[Vo]:unsubscribe

[Robert Lynn]

unsubscribe

[Vo]:unsubscribe

[Robert Lynn]

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Robert Lynn]

*De-lurks*

Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if the demo
worked they would be the happiest people in the world and would be on track
to make vast amounts of money even if they had to hand over 90million they
would be doing so with a big smile on their face.  The very simple truth is
that Rossi has made big claims and has (as usual) failed to deliver.
Almost certainly IH will have their hands tied due to confidentiality
agreements, so will be prevented from revealing in detail just how
bad/unconvincing things are and how ridiculous Rossi's usual dissembling
shenanigans have been.

Looking back through all his demos he has never done one that has
unequivocally proven that it works - always potential errors greater than
claimed outputs.  I note also that attempted replications by those using
high standards of practice like MFMP have not managed to get LENR
unequivocally working - accepting that reality and yet believing that Rossi
has through incredible luck and bad experimental practices succeeded with
different configurations, different temperature regimes and different
ignition methods and approaches with massive power outputs and high COPs
where all others have failed is several bridges too far in the level of
credulity required.  I am no longer willing to give Rossi the benefit of
the doubt - he is transparently just playing for time and more money, and
with his track record you would need to be a mug or the king of wishful
thinking to keep believing in him.

The only vague question left in my mind is whether he truly believes he has
cracked the LENR nut.  I could be convinced that he does, and is fooling
himself, but think it most likely he does not given how long his circus has
been going on.

On 8 April 2016 at 12:10, Frank Znidarsic  wrote:

> It is Rossi that says that the test was OK. According to IH, it was not OK,
> > because IH says three years without success, not merely 1 year. So, the
> > money is still in the escrow.
>
>
> Maybe we should ask Steven Krivit.  He seems to have the heads up on a
> lot of this stuff.
>

Re: [Vo]:Jiang reports successful Lugano replication

[Robert Lynn]

I skimmed through it, one thing that struck me was that they hit 1372°C for
10 minutes.  I have serious doubts that their stainless steel vessel could
have survived such a temperature (barely bellow melting) - which makes me
suspicious of an error somewhere, this is above where k-type thermocouples
would typically be expected to be accurate or reliable.  Also melting point
depression would have melted nickel powder at such temps destroying (what I
thought was important) nickel surface morphology.

They seem to have good resources so hoping they do better calorimetry in
future.

On 31 May 2015 at 04:19, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote:

 Type B thermocouples are expensive; even for fine wire, short, uninsulated
 couples, because they are made from platinum.  They may be 10x more
 expensive than type-K and extension wires are just as expensive.
 Additionally the signal level is smaller with type-B which means more noise
 in the measurement.


 On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote:

  Beats me why they don't use type S or type B thermocouples that are
 common in the glass industry.


 That probably would be better. You should suggest it to Jiang. (His
 e-mail in the slides. He is a good guy.)

 The K-type thermocouple maxed out.

 They have to replace the inner thermocouple (T3) in any case.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Am I the only one..

[Robert Lynn]

*delurks*

Frustrating that with COP's 2 and output powers of 100's to 1000's of
watts that simple calorimetry cannot be used to remove doubt, instead we
have 5-10 equivocal demonstrations from Rossi over last 4 years,
(supposedly a genius, yet not competent or willing to do this relatively
minor part right, and endless excuses and supporter rationalisations about
why he doesn't need to do it well - which stink).  Still awaiting combined
big COP+bullet proof calorimetry from newer replications.  At these outputs
simple 20% error flow calorimetry setup is probably only $1-200 in parts
and 1-2 days in build time (aquarium pump, couple of buckets and
thermocouples).

Might it be that when better calorimetry is applied good news disappears
(eg MFMP)? In which case sloppier calorimetry would be more rewarding and
get more traction given the illusion of success.

I've given up on Rossi (Lugano sunk him in my eyes), and my hope for others
will probably not last into 2016 without some good results.  Looking
forward to better demos and calorimetry from multiple sources.

