as in Volt/Leaf.) There is Plenty of work for cold fusion, but light transportation is not it, too expensive supporting tech. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:20 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kiplinger Letter, Jan 6 2012, Topic: ENERGY Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: maybe steam engine, but seems not to be turbine. Sure. This was 1925. ICE cars were primitive and difficult to drive back then. This car was as fast as any ICE car. Leno is shown driving at 60 mph. He says you can go all day at that speed, whereas a Stanley Steamer would lose pressure. This car as a condenser in the front. Leno says it is not effective in summer. You lose all the water after ~80 miles. Leno says this makes steam and is ready to drive after a minute or two. The Stanley Steamer sometimes took 10 minutes. Naturally, a modern version would be far better. My point is that Caplan is wrong. It is possible to make an effective small steam powered vehicle with a condenser. A thermoelectric hybrid vehicle would be better. It would be a lot more expensive at present, but I expect the cost of themoelectric chips will fall rapidly. Steam is a first-generation, interim solution, like a floppy disk. (Back in the 1980s it was clear that floppy disks would soon be replaced with writable CDs and removable hard disks. There were large cartridge-style 5 MB removable hard disks in the 1970s.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on the Smart Scarecrow Show
if shielded in his lead replaceable cartridge, would that make it acceptable to UL, etc? There is some radiation from smoke detectors now. - Original Message - From: Yamali Yamali To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi on the Smart Scarecrow Show 512 keV 180 deg Gammas have been detected. Then why is he still alive - and how can he possibly claim to put serious effort in developing home units when from that factor alone it is abundantly clear that none of this technology will ever run anywhere that somebody calls home?
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:'Quiescence' - a detailed causation speculation.
What is the recrystallization temp of chromium - mentioned by Stoyan Sarg as likely substitute for nickel with similar 'dip' in Coulomb barrier energy for fusion? - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 2:36 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:'Quiescence' - a detailed causation speculation. In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 15 Jan 2012 01:02:42 -0500: Hi, [snip] Recrystallization temperatures for different metals. Nickel---600C, Iron---450C, Copper---200C, Aluminum---150C, Zinc---Room Temperature, As depicted in the table above, even if copper can be used as a replacement for Nickel in the Rossi reaction, the operating temperature of copper nano-powder will be very low. ...However iron would have a reasonable working temperature, and there is a lot more iron than nickel (making it much cheaper). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Kiplinger Letter, Jan 6 2012, Topic: ENERGY
To ever use this tech in cars would require quick warm up - the steamers of the 1910s and 1920s could build up enough steam in a few minutes. If warm up is slow, they would have to use battery until enough steam available for elec generation in a series hybrid. Another reason (larger batteries in addition to limited lithium sources for the batteries required) that this tech is hindered compared to internal combustion for automobiles. Maybe suitable for steam ships or steam/electric of subs. Small scale steam turbines may not work in this auto size, probably would have to be piston steam generator. Ni-H's contribution to auto would be to keep oil prices down, that's plenty of help. There's no reason to hope Ni-H will do much for transportation - very efficient solutions using oil are already there. There are myriad areas using many therms where the process heat of Ni-H could quickly take over and reduce costs. No reason to try to adapt a pure heat source to take over the gas pressure to kinetic energy of internal combustion. - Original Message - From: Alain Sepeda To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 3:55 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kiplinger Letter, Jan 6 2012, Topic: ENERGY in the discussion about cars and e-cat/defkalion I was assuming time to switch on of about 5 minute, taken from defkalion (most of my computation are from defkalion hyperion) today rossi give an answer about time to switch on/off http://faq.ecat.com/115733/will-an-e-cat-be-able-to-be-switched-on-and-off-easily-and-if-so-is-that-a-quick-process/ for his e-cat it is about 1 hour: On and off will take 1 hour, but the operation will be modulable it has a strong impact on the design of an hybrid car, meaning that it should work on battery for 1 hour. note that 5 minute is very similar to diesel time for warmup (in the old time, when Boy George was a star). 1 hour is very bad for vehicle, however maybe it is a design choice by rossi/NI linked to the use as heater. Defkalion seem (am I wrong?) to have designer a faster reactior, but we should check. 2012/1/12 Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com Hi, just to add some useful data 2012/1/10 Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com Right, I mean the battery need only to allow the vehicle to move on the highway, while the LENR engine is cold...
Re: [Vo]:Kiplinger Letter, Jan 6 2012, Topic: ENERGY
Oil products still necessary for transportation/internal combustion engines. Cold fusion is a heat source only, can't efficiently be used in transportation, outside of large ships' steam plants. What, back to steam engine cars and trucks? - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: 'vortex-l@eskimo.com' Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 8:29 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Kiplinger Letter, Jan 6 2012, Topic: ENERGY Yes, the bankruptcies will be massive. However, some entities will survive based on oil/gas used as a petrochemical feedstock. For them, it ain't gonna be pretty. -- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2012 12:04 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kiplinger Letter, Jan 6 2012, Topic: ENERGY OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: [Personal comment: Obviously, if Rossi related competition claims pan out in the near future, that would initiate a sustained and permanent drop in global oil prices, despite rising world demand. Granted, It may not happen immediately, but perhaps within 5 - 10 years . . . I have discussed this with some economists, including an old friend who is a professor. They say that the cost of a commodity such as oil is mainly a reflection of future expected supply and demand. They say that if it becomes generally known that cold fusion is real, and everyone agrees it is real and likely to become a practical source of energy, this will trigger an immediate and very large decline in the cost of oil and other fossil fuels. Assuming cold fusion is successfully commercialized, this decline will be permanent. The price will not recover, even if it takes 10 or 20 years for cold fusion to replace most fossil fuel consumption. The time it takes cold fusion to replace the fuel does not affect the price decline much because there is plenty of oil presently accounted for and ready to be extracted. If an oil producer knows that in 20 years there will be no market for oil, it will sell its present supply of oil as soon as possible, even at a drastically lower price. Getting some money for your inventory now is better than getting no money in the future. It is like having a warehouse full of obsolete laptop computers. They lose a few percent in value every week. You sell them now, or never. When everyone accepts cold fusion is real this will also immediately bankrupt wind turbine manufacturers, the solar cell industry, and all other alternative sources of energy that are not yet economically competitive with coal and oil. It may not kill off ethanol immediately because that is not a source of energy. It is an energy sink. It is a political plum. It is a method of ripping off consumers and wasting millions of barrels of fossil fuel to enrich big agriculture and OPEC. Because the Fukushima disaster, cold fusion cause the quick demise of conventional nuclear power, and ITER, obviously. Conventional nuclear power is a dead duck in Japan no matter what happens. I do not think they will ever build another reactor there. With one major accident, it went from being the cheapest source of energy to the most expensive. It may bankrupt TEPCO which is one of the largest power companies on earth. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Kiplinger Letter, Jan 6 2012, Topic: ENERGY
technically possible, but way more expensive than liquid internal combustion, so why? we'll stay with liquids for transport just because of the cost factor. there are lots of alternatives: Gas to Liquids, Coal to Liquids, Biomass to Liquids if the petroleum reserves ever quit going up, as they have been since first discovery. Usage is all price driven, and cold fusion is too costly for transport, but bound to be way way cheaper than conventional for heat sourcing. It has an enormous future, but we should be careful about muddling the waters projecting its use in transport. - Original Message - From: Robert Leguillon To: Vortex Listserve Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 10:57 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Kiplinger Letter, Jan 6 2012, Topic: ENERGY Though you could have modern steam vehicles, it is unlikely that this would be the long-term solution for transportation. Heat to electric conversion is the most likely candidate. By using a heating medium with a large temperature range, an E-Cat/Hyperion could (in theory) efficiently feed into a thermoelectric generator (a sterling engine is only one example). That rotary force can turn a generator to constantly recharge an energy storage medium. Thus, you can take an electric car with a couple hundred miles per charge (a la Tesla Roadster) and constantly recharge the battery. The reason to use an onboard battery and avoid direct-drive is to eliminate the difficulties of trying to vary the output of the fusion engine. The onboard battery can also supply additional current during high-load acceleration, but the E-Cat/Hyperion will supply a net positive charge during cruise. If the technology cannot be sufficiently miniaturized in the near-term, then electric charging stations for automobiles can be greatly proliferated. Alternately, the inexpensive electricity could by used to produce nearly-free hydrogen through electrolysis for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. There are LOTS of opportunities for elimination of fossil fuels from our transportation system. -- From: uniqueprodu...@comcast.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kiplinger Letter, Jan 6 2012, Topic: ENERGY Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 09:33:07 -0600 Oil products still necessary for transportation/internal combustion engines. Cold fusion is a heat source only, can't efficiently be used in transportation, outside of large ships' steam plants. What, back to steam engine cars and trucks?