*relurks*

On 20 March 2015 at 10:40, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:

 For that matter, without the calorimetry we don't really know if it's 3
 COP.   It could be  1 COP and the run without the fuel was just  1/3 COP.

 On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
  wrote:

 That being said, is it possible that the the first run just burned up the
 shell of the tube / insulation and is now radiating heat more easily.

 At some point Alexander is going to have to remove the fuel and re-run
 the test.

 On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
 blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:

 .. that wants the replication to be real so that the global energy /
 scientific revolution starts in some old fringe Russian scientist's living
 room??

Re: [Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes a self feeding Hot Cat and ends the controversy.

[Robert Lynn]

There are at least 5-10 different kinds of old and new stirling engines
available with 30-40% efficiency using 7-800°C input temperatures. They
range from 100W-30kW in capacity.  So no problem doing a self-driven system
with LENR COP of 3.2
Qenergy probably easiest to get a hold of (around 33%, using recently
bankrupt Infinia's 3.5kW output design of which they built a fairly
sizeable stirling solar dish field, so while not advertised they probably
have 10's-100's of engines available now.
Or could go for larger V4-90 of united sun systems (also about 32%
efficient) at about 10-25kW output:
http://www.unitedsunsystems.com/the-v4-90-stirling-engine/
They probably have several hundred motors sitting around from when they
bought out bankrupted Stirling Energy Systems 2 years ago (they had a 75
dish field of stirling solar dishes in Maricopa AZ.
Also Mahle Powertrain:
http://www.mahle-powertrain.com/C1257126002DFC22/vwContentByUNID/D06710E71F58400DC1257A8B0038FDEA/$FILE/MAHLE%20Solar%20Stirling%20Engine%20Development%20(Abs).pdf
40.5% at 25kW

On 18 October 2014 13:42, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 I wrote:

 In another sense, it would be no more overunity than a fission reactor,
 since the energy would be coming from the conversion of mass via nuclear
 reactions.


 The obvious objection to the above is that the release of energy always
 involves a mass deficit.  The idea was that cold fusion doesn't need to
 involve a violation of CoE, and so a cold fusion device would not really be
 an overunity device.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes a self feeding Hot Cat and ends the controversy.

[Robert Lynn]

Brushless generators can be designed to do 97% efficiency.  Not a
significant loss.

On 18 October 2014 17:17, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 Yes, but then you need to convert the physical energy into electrical
 which will cause some extra loss.

 On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 There are at least 5-10 different kinds of old and new stirling engines
 available with 30-40% efficiency using 7-800°C input temperatures. They
 range from 100W-30kW in capacity.  So no problem doing a self-driven system
 with LENR COP of 3.2
 Qenergy probably easiest to get a hold of (around 33%, using recently
 bankrupt Infinia's 3.5kW output design of which they built a fairly
 sizeable stirling solar dish field, so while not advertised they probably
 have 10's-100's of engines available now.
 Or could go for larger V4-90 of united sun systems (also about 32%
 efficient) at about 10-25kW output:
 http://www.unitedsunsystems.com/the-v4-90-stirling-engine/
 They probably have several hundred motors sitting around from when they
 bought out bankrupted Stirling Energy Systems 2 years ago (they had a 75
 dish field of stirling solar dishes in Maricopa AZ.
 Also Mahle Powertrain:

 http://www.mahle-powertrain.com/C1257126002DFC22/vwContentByUNID/D06710E71F58400DC1257A8B0038FDEA/$FILE/MAHLE%20Solar%20Stirling%20Engine%20Development%20(Abs).pdf
 40.5% at 25kW

 On 18 October 2014 13:42, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 I wrote:

 In another sense, it would be no more overunity than a fission reactor,
 since the energy would be coming from the conversion of mass via nuclear
 reactions.


 The obvious objection to the above is that the release of energy always
 involves a mass deficit.  The idea was that cold fusion doesn't need to
 involve a violation of CoE, and so a cold fusion device would not really be
 an overunity device.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.

[Robert Lynn]

(Dave, my granddad is Bob, I'm Robert :) ), I would be over the moon if we
had incontrovertible evidence of COP, but with a strong grounding in and
respect for the scientific method you cannot and should not ever give bold
assertions a free ride without vigorous critical review the skeptics of the
world won't go any easier on him than I will.  Which is what I am trying to
provide, and unfortunately the harder I have looked at it and the more
issues I have analysed the more likely it seems that the gain = 1
hypothesis is as strong as gain 1.

Occams razor would then favour gain=1 rather than a collection of
miraculously fortuitous LENR characteristics that include numerous
transmutation pathways (fission and fusion of Ni and Li) without ionising
radiation, or change in reaction rate as it goes from natural isotope
ratios to essentially all Li6+Ni2,  But my suspicions really shot through
the roof after reading that Rossi bought 99% Ni62 from a commercial
supplier at one point - and that is why I decided to look so hard at the
physical attributes of the device (thermodynamics/hightemp materials are my
forte) - to see whether it was thermodynamically unabiguous that there was
gain 1.

The needless ambiguity of the test raises my ire, that the power input is
so clumsily measured when it would be so easy to use series resistors,
triac switched single phase AC, PWM DC power supply or etc with the same
electromagnetic effects within the reactor.  Rossi with his resources could
get someone to make such an unambiguous power supply/meter in a day - but
as usual he has chosen the dark path of deliberate obfuscation.  Likewise
with the lack of thermocouples or proper flow calorimetry - so easy when
the COP and power output are large.

But back to the physical problems:
-The major red flag is that of inconel heating wire temp being necessarily
1300-1350°C (and realistically probably lower) while thermography is
claiming 1412°C surface temps screams out that there is a massive error in
the calorimetry, rendering the claims of gain meaningless unless or until
that error can be explained satisfactorily.  Hopeful theories about
refractories wires etc just don't stand up to practical considerations
(joining them to inconel that will anyway be melted at joint, forming these
horribly brittle materials, keeping them away from air).
-Knowing that the alumina is translucent also opens up so many
possibilities for errors - and the translucence is unknown and unquantified
for the material used over the range of temperatures and for the range of
wavelengths of emitted light created by hot embedded wires - claims of it
not being a problem don't hold water due to the above demonstrated/known
error in the reactor temperature.  We have no idea how much porosity it
has, how thin it is, or what surface impurities might accumulate during
long term high temperature operation to alter emissivity/translucence etc.
-That I have identified a likely construction for the reactor that gives
the visual results seen during testing (glowing wires wrapped around inner
tube, but with minimal and variable contact quenching bought on by
differential thermal expansion), all encased in outer shell), with no
reactor gain only increases the strength of the gain=0 hypothesis.

This could all be fixed easily by Rossi releasing more details of
construction - even photos of cut-open reactor or just doing a proper
independent black box test with good calorimetry.  But as ever he is
playing games due to paranoia, perverseness or worse motives.  He could
have made billions by now and the world would be massively better off if he
wasn't persisting in his school-boy intrigues.

On 16 October 2014 12:25, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Bob, you appear to be too convinced that the gain is unity and are going
 to great lengths to obtain that result.  The testers are well respected
 scientists and no one should assume that they are so easily misslead.
 Besides, there are several measurements that support the fact that the COP
 is greater than unity which you seem to brush off.

 I wonder about whether or not the actual temperature is correct as well,
 but am in no position to prove one way or the other.  The most important
 observation that supports the elevated COP is the slope of output power
 versus input power that they measure about their chosen operating point.  I
 can think of no way to fake that measurement without a dose of true magic.
 And then it would be extremely difficult to understand why the measured
 behavior tends to follow what my simulation predicts.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 11:53 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.

  Nullis in verba. :)  I believe my eyes more than others words.  In
 finding so many potential faults with so little published information (they
 had a month to investigate!!) I can

Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.