[Vo]:Transportation energy
The cost of extracting or synthesizing the liquids, then transporting, storing and pumping them would be far greater than the extra cost of a cold fusion engine. A quick cursory search shows the coal to liquid route to be less expensive than current oil and, of course, S Africa has been forced on this route for decades :...Estimates of the cost of producing liquid fuels from coal suggest that domestic U.S. production of fuel from coal becomes cost-competitive with oil priced at around $35 per barrel, [ 51 ] ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal coal-based liquid fuel becomes viable when the per-barrel price of oil exceeds the $45-50 range, according to separate studies. This is because of high front-end expenditures—a 10,000 barrel-a-day plant could cost $600-700 million or more to construct. All told, the refinement process is three to four times more expensive than refining an equivalent amount of oil. When biomass is mixed with coal, the process becomes even more expensive, and is only viable with oil prices above $90 per barrel, according to the Department of Energy . http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/coaltoliquid/ Gas to Liquid may be even cheaper, especially for large stranded gas deposits (eg North Slope). How much does it cost to change a worldwide 1 billion car fleet (predicted to 2 billion by 2030) to series hybrid similar to the GM volt. this could be done today with a steam turbine and condenser. In the future it will likely be made with thermoelectric devices? These hybrids are not cost effective, without subsidies. Sorry, cold fusion will change the world, but not transportation nor small engine usage. It's the price that is the determinate, and liquid internal combustion is optimized for transportation. The fuel is a small cost of the total cost per mile for transport, easy to become confused on that fact. In comparison, the fuel for electricity prod or water/steam/space heating is a huge fraction of the cost.
Re: [Vo]:Transportation energy
No, there may be a point being missed here, but that point concerns the BATTERIES needed for the scheme mentioned below. They are expensive. I drove a converted LeCar for 3 years and used up a set of 16 lead acid deep cell batteries ($1700) in 12,000 miles = $0.14/mile. $4 gasoline in a 32 mpg similar sized engined car is $0.12/mile. If batteries were not limited in range or cost per mile, we would all drive Leaf type cars and plug them in the garage. Modern lithium car batteries are equally problematic. $4000+ replacement every 80,000 miles is $0.05/mile. The real trouble is source of lithium supply for scale up, given existing high (and rapidly increasing) electronics demand : To achieve required cuts in oil consumption, a significant percentage of the world automobile fleet of 1 billion vehicles will be electrified in the next decade. Ultimately all production, currently 60 Million vehicles per year, will have to be replaced with highly electrified vehicles - PHEVs and BEVs. Analysis of Lithium's geological resource base shows that there are insufficient economically recoverable Lithium resources available to sustain Electrified Vehicle manufacture in the volumes required, based solely on LiIon batteries. Depletion rates would exceed current oil depletion rates and switch dependency from one diminishing resource to another. Concentration of supply would create new geopolitical tensions, not reduce them. http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/EVRsrch.htm and read the full report and Conclusions (4.4) at http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/Lithium_Microscope.pdf The market will decide best which resource to use for which transportation application, but I believe that the internal combustion engine will have nearly all of it for a big number of decades, cold fusion notwithstanding. Cold fusion will replace so many heat applications currently assigned to oil and gas, that natural gas prices will remain low, and with oil demand also lowered, its pricing should stay stable (political/cartel pressures aside,) further encouraging the internal combustion transportation engine as the low price logical choice. Furthermore, the increasing CO2 in the air acts as an aerial fertilizer (often CO2 is the limiting factor in agriculture, especially in low rainfall areas,) steadily increasing crop yields and reducing world hunger and starvation, allowing a higher planet population. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 2:49 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Transportation energy Jay Caplan uniqueprodu...@comcast.net wrote: A quick cursory search shows the coal to liquid route to be less expensive than current oil and, of course, S Africa has been forced on this route for decades :...Estimates of the cost of producing liquid fuels from coal suggest that domestic U.S. production of fuel from coal becomes cost-competitive with oil priced at around $35 per barrel . . . You are missing the point. You could make the cost of liquid fuel zero ($0.00) but cold fusion would still be cheaper. As I said, you still need fueling stations, trucks distributing the fuel, and people manning the gas stations. The minimum cost for that overhead is approximately $0.50 per gallon. A person driving a liquid fuel car would have to pay that overhead cost. A cold fusion car would have zero overhead cost. So even taking into account the premium you pay for the more complicated motor, it would be cheaper, except perhaps for a few people who drive only a little, like 15 miles a week. Also -- as I pointed out -- the cold fusion motor would soon be cheaper, as the technology matures. Two reasons: 1. No pollution control, gas tank, muffler, or catalytic converter needed. 2. Thermoelectric chips will be used across a much wider range of applications than a gasoline motor, so the cost per watt will fall lower than today's gasoline motor. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
Exactly. The engineering/science delay in getting this to market will be dwarfed by the NRC regulatory delays, and if there are (any) neutrons released, it will never be a mass market product, confined to govt regulated utilities and similar large industrial uses. - Original Message - From: Robert Leguillon To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 2:03 PM Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE If LENR reactions are sufficiently branded as dangerous, they could easily be banned from personal use. We cannot legally build a homemade fission reactor (even removing Americium from smoke detectors is regulated by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission). Likewise, activities involving neutron emission from a metal lattice could be banned in kind. Sure, it wouldn't serve to stop some backyard fusioneers from home development, but it could preclude mainstream distribution. Whether you call it health-and-welfare or you raise the curtain of national security, it would be easy to assign it to a regulatory body. Public utilities would then be the only candidates for proper licensing, and could retrofit existing plants with LENR technology. They would quickly be mandated to make the changeover, for the environment's sake (just like banning incandescent bulbs and switching to CFLs). As the changeover occurs, they could even ask for an INCREASE in utility rates to absorb equipment costs. After the public utilities are providing nearly 100% of domestic electricity, hybrid/electric cars may be the next mandate by the green lobby. As any competing energy sources fall like dominoes, the sole energy source remaining will be government-electricity. Though viable LENR could be used to free and unshackle, it could also be used as a method to unify human needs into further reliance on a centralized governance. -- Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:05:25 -0500 From: francis.x.roa...@lmco.com Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Dave, You are not alone in “wanting” true energy independence but I am sure home brew reactors will only be allowed in remote locations for “safety concerns” and politicians will work with big business to legislate and license these energy sources making them illegal for home owners in residential communities to tamper with. The only real savings we can expect to reap initially will be the procurement and transport of combustible carbons and the reduction in green house gases. Even this is a hard sell because the supply and refinement of oil will die off and many jobs will be lost compared to those few jobs gained in nano nickel processing – It is going to take competitive pressure from risk taking first adopters without certifications to force the new business model into place. Even military applications will displace existing power source suppliers and start this ball rolling. Fran From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 1:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE They key word you used is meter. I think that it will be a big uphill run for us to finally become free of the energy producers. Anything that does not generate a cash stream reliably to those groups will find it difficult to get past the regulations. Even Rossi and Defkalion like the idea of recharging your unit every 6 months which is very similar to other forms of metering. We the consumers need to battle hard to obtain true independence or in the worst case the ability to recharge our own units by buying new cores from competitive sources. I want to determine when to spend my hard earned money and not be persuaded by the power company. Let Rossi or Defkalion or whoever build safe reliable units, but then allow me to choose when and by whom It is charged. Forget the radio link back to home base as that is too expensive and intrusive. How difficult would it be to have an indicator built in that demonstrates the remaining level of performance? I can easily picture an LCD display that lets me know when I need to consider recharging. Am I alone in wanting to have true independence? Dave -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 4, 2012 11:10 am Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE E-L, I think Europe will precede the US but it will actually be smaller, poorer nations that first scramble to certify and demonstrate the worth of any residential system by Rossi, Defkallion or other entity. The poorest nations are least controlled by big business and have now a sudden opportunity to rapidly escape poverty – I can see these nations
Re: [Vo]:A Curious 2003 Cold Fusion Patent Application
This was abandoned in 2004 after a non-final rejection by USPTO 1/21/2004. Click Public PAIR link on http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/status/ Choose Application Number and insert 09/514,202 Choose Image File Wrapper tab when this application opens, then the correspondence and actions can be read. I couldn't copy from the Non-Final Rejection, but it should be read - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Curious 2003 Cold Fusion Patent Application Say, if CF breaks as conventional, and this patent is issued, maybe this is intended to provide an excuse for the patent office to reject all subsequent cold fusion patent application claims based on infringement of prior art, until this patent is successfully challenged. On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:11 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Pardon if this is old news on Vortex, but I was surprised to find this 2003 USPTO patent application -- http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2003/0112916.html Cold nuclear fusion under non-equilibrium conditions United States Patent Application 20030112916 Kind Code: A1 Inventors: Keeney, Franklin W. (US) Jones, Steven E. (US) Johnson, Alben C. (US) ABSTRACT: A method of producing cold nuclear fusion and a method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing cold nuclear fusion are disclosed. The method of producing fusion includes selecting a fusion-promoting material, hydriding the fusion-promoting material with a source of isotopic hydrogen, and establishing a non-equilibrium condition in the fusion-promoting material. The method of producing fusion may include cleaning the fusion-promoting material. The method of producing fusion may also include heat-treating the fusion-promoting material. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion includes selecting a fusion-promoting material and hydriding the fusion- promoting material with a source of isotopic hydrogen. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion may include cleaning the fusion-promoting material. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion may also include heat-treating the fusion-promoting material. -- which includes Steven E. Jones as an inventor. Further down is -- BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION [0001] 1. Field of the Invention [0002] The present invention relates to fusion energy. More particularly, the present invention relates to a method for producing cold nuclear fusion and a method for preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing cold nuclear fusion. [0003] 2. Description of the Related Art [0004] Mankind employs many energy sources. Oil, coal, natural gas, water (hydroelectric), and nuclear fission number among the most prominent of these sources. However, most of these sources exists in a limited supply, produces a relatively small quantity of energy per unit of the given source, or raises environmental concerns. Thus, because earth's population and energy needs continue to climb dramatically, researchers continue to seek more plentiful, efficient, and environmentally-friendly energy sources. [0005] These needs have led researchers to consider nuclear fusion, the process that powers the sun. First, the raw materials for nuclear fusion abound on our planet. For example, deuterium is plentiful in seawater. Second, fusion of atomic particles and/or light nuclei produces more energy for a given amount of material than virtually any other known energy source. Finally, nuclear fusion holds strong promise as an environmentally-safe process. For these reasons, and based on major technological advances in the latter half of the twentieth century, many knowledgeable individuals now anticipate that nuclear fusion may provide a long-term answer to mankind's energy needs. --- The patent application seems to cover quite a wide range of implementations. Unless this is a different Steven Jones, did he become a believer 14-years after the 1989 CF-brouhaha? Any insights? Lou Pagnucco Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Australian Fusion - 10MW out, 40W in. ??