[Robert Lynn]

Well I can argue that there is no excess heat - The thermography is proven
to be wrong (inconel resistance wires melt at 1300-1350°C  1412°C surface
reactor temp claimed, and wires would have to be much hotter than reactor
surface).  If there is little to no conductive contact between non-melting
wires and outer shell then the outer shell is only around 1000°C and there
is no excess heat - a sensible physical model given what we can see in
photos, with cameras perhaps 'seeing' or being badly skewed by the
radiative output+ different emissivity of the wires rather than the
translucent alumina of unknown thickness, porosity and transmissivity in
the wavelengths of interest.

So with the thermography proven to be massively in error how do you know
there was any excess heat?  (There is also problems with the convective
heat transfer, due to sitting above a hot surface though they are smaller
in impact, just as radiative heat transfer might be slightly impacted by
hot frame underneath but probably also minor).

On 16 October 2014 13:02, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 ​You could explain the glow pattern with those assumptions but you would
 still need to explain away the excess heat.

 Harry

 ​


 On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 Not if it is touching the walls of inner or outer alumina tube in places,
 intermittent contact due to vagaries of original wire winding around inner
 tube and subsequent large differential thermal expansion so that the wire
 is quenched in some places but not in others.  Would explain the variation
 in glow that we see (along with slight translucence of alumina tube), and
 would change as the wire gets hotter and relaxes pre-existing springiness
 that might otherwise hold the wire in contact with the inner tube - would
 lead to wire temperature increasing faster than power input would suggest -
 ie what we see with supposedly increasing COP.

 Most likely means of construction is winding wires around an inner tube,
 or winding them around a different mandrel and then slipping them over the
 tube.  Bonding them to the inner tube is an extra step that (based on
 inconsistency/variability of surface glow) has likely not been done and for
 which their would be little initial motive anyway. And massive relative
 thermal expansion of the wire (~1%) would likely have cracked any ceramic
 bonding or attempts to rigidly encase the wires or bond them to the inner
 tube anyway.

 Differential thermal expansion means that the internal tube/vessel is
 likely only bonded to the thermocouple end cap, otherwise the external tube
 would be broken by axial stress due to differential thermal expansion of
 higher temperature of inner tube compared to external tube.

 On 16 October 2014 10:58, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:


 ​If the wire inside the reactor was hot enough to glow it should produce
 a more uniform spiral glow along the entire length of the tube.


 Harry

 On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 Additionally, look at the darkened photo, the wire exterior to the
 reactor sourrounded by cooler materials to radiate to are brighter than the
 bright wires in the reactor.  Hard to believe it would be colder inside the
 reactor surrounded by relatively hotter materials that are harder to
 radiate to.  I think that is pretty strong indication that it is the wires
 that are the bright areas.

 On 15 October 2014 20:14, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I am looking at high zoom at the same photos and finding it easy to
 draw the opposite conclusion.  Confirmation bias on both our parts :)
 I think it is equivocal at best.

 On 15 October 2014 19:52, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 If you zoom in very closely on the hot reactor photos you can see the
 the dark lines are of uniform width, continuity and shade.  I am 95%
 confident that is the shadow of the coil.  The light areas change in
 brightness, width, etc.

 On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 how do you know this?  How do you know the the wire is not the
 brightest area?

 On 15 October 2014 15:06, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 Some people suspect that the resistor wire can't be Inconel because
 they are predicted to melt at the reactor's operating temperature. 
 However,
 since we know the resistor wire casts a shadow in the alumina, the
 temperature of the wire remains below the operating temperature and
 therefore can't melt.

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo

[Robert Lynn]

If the LENR reaction suffers from thermal runaway then the best means for
cooling is a coolant fluid slightly below the target temperature.  Eg
1180°C coolant and 1200°C running temp so raising temp to 1240°C would then
triple cooling rate, so 'clamping' the temperature.  A lithium heat pipe
would do this really well - vent at a controlled pressure to control the
temp.

The heater wires provide a crude and inefficient version of this for
control purposes.  If an oscillating magnetic field is required for
excitation then that can be provided more efficiently without massive
resistive losses.