http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/11/a-fusion-reactor-hollywood-could-love.html
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s customer
Right, between the military interst and NRC regulators, it will be 10-15 years before any of this tech is available for commercial use. - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 12:26 PM Subject: [Vo]:Rossi’s customer There has been a rumor floated that the US Navy is Rossi’s customer in this week’s upcoming E-Cat trial. This rumor is entirely believable. With the fragmentary background that Rossi has let slip during the last year regarding US government knowledge and participation in the development of the E-Cat, the US Navy would be the obvious US government point organization and primary customer for the E-Cat. First off, it would be extremely difficult for any one commercial company to bring the E-Cat to market. It would take many years or decades to safely commercialize the E-Cat and loads of up upfront money. The Greeks are out of their heads if they think that people would put a nuclear reactor in their basements or that the IAEA would allow it. Next, the megawatt size reactor format is the right power level for utilization of Ni power by the military. From way back, Rossi has targeted his design and development toward this large size reactor power format. It is perfectly reasonable that this design emphasis was inspired by the needs of the US Military. Furthermore, if the E-Cat showed any indications of working in those early government trials and demos which we suspect were conducted, the Navy would be aware of them, and made it their business to closely monitor the progress of Rossi’s RD. The US government monitors of Rossi’s development would have encouraged the emphasis of the megawatt size format. The US Navy will do a good job at protecting the design of the E-Cat from international competition both commercial and military since this technology would be critical and decisive to national defense. A private company would never be permitted to broadcast this critical military technology around the world nor would a company have the financial resourses to develop a home safe nuclear product. The Navy is not concerned about the product safety of the E-Cat reactor. Military personnel endure a high level of on-the-job risk and the E-Cat though dangerous in itself would tend to lower the overall risk load the war fighter would be exposed to on the battle field. The E-Cat would lower and eventually eliminate the need for fossil fuel in military operations and mitigate the risk of oil embargo from war operations. When all the threads of what we know about the history of E-Cat development are tied together in the framework of US Navy sponsorship and support, the whole ball of yarn makes sense. But the US military will have a hard time keeping Rossi’s mouth shut. It will be interesting and amusing to see how the various forces of secrecy in the government and the flapping lips of Rossi work themselves out.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s customer
Military might want an exclusive interest in a cheap small heat source for a number of strategic interests including ships, but, at any rate, the NRC and other country equivalents will hold this back for a decade+ of testing and proof of safety before allowing marketing. It's nuclear, remember. And that is just the govt pace, no one wants to sign off on safety until it is absolutely proven out -I'm talking millions of $ of testing. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 1:34 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s customer Jay Caplan uniqueprodu...@comcast.net wrote: Right, between the military interst and NRC regulators, it will be 10-15 years before any of this tech is available for commercial use. Why do you say that military use of technology slows down civilian access to it? In my experience going back to the 1970s it is just the opposite. NASA and the military spurred progress in computers and other high-technology by spending huge sums of money on it. This brought it to civilian markets much sooner than it would have reached them otherwise. For example, the microscopic motion sensors used to deploy airbags in automobile collisions were first developed by the military and some fantastic cost. I believe they may even have been developed for use in Star Wars. Star Wars has been a $90 billion blackhole of money and waste, but it has produced several useful spinoffs. Military technology that has alternative useful civilian uses has never been embargoed by the military, except in the middle of WWI and WWII. Immediately after World War II radar, cavity magnetron microwave generators, computers and many other technologies were made fully public by the U.S. and the UK governments, which had developed them. A few things were kept secret, such as some details about how to make nuclear weapons, and the existence of Bombes used to break the German enigma machines. The British kept the Bombes secret for a long time because they assured other governments around the world that German enigma machines (and the more modern variants) were unbreakable. They wanted other governments to continue using the machines so that MI5 could read their mail, which they did. Surprisingly detailed information on the nuclear bomb was released in the Smyth report, Atomic Energy for Military Purposes, 1945. See: http://www.archive.org/details/atomicenergyform00smytrich - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Fran, Your point even better. Use round fins ~2 mm apart brazed to the center heat transfer fluid tube. Center tube brazed to bottom cap which has a hole for center tube, this brazed as well. Would use copper tubing for all these tubes and fins, standard plumbing parts. Fill from upper side with powder, vibrate to fill all the gaps between fins, then braze the upper cap onto the outer tube, and braze the center tube to the hole in the upper cap. That would be a sealed reactor, ready to plumb into the cooling fluid pathway. H2 inlet to the outer tube. They could slide a lead pipe over the outer tube if needed for gamma. Gas heat the heat transfer fluid and temps would rise slowly thoughout, when it starts reacting, turn off gas heat, and increase fluid flow to maintain safe efficient temps. Also, think Jones had it quoting that study on the highese H bonding with the, was it 70/30 Ni/Cu alloy powders? I think we need more discussion on the Fe from rust role. - Original Message - From: francis To: uniqueprodu...@comcast.net Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 1:23 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy Jay,Excellent idea - could even use off the shelf heat exchanger as your link seems to indicate they already have their brazed products in automotive and aerospace equipment. I like the idea of the heat transfer fluid being inside the exchanger with the sputtered powder on the outside and using a large hydrogen supply tube around the entire exchanger which would function as the reactor. I think this would greatly increase the surface area and number of ultra active sites. I noticed you are still sugggesting filling the reactor tube with powder around the heat sink in addition to the coated surface of the heat sink. My original thought was to do away with bulk powder entirely but after reconsideration think you may also have gotten that right, Previous discussions about there being a certain critical volume of powder and spill over catalysts may mean the thin surface does have to be part of a larger volume for OOP and free running operation. Maybe the MAHG device should have been filled with powder as well?FranOn Sat, 18 Jun 2011 21:04: Jay Caplan wroteFran,If you could sputter the powder surface onto the fins of a brazed heat exchanger http://fintube.thomasnet.com/item/all-categories/finbraze--2/item-1010?forward=1 then the H2 could be inputted through a tube surrounding the finned exchanger (with an outer lead pipe shield if there actually is gamma to deal with.) The heat transfer fluid running through the center tube - center tube welded to the outer tube at the ends to maintain H2 pressure. Brazed fins for continuous duty to 950 F. But it might be easier to have square fins with ~1-2 mm between them, and the adjacent two fins brazed closed on 3 sides. http://fintube.thomasnet.com/item/all-categories/stamped-plate-fin/item-1015?forward=1 Fill the top side with the nanopowders, vibrate to settle, H2 still loads from the outer tube. ???