At 1200-1400°C a gas turbine would be ideal - with about 45% efficiency
possible in compact device with no cooling water.  Or 55+% with steam
bottoming or CO2 or Helium recuperated Gas Turbine that are much more
expensive.

On 16 October 2014 13:32, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I believe the large tubes on the end to be thermally insulating supports
 for the hot central 2 cm tube.


 A question that came to me was whether the alumina endcaps could be
 replaced with metal endcaps of a suitable alloy in the context of a larger
 array of devices, in order to provide a suitable path out for the heat to
 be used to generate steam.  Another question I have is how much thermal
 load one of these devices can handle.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.

[Robert Lynn]

All fair points of view Dave.  Though with regard to 3 phase, at 900W input
there is obviously no need, adds a lot of mechanical complexity (3 heater
wires rather than 1) and a little more electrical complexity and would
still get impulsive waveform using rectified DC + half H bridge to provide
an ac pwm output - really simple linear power control that is dead simple
to measure and control power output of, with much greater scope for
variation of pulse frequency and duration.  I doubt you or any other
engineer or electrician would choose to do it the crude and restrictive way
he has.

Haven't tackled the electrical side of things much; but as an EE would you
agree that conceptually it would be possible to hide a 10kHz AC signal
superimposed on the grid supplied 3phase with amplitude a little less than
the AC so as not to trigger the Triac turn off?  (Hardware pretty simple,
just 50% duty cycle driven half-H bridge of phase added to the 50Hz signal
by means of a series transformer).  My rough calculation suggest that could
allow 3x the power to be delivered to the reactor without showing up on the
PCE meter or having any DC component.  Not that I think it likely (far too
much potential for getting caught by someone with a multimeter or
oscilloscope), but if the power meters were known to have a max frequency
threshold then could this allow you to deliver more power without it being
easily spotted?

On 16 October 2014 16:12, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Sorry Robert, I will make every attempt to use your correct name in the
 future.  Thanks for clarifying your reasons for exhibiting the strong
 critical position against the report.

 I admit that I harbor questions about the accuracy of the temperature
 measurements for many of the reasons that you point out.  To me the slope
 in COP with temperature and the particle analysis are strong indicators
 that the device is generating some type of nuclear power within its core.
 I can not honestly believe that Rossi would be attempting a scam as you
 seem to think...he risks far too much.  One tiny slip and he is toast.

 I recall reading in his blog that Ni62 was the active element from a
 couple of years back.  At that time he was talking of developing a process
 that enriched the raw material in order to achieve that goal.  Could that
 have been what he thought was happening within his reactor at the time?
 That would explain why he bought some of that isotope for research.  I give
 him the benefit of the doubt.

 The 3 phase power concern just does not hold water to me.  Remember the
 device tested is not normally used in isolation, but instead is a part of a
 much larger system.  Phase balancing is quite common when a large amount of
 power is required and I would likely have done exactly the same thing as
 Rossi.

 There are other reasons that I believe the test proves that power is
 generated within the core that I have covered previously and will not
 repeat at this time since it is late here.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Thu, Oct 16, 2014 2:20 am
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.

  (Dave, my granddad is Bob, I'm Robert :) ), I would be over the moon if
 we had incontrovertible evidence of COP, but with a strong grounding in
 and respect for the scientific method you cannot and should not ever give
 bold assertions a free ride without vigorous critical review the skeptics
 of the world won't go any easier on him than I will.  Which is what I am
 trying to provide, and unfortunately the harder I have looked at it and the
 more issues I have analysed the more likely it seems that the gain = 1
 hypothesis is as strong as gain 1.

  Occams razor would then favour gain=1 rather than a collection of
 miraculously fortuitous LENR characteristics that include numerous
 transmutation pathways (fission and fusion of Ni and Li) without ionising
 radiation, or change in reaction rate as it goes from natural isotope
 ratios to essentially all Li6+Ni2,  But my suspicions really shot through
 the roof after reading that Rossi bought 99% Ni62 from a commercial
 supplier at one point - and that is why I decided to look so hard at the
 physical attributes of the device (thermodynamics/hightemp materials are my
 forte) - to see whether it was thermodynamically unabiguous that there was
 gain 1.

  The needless ambiguity of the test raises my ire, that the power input
 is so clumsily measured when it would be so easy to use series resistors,
 triac switched single phase AC, PWM DC power supply or etc with the same
 electromagnetic effects within the reactor.  Rossi with his resources could
 get someone to make such an unambiguous power supply/meter in a day - but
 as usual he has chosen the dark path of deliberate obfuscation.  Likewise
 with the lack of thermocouples or proper flow calorimetry - so easy when
 the COP and power output

Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.

[Robert Lynn]

how do you know this?  How do you know the the wire is not the brightest
area?

On 15 October 2014 15:06, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 Some people suspect that the resistor wire can't be Inconel because they
 are predicted to melt at the reactor's operating temperature. However,
 since we know the resistor wire casts a shadow in the alumina, the
 temperature of the wire remains below the operating temperature and
 therefore can't melt.

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo

[Robert Lynn]

Highly doubtful.  Above curie temperture of Nickel so no ferromagnetism,
and powder too microscopic hot resistivity too high, and AC frequency,
current and number of windings too low for strong magnetic fields or
significant eddy currents to form and give push via lenzs law.

On 15 October 2014 14:05, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 I wrote:

 The following is a bit speculative, but perhaps someone can correct any
 misstatements I make -- if there is a magnetic field being created by the
 cables coiling around the tube [1], I believe the field would point along
 the axis of the tube, creating a theta pinch, even if only momentarily.


 It now occurs to me that such a field will itself create quite a bit of
 acceleration of the metal particles in the tube.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.

[Robert Lynn]

I am looking at high zoom at the same photos and finding it easy to draw
the opposite conclusion.  Confirmation bias on both our parts :)
I think it is equivocal at best.

On 15 October 2014 19:52, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 If you zoom in very closely on the hot reactor photos you can see the the
 dark lines are of uniform width, continuity and shade.  I am 95% confident
 that is the shadow of the coil.  The light areas change in brightness,
 width, etc.

 On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 how do you know this?  How do you know the the wire is not the brightest
 area?

 On 15 October 2014 15:06, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 Some people suspect that the resistor wire can't be Inconel because they
 are predicted to melt at the reactor's operating temperature. However,
 since we know the resistor wire casts a shadow in the alumina, the
 temperature of the wire remains below the operating temperature and
 therefore can't melt.

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.

[Robert Lynn]

Additionally, look at the darkened photo, the wire exterior to the reactor
sourrounded by cooler materials to radiate to are brighter than the bright
wires in the reactor.  Hard to believe it would be colder inside the
reactor surrounded by relatively hotter materials that are harder to
radiate to.  I think that is pretty strong indication that it is the wires
that are the bright areas.

On 15 October 2014 20:14, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
wrote:

 I am looking at high zoom at the same photos and finding it easy to draw
 the opposite conclusion.  Confirmation bias on both our parts :)
 I think it is equivocal at best.

 On 15 October 2014 19:52, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 If you zoom in very closely on the hot reactor photos you can see the the
 dark lines are of uniform width, continuity and shade.  I am 95% confident
 that is the shadow of the coil.  The light areas change in brightness,
 width, etc.

 On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 how do you know this?  How do you know the the wire is not the brightest
 area?

 On 15 October 2014 15:06, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 Some people suspect that the resistor wire can't be Inconel because
 they are predicted to melt at the reactor's operating temperature. However,
 since we know the resistor wire casts a shadow in the alumina, the
 temperature of the wire remains below the operating temperature and
 therefore can't melt.

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.

[Robert Lynn]

Not lying, but perhaps again confirmation bias, based on wrong assumptions.

How can the inconel wire in Fig 12b be hotter/brighter in the cooler
external environment outside the end of the reactor than it is in the
hotter internal environment inside the reactor?