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
I agree. Since several devices have melted down before, it is obvious that it doesn't need elec input to work, just reacting nearby the high temps of the resistance element. Once heated uniformly to reaction temps and self sustaining, the key would be to pull off the energy fast enough with heat transfer fluids to keep temps below trouble levels, but in the best reaction range. When GE gets hold of this and turns their process engineers on to it (after 15 yrs of NRC delays) you may well see superb results. I disagree that this common heat transfer fluid be heated by one of these devices for startup. More amenable to gas heating for initiation, since the optimal temp (maybe 500C could be reached for all of the fluid, then released through the piping to the reactor(s.) As they kick in, the flow rate used to adjust and hold the temp, dumping heat into steam production. With this level of temp control, the micro reactor array may be superseded by one large one. - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 10:44 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy What took so long? This is good-news/bad-news in a way. But it totally expected. In short, it can be shown logically that multiple units of any thermally triggered, overunity device MUST be amenable to operation with no input energy, once started. IOW - this result is completely expected, and should not be a surprise to anyone - instead, the bad-news is why it has taken so long to become a part of the record. From recent images of the 4-unit E-Cat array - there does seem to be extra plumbing which is visible, and this would be the obvious way that excess heat from one unit is shared with others, so that eventually - the unit which started the recirculation process can itself be powered by the others; such that no input energy from outside the system is required. The probable reason this expected result has been delayed is that the trigger temperature is higher than Rossi has previously indicated. Indeed, Brian Ahern's results indicate a thermal trigger in the range of 500 C for his active material, which is not as active as Rossi's (yet) but which is already near the limit of the safe operating range, so temperature control becomes the big issue - if an when - you try to recirculate the working fluid between multiple units . and for ease of operation, you must AVOID steam, if possible. It would not surprise me to hear - and I will make this an official prediction that when the MW unit is put into production, water will NOT be the heat transfer medium between the E-Cats. Instead all of the units will be interconnected using a dedicated heat transfer fluid with lower volatility, which heat is eventually ported to an attached heat exchanger, which then heats the water for use in the factory or to drive a turbine. The fluid will probably be one of the new replacements for PCBs like diphenyl ether - the new Therminol or an equivalent, which is the current choice for solar trough units, despite some toxicity issues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphenyl_oxide Jones
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Fran, If you could sputter the powder surface onto the fins of a brazed heat exchanger http://fintube.thomasnet.com/item/all-categories/finbraze--2/item-1010?forward=1 then the H2 could be inputted through a tube surrounding the finned exchanger (with an outer lead pipe shield if there actually is gamma to deal with.) The heat transfer fluid running through the center tube - center tube welded to the outer tube at the ends to maintain H2 pressure. Brazed fins for continuous duty to 950 F. But it might be easier to have square fins with ~1-2 mm between them, and the adjacent two fins brazed closed on 3 sides. http://fintube.thomasnet.com/item/all-categories/stamped-plate-fin/item-1015?forward=1 Fill the top side with the nanopowders, vibrate to settle, H2 still loads from the outer tube. ??? - Original Message - From: francis To: uniqueprodu...@comcast.net Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com ; Teofilo, Vince ; zpe.asymmat...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 7:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 12:42:10 Jay Caplan wrote [snip]I agree. Since several devices have melted down before, it is obvious that it doesn't need elec input to work, just reacting nearby the high temps of the resistance element. Once heated uniformly to reaction temps and self sustaining, the key would be to pull off the energy fast enough with heat transfer fluids to keep temps below trouble levels, but in the best reaction range. When GE gets hold of this and turns their process engineers on to it (after 15 yrs of NRC delays) you may well see superb results.[/snip] Jay, Nicely said - you beat me to it but additionally I would like to point out that Rossi referred to this as a NEW ecat. I think he meant it was fresh off the assembly line with a fresh charge of powder. This goes back to a previous thread where we were discussing the level of activity sites from the moment of formation and the protection of these sites from overheating. It might even be necessary to keep the outer reactor surface permanently wet to protect the most active geometry from simply degrading down to a sustainable dry geometry by overheating and melting the smallest portions of the cavities closed. Rossi doesn't want to see his devices follow the performance woes associated with MAHG devices that would initially appear to produce anomalous heat but would quickly degrade down to almost nothing. I Agree with both you and Jones that an improved, faster and controllable heat sinking methodology is key to a free running reactor but think this will also require a new design where the entire reactor is designed as a heat exchanger and where the powder only exists as a thin layer/alloy sputtered or spin melted to the inner surface of the reactor wall (copper or SS). I would expect any bulk powder not annealed to a heat sink to very quickly reduce its active regions by overheating and melting the Ni in those regions where Casimir geometry is smallest the moment gas molecules permeate the geometry. Fran
Re: [Vo]:Revised and extended Rydburg ion conjecture
Can the large reported presence of Fe be covered by your explanation? Rust replacing graphite? - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 12:09 AM Subject: [Vo]:Revised and extended Rydburg ion conjecture This revised and extended description of the Rydburg ion conjecture is my best efforts to explain the detailed mechanism consistent with all know facts as revealed by Rossi. In the Rossi reactor, I believe that clusters of coherent and entangled Rydburg hydrogen condensate crystals are formed on the surface of a solid such as graphite. Such ions attain a long average lifetime due to the high pressure and temperatures maintained within the hydrogen envelope of the reaction vessel. This long lifetime is sufficient to permit the ions to drift across the hydrogen envelope. Once they reach the nickel oxide nano-powder affixed to the reaction vessel walls, a hybrid hydride reaction occurs with the highly the eroded nickel oxide surface layer. An alkaline metal with an electric low work function can catalyze the Rydburg cluster emissions especially from the surface of a carbon solid. In more detail, the formation of Rydburg hydrogen is most easily formed from the surfaces of carbon or metal oxides. These planar clusters have six-fold symmetry and contain 7, 19, 37, 61, or 91 atoms. These numbers are the so called magic numbers for closed-pack clusters. Under the assumption that the fusion of these variously sized Rydburg clusters is at the bottom of the Rossi reaction, this distribution in the number of protons based on Rydburg magic number could be the mechanism that produces the various light elements found in the nuclear ash of the Rossi reactor. In these Rydburg clusters, the electrons provide the main structure in which the ions are moving. The ion cores are embedded in a sea of electrons which shield the ions from each other as in an ordinary metal. Because they are quantum mechanically entangled, these multi-atom crystals of hydrogen behave as a single atom. These clusters are very long lived and grow increasingly ionized by atomic and electron impacts that come from the high pressure and temperature of the hydrogen envelope. More generally, these clusters behave and in fact mimic negatively charged hydrogen ions with sufficiently long lifetimes to enter into the lattice defects. These defects have been produced by hydrogen erosion of the nickel oxide nano-powder when the hydrogen gas was first loaded into the reaction chamber at reactor startup. After this adsorption step, these complex H- ions interact with the nickel atoms that form the walls of the lattice defect. It is possible that a number of these complex H- ions can be confined in the nickel lattice defect. In accordance with the Pauli Exclusion Principle and with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the conditions are created for replacing electrons of the nickel metal atoms with these complex entangled assemblages of hydrogen atoms, thereby forming metal-hydrogen complex atomic formations. So at the end of this absorption process, these complex H- ions are adsorbed into the lattice interstices, but adsorption at the grain edges, by trapping the negatively charged Rydburg ions into the lattice defects; replacement of an atom of the nickel metal lattice holes may also occur. This event can take place due to the fermion nature of these complex Rydburg H- ion; however, since H- ions have a very large composite atomic mass many times larger than an electron mass, they tend to penetrate very deeply into the nickel lattice structure of the nickel oxide nano-powder, and cause an emission of Auger electrons and of X rays. Thermal oscillations in the metal lattice tend to compress the large number of highly compacted hydrogen atoms which comprise the Rydburg-ion(s) causing a structural reorganization of subatomic particles and freeing energy by mass defect; a fraction of the protons of this assemblage of sequestered hydrogen atoms will carry this fusion reaction energy which expels them from the local of the reaction as individual protons, and can generate secondary nuclear reactions within immediately adjacent neighboring metal cores. To reiterate in more detail, the complex entangled super atom that has been formed by the metal atom capturing the Rydburg H- ion, in the full respect of the energy conservation principle, of the Pauli exclusion principle, and of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, is forced towards an excited status, and reorganizes itself by the migration of the Rydburg - ion towards deeper orbitals or levels, i.e. towards a minimum energy state, thus emitting Auger electrons and X rays during the level changes. The Rydburg - ion falls into a potential hole and concentrates the kinetic energy which was previously distributed evenly
Re: [Vo]:Beene and Blanton: Self-Runnier vs. 1 MW plant : Duel to the Death!
Right, that is the function of the internal heater. Reaction only occuring at the high temps adjacent to the heater, falling off quickly to the periphery. Self-running would be at very high temps throughout; then the only control is H2 pressure, and that may not be enough control to prevent overrun and meltdown. Problematic as well in that water or glycol coolant could be at too low a temp to allow self-running at the core - self running may need much higher temps of steam coolant. It seems to me there is a very shallow volume of reactant immediate to the internal heater - how would this heater best be optimized in shape for replication if the reaction is only occuring in the mm or two adjacent? Scaling up may need internal heater design to maximize surface area per watt elec heat input. - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 5:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Beene and Blanton: Self-Runnier vs. 1 MW plant : Duel to the Death! I wonder if there are two separate mechanisms at work in the Rossi reaction; the one that supports standalone self running and potential meltdowns and another separate mechanism that supports active control of the reaction through the positive action of the control box thereby supporting well behaved operation. Rossi may be disabling the former in favor of the latter. If so, self running may not be possible anymore in the newest Cat-E models. On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 4:31 PM, John Berry aethe...@gmail.com wrote: Terry, what happened to Paul Sprain's motor anyway? Believe it or not, it's presently locked up in a warehouse along with boxes of various pumps and lights and other sundry products. I am not at liberty to discuss it in detail; however, suffice it to say that one should not depend on complex measurement devices alone. Use some very basic physical tests to verify performance. I did provide performance calculations based on data submitted to me. I made some errors in calculations; but, corrected them and learned a huge amount about mechanics. After all that, the data submitted always showed OU performance. My initial errors were in the degree of OU. I perfected several spreadsheets on pulse motor efficiency calculations; and, over the course of about two years can probably say that few people know more about these things. In the scale up process, new wide range sensors were purchased and anomalies began to show in the measurements. Highly credentialed people were engaged at this time. I never was engaged to actually take data; but, when the anomalies showed up, I was asked if I could explain them and was allowed access to the testing lab. My tests involved nothing more complex than lifting a weight against gravity instead of measuring torque. Ever think about torque? It's really a complex issue. Variations of the configuration were tested. We even tested the school girl motor a la Bedini. After all of these tests, we concluded that the magnetic cycle was conservative and it was all packed up and stored. If you have any ideas on magnetic motors, let me know. I can probably get them tested for you. T
[Vo]:Steam hotter than 110 °C / Internal heater
A pressurized water reactor or similar is needed for electricity production. The reaction would proceed a lot faster at the higher temps and would need better controls compared to just the water heater setup now running at around 100C. Hot water production for factories and large building heating is the low hanging fruit - safer and easier compared to home hot water heating, or electricity production, which is why it is the first application proposed. I think the reaction happens primarily in close proximity to the internal heater, with slowing rates of reaction as distance increases from the heater towards the periphery. Temps should fall off proportionately from the heating element to the outer volume. Perhaps the next advances will involve different types and shapes of internal heaters that would be more efficient as far as promoting more reaction per given reactor volume for a pressurized steam temp reactor.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molybdenum_disilicide but this material may not last at all in hot H2. The outer jacket heater seems to be there to help during startup to warm the surrounding water and copper jackets until the reaction kicks and the water flow is initiated. I doubt if a commercial model would need the external heater at all, just trigger reaction with the internal heater till it has made enough heat to warm the water and jackets, then initiate the water flow.. Since the reaction vessel is surrounded with water, the reactor wall is less than 105C or so. Which is why I suggested earlier that a lead reaction vessel would simplify matters, offering shielding as well as containment and the ability to easily cast the reactors to desired shape from molten lead. For pressurized steam production, lead might be too close to the melting point for reactor wall. As I speculated, Rossi would have no reason to take this all the way to pressurized steam, or to home size reactors (non-electric generating) since there is a huge market to heat water for larger buildings and factories. By the time anyone gets to making electricity or home heating units, it will be so deep in NRC regulation that it may take decades to see the light of day. Jay Caplan - Original Message - From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:43 PM Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ? Let me add my two cents: If Rossi's e-Cat reactor core can regularly sustain temperatures of 500c or higher, water that is in contact with the reactor core's surface FOR LONG ENOUGH PERIODS will most certainly exceed temperatures 100.1 C, and by quite a large margin. However, the tick would be to keep the water that has just been transformed into steam contained long enough AT the e-cat reactor core's surface so that it has the chance to absorb the additional heat. Currently this doesn't happen. It's my understanding that the current Rossi prototypes (perhaps for demonstration purposes) do not appear to be built in such a way as to physically contain the transformed steam. It's not designed to behave like a pressure cooker! The water immediately after it has been transformed into steam quickly expands. The steam quickly shoots out the exhaust pipe - i.e. the infamous black hose. IOW, the steam doesn't have a chance to hang around long enough to absorb additional heat and subsequently increase in temperature much above 100.1 C. Some on this list may still recall several months ago the fact that there was a protracted argument precisely based on this specific steam temperature issue. Some argued: WHY was the steam only measured to be 100.1 C when it exited out of the black hose, especially if the e-Cat reactor was claimed to be hundreds of degrees higher. Because the exiting steam temperature seemed to be rigidly fixed at 100.1 C some on this list became absolutely convinced Rossi was involved in a scam operation. However further experiments have proven that such concerns appear to be groundless, particularly (and ironically) when experimenters increased the water flow to show a simple 5 degree temperature increase. (More accurate calometric measurements resulted.) Hopefully, we won't have to revisit that protracted argument again. IOW, I doubt Rossi's e-cats, if engineered properly, would have a problem raising steam to significantly higher temperatures than 100.1 C. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Steam hotter than 110 °C / Internal heater
Adding in pre-application time with licensing certification period for the NRC review of a new reactor certification is 7-20+ years ... http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/nrc-has-four-certified-nuclear-reactor.html Heck, it will take a first decade to get the science down and the NRC to even start taking apps. Especially after Japan, no regulator will want to sign on the dotted line. So, that is why he wants to get these big water heaters out quickly, once regulators latch on, the gig is up. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 6:03 PM Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Steam hotter than 110 °C / Internal heater These are important points, and I agree with everything here, except -- as I said -- the last line: By the time anyone gets to making electricity or home heating units, it will be so deep in NRC regulation that it may take decades to see the light of day. Oh come now. Every company in every country will rush to make these things. The Pentagon will understand that without this technology, the U.S. can be defeated by Lichtenstein. There is no chance the NRC can hold back this technology. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A question about patents…
The ion processing of powders is the work seeking protection, the element used would not be limiting. The burden is whether this particular processing would be obvious to someone schooled in the art. In that case, no patent would issue. - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 12:57 PM Subject: [Vo]:A question about patents… A question about patents… If the nickel catalyst turns out to be pure nickel nano-powder, but processed and prepared in a special way… Let’s say it is bombarded with fast high energy ions that produce many defects in the lattice structure of nickel nano-powder. Is the powder patentable or is the ion processing of the powder. If the same ion processing is done to copper nano-powder, is a separate patent needed to protest the IP of the nano-powder for that element or should the patent be used to protect the ion treatment of all metal nano-powders?
Re: [Vo]:Explainig Rossi.
The extremely high cost of enrichment has to rule this possibility out. - Original Message - From: Peter Gluck To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 1:57 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explainig Rossi. Can you evaluate the costs of enrichment? On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Explaining Rossi. Rossi said: “We think that all the Ni participates to the reactions, even if some isotopes should be more efficient.” “Only Ni 62 and Ni64 react.” Rossi enriches his nickel in Ni62 and Ni64. Why? Through experimentation, Rossi found these isotopes performed best. But what is the theory behind this result? Nickel-62 is an isotope of nickel having 28 protons and 34 neutrons. It is a stable isotope, with the highest binding energy per nucleon of any known nuclide (8.7945 MeV). The high binding energy of nickel isotopes in general makes nickel an end product of many nuclear reactions (including neutron capture reactions) throughout the universe and accounts for the high relative abundance of nickel and nickel-60 (the second-most, with the other stable isotopes (nickel-61, nickel-62, and nickel-64) being quite rare). Nickel is the least likely element to participate in a fusion reaction. If atomic holes are the place where the Rossi reaction occurs, Rossi wants a very strong and stable support structure that can provide a three dimensional quantum box that can produce the reaction. Under the assumption that only hydrogen reacts in the quantum box and that many hydrogen atoms are fused in the Rossi reaction; the packing of all those hydrogen atoms into the lattice defects of nickel is a stressful process. If this nickel built Heisenberg box were to fail or fail apart during the packing of hydrogen, then the reaction will fail. Nickel is the most stable element because its binding energy is maximized among the elements. The nickel isotopes that are the most stable are Ni62 and Ni64. Rossi enriches his nickel in these most stable and stout isotopes because they can best support the atomic defects he uses to produce atomic events without blowing the lattice defects apart during the stresses of the atomic reactions and were nickel garbage would poison the pure hydrogen reaction. Elements on either side of nickel will perform best because of their very high binding energies. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Bushnell interview in EVworld
Bushnell became interested in W/ L several yrs ago http://www.wfs.org/April-May2010/Bushnell.htm : Low-energy nuclear reactors (LENRs), otherwise known as cold fusion reactors, were considered impossible to build a decade ago but are gaining attention thanks to the work of Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen, who have proposed a new theory to explain how LENR might work. NASA is conducting experiments in an attempt to verify their theory, which explains the decades-long LENR experiments as products of quantum weak interaction theory applied to condensed matter, not fusion. - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:45 PM Subject: [Vo]:Bushnell interview in EVworld This is fabulous news! Spread it around the WWW - as it could open up funding for many who are doing Rossi replications. Dr Dennis Bushnell (chief scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center) has now gone public with NASA's upcoming Rossi replication attempt! We had heard rumors of this two weeks ago, and were hoping that it would not become some kind of 'black' project. Now it looks like a go. Halleluiah! EVWORLD Update 4-28-11 The Future of Energy by Bill Moore Talking with Dennis Bushnell is both exhilarating and chilling, not to mention just a bit intimidating. The chief scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center, he seems to have his fingers in just about every aspect of both aeronautics and astronautics, with a special interest in energy sources of the future, both near-term (advanced solar PV) and far (drill geothermal and LENR). It was, in fact, a comment he made recently about Low Energy Nuclear Reaction that caused me to contact him and set up a telephone interview on Earth Day this year, which also fell on Good Friday, the day commemorating Jesus crucifixion and sacrifice for the sins of mankind. As I would realize deep into our discussion, there is a sobering synergy that links the two. Bushnell is no stranger to doing interviews, or giving talks, or writing papers. He is refreshingly candid in his views, which include the conviction that the planet crossed the peak oil summit sometime around 2008 or 2009. He is both upbeat about the promise of some exciting new technologies, while being less sanguine about the prospects of our amygdala-dominated culture. As you'll hear in the Future In Motion podcast available on the EV World.com web site, what I wanted to know was his view on which energy technologies held out the greatest hope for solving our looming energy crisis. He made no bones about the fact that the current rise in fuel prices is only the start. Surprisingly, LENR tops his list. You'll recall that we talked about this in Edition 11.15 two weeks ago, recounting the work of Rossi and Focardi in Bologna, Italy. Their device produces more heat energy than what's put into it. The question is why? Bushnell's NASA colleagues now think they know what is going on at the atomic level. They are about to attempt to replicate what the Italians have done. If LENR proves both predictable and reliable, it will, in Bushnell's words, change everything. From the lead column by Bill Moore.
Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others
Right, the key to profiting on Rossi's large water heaters is the servicing as well as the installation, and replaceable cartrides including H2 would be optimal. He needs a cartridge that is essentially rented out with a large cash deposit to deter reverse engineering, making sure the cartridges are not pilfered and opened. And he needs to limit their life, so they have to be changed out regularly. I predict Rossi will not divulge anything useful for repeating his process in patent apps, since the chance of a patent is slim anyway; just get these industrial water heaters sold before the NRC and their worldwide equivalents put a halt to them, or the W/L patent is proved to be correct and the means by which gamma is eliminated, meaning W/L can license and demand royalties.. - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:27 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others I'm not convinced that the ECat will require a hydrogen source. He once stated that the ECat will run off a replaceable cartridge that will be replaced every 6 (?) months. Now, considering the amount of hydrogen required, why not supply a H2 pressurized cartridge with the powder magic mixture? If you do the math, I think you will see that no new hydrogen will be required for the cartridge before the Ni turns to Cu. T
Re: [Vo]:Kudos all around
Kudos all aroundJones, ..the US taxpayer, as they (though several DoE contracts managed by LTI) - seem to have picked up most of Rossi's expenses from about 2000 to 2009 or thereabouts .. Could you offer a reference on the Rossi/DOE funding, would like to learn more. Thanks. Jay Caplan - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 9:40 AM Subject: [Vo]:Kudos all around Kudos is the translation of a Greek word meaning acclaim or praise for exceptional achievement. Of course, it applies first and foremost to Andrea Rossi, by way of Focardi, and then to the surprising Greeks, who were not exactly well-known for this kind of financial risk-taking, and who will pick up the 'publicized' tab. but also to the US taxpayer, as they (though several DoE contracts managed by LTI) - seem to have picked up most of Rossi's expenses from about 2000 to 2009 or thereabouts . and also to Alan Fletcher and the 'Fakes' site . which is the intended PR plug for this posting. He did not send me the customary fee J The layout of Alan's site and the information content is superb, and should become a model in this regard for future controversial work. http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_frames_v322.php If you first focus on the many ways that a controversial experiment can be faked, and then allow the viewer to weigh the evidence dispassionately, then it comes off a lot more convincingly than the 'cheerleader' kind of presentation that are issued daily by the hundreds of new online PR firms which is a phenomenon in itself. For $200 you can have your name in print with all the wild claims imaginable, sent to thousands of gullible other news sites who repackage and resend. Even top Universities are doing this. Nocera of MIT is a PR-hound-deluxe who is symptomatic of the kind of massively overly-hyped RD of modest importance - that gets out there as breakthroughs . so the top level Universities are not immune. They should put reins on these abuses. Any teenage geek these days with a PC can become a Public Relations entrepreneur - and from the looks of most of the crap coming through on 'google alerts' these days, many of these PR firms are run by gullible twenty-somethings.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala experiment April 21 ? -- Seems NOT
Disagree. Without patent protection, disclosure will only help potential competitors and no one would invest anything. He won't supply any of these devices to anyone until there is a Notice of Allowance at patent office. Also, if it is determined to be a nuclear process, government regulators would make themselves involved, and it could well take the entire length of any patent protection before NRC (or international equivalent) licenses to use the technology are granted. Especially after the recent events in Japan. His only option to make money is to sell as many large water heaters as he can as quickly as he can, and keep them serviced with sealed replacement reactors. To make electricity will involve pressurized boiling water or high temp heat transfer fluids, and I doubt that is on his agenda, even if the COP were high enough. I predict this is real but will be delayed for many years by regulators before it makes any electricity. Jay Caplan - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 4:25 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala experiment April 21 ? -- Seems NOT Alan J Fletcher wrote: It might just mean that KE are going to Bologna to do the very soon test. Anyway: you will have very soon a report about the same test repeated, with the flow controlled in an “idiot-proof” system…you’ll see, stay in touch. I sure hope so. I do not understand why he is making that 1 MW reactor, but I wish the thought had never crossed his mind. He could convince the whole world and get a billion dollars in investment capital with what he has now, if he would only give a few of these things to universities and corporations under NDA. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
Axil, please continue posting, your comments are appreciated. As I understand, this forum exists only for sharing information and ideas; personal comments should not be posted nor ever considered. Jay Caplan - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 5:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat) I am a systems engineer who has spent his career reverse engineering legacy systems where no documentation or human expertise exists. I have development an interest in cold fusion and am learning its ground rules. I have come to this site to learn from the experts... the best around. If I pursue wrong paths, I do not mean to offend, however, if my learning process offends too grievously, I will leave this site. So let me know is I am too much for you to bear in your response. On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Wow. I can see that science is a completely new field for you. Your take on this paper is bizarre and so removed from reality that I have to ask – what is your real profession? This report is about magic numbers, which are tendencies. There is absolutely nothing in this that supports this brain-dead idea of uniformity in isotopes in cosmology. Sure, there are tendencies but they as so weak that order-of-magnitude differences are the norm – not the exception. Geeze … we used to be able to have intelligent discussions here. Jones From: Axil Here is the theory that you are rejecting laid out in detail from Miley http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/MagicQuarkTucson1.pdf Boltzmann Equilibrium of Endothermic Heavy Nuclear Synthesis in the Universe and a Quark Relation to the Magic Numbers It is not Axil's theory, but one produced by Mille that I think most fits the facts. On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Fran, Ø Harry, I think it is more a matter of proving how the Casimir environment is equivalent to the stellar environment. Which stellar environment?
Re: [Vo]:Swedish physicists on the E-cat: It's a nuclear reaction / The used powder contains ten percent copper
What about using a lead pipe with soldered lead discs for cylinder ends for the reactor? The H2 inlet could be 1/8 NPT pipe thread cut into one of the disc ends. Then you get the rad shielding and heat transfer in one structure. Might have to turn the H2 with an elbow and hang more lead over that end to shield the hole. Could load the powder through the pipe thread hole. Solder the lead reactor cylinder into the side arm of a Cu plumbing elbow so it hangs in the water flow. If this thing is actually working at 60 - 100 C., then solder should hold. J Caplan - Original Message - From: Dennis To: Jay Caplan Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 10:38 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Swedish physicists on the E-cat: It's a nuclear reaction / The used powder contains ten percent copper yes, if you follow the leads from the red cable you will find it goes to two wires - It looks like the heater is a band heater at 230V 320W likely a SEIWA It looks like that from the markings and it would fit the numbers. It sure looks like a conventional band heater and totally outside of the water piping. Dennis C
Re: [Vo]:Swedish physicists on the E-cat: It's a nuclear reaction / The used powder contains ten percent copper
Doesn't the heater surround the copper tubing, and the red power cable attach to the heater? Can't see how the cable would pass through the copper tubing, as the heater is on the outside of the tubing. J Caplan - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 9:32 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Swedish physicists on the E-cat: It's a nuclear reaction / The used powder contains ten percent copper In the Essen report, Fig. 3, you see the hydrogen pipe at the top of the cell, and the power lead for the resistance heater at the bottom (the red wire). I am assuming both of pass through the outer copper sleeve, and then into the inner cylindrical stainless steel container. Granted, that might be a little difficult. Water may leak from the pipe connection at the top. I think this would be easier than working with a torus shaped cell. (By the way, the hydrogen pipe would anchor the inside cell and hold it in the center of the copper outer shell.) The configuration I have in mind is similar to the way the anode and cathode lead wires reach the cell in McKubre's labyrinth calorimeter. They go through the walls of the calorimeter at the top, and then continue through the cooling water envelope to the inner cylindrical chamber. See p. 6 here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusion.pdf - Jed