On 15 October 2014 21:12, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:

 They specifically say in the report the coils are the dark areas.   I
 doubt they're lying about that.

 On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:



 *From:* ChemE Stewart



 If you zoom in very closely on the hot reactor photos you can see the the
 dark lines are of uniform width, continuity and shade.



 If this is 3-phase 50-cycle, then the photo should be showing the gap of
 the odd phase at any instant, which gap moves in one direction or the
 other, which is the marquee-effect of 3-phase (effective directionality).
 Thus one expects non-uniform width and continuity of the conductors … this
 is really 3-phase, no?

Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.

[Robert Lynn]

But the wire cannot be tungsten outside of the reactor where it is exposed
to air!  Only inconel will survive air exposure at such temperatures for a
month, and it maxes out at about 1300-1350°C (even that is pushing it).

And that wire (Fig 12b) is visibly brighter than the wire lines in the
reactor (or brightest surface areas of reactor), hence hotter.  So QED the
reactor surface is 1400°C.  The thermography is flat out wrong for
reasons unknown, and knowing that it is wrong you have to set aside all the
conclusions that are based on it!

The wire in the reactor in an insulated environment is necessarily hotter
than the wire outside the reactor, and while everyone might want to believe
that they must therefore be using exotic refractory wires that cannot be
the case:  There is no way to joining the inconel wire to a refractory
metal at a temperature above the melting point of inconel within the
insulated and even higher temperature of an oxygen-free sealed environment
within the reactor.

The only conclusion that makes sense is that the wires in the reactor are
at or below the melting temperature of inconel, and in such circumstances
the only way that they do not melt and fail is if the reactor surface
temperature is at least 2-300°C lower as I have previously shown.

As to growing belief in gain, I started out that way, but more I have
looked at the thermal physics in play and the inconsistencies it creates
the less believable it has become, the pictures and heat transfer physics
at play make it a strong possibility that there was no gain.

On 15 October 2014 21:40, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

   *From:* Robert Lynn



 How can the Inconel wire in Fig 12b be hotter/brighter in the cooler
 external environment outside the end of the reactor than it is in the
 hotter internal environment inside the reactor?



 In FWIW department, here is the grade of Inconel often used for resistor
 wire

 Inconel 600. As you can see, it is rated to less than 540 C.




 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nickel-600-Inconel-Wire-041-1-04mm-x-10-3m-/320676194894?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_2hash=item4aa9ca6a4e



 As Eric suggests, given the impossibility of Inconel - they must be using
 something else besides Inconel. I agree. Tungsten comes to mind.



 This goes along with a growing belief that there is gain here and it could
 be more than they claim or less … since they did not calibrate - but there
 is also intentional deception, meaning that this is not a scientific
 report, but one designed to look that way using  cast of PhDs who were
 essentially asleep at the wheel.

Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.

[Robert Lynn]

the resistor wire expands with respect to the alumina as it heats up,
breaking any bonding contact, or lifting the wire of the inner alumina tube
in more and more places and leading to less and less conductive contact -
prompting the wire to heat up as more as more of the energy it transmits to
the reactor must be via radiation and conduction through gas rather than
contact-conduction.  This is the likely what makes it appear that there is
a gain above 1.

On 16 October 2014 01:13, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

 New version with embedded wires.

 http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_hotcat_oct2014_141014b.php

 Here I've also assumed that the wires are a simple single strand, rather
 than the spiral form used in the earlier tests, and are in good thermal
 contact with the Alumina.

Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.

[Robert Lynn]

It has nothing to do with measuring of the wire power, except that as the
wire heats up, increase the thermal resistance of the heat flow between
wire and reactor body (by reducing number of points of physical contact)
and of course the wire temperature will go up (given same input power)  - I
suggest you think a bit longer about it.

On 16 October 2014 08:33, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Since they are measuring the input energy to the wire that makes no sense

 On Wednesday, October 15, 2014, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 the resistor wire expands with respect to the alumina as it heats up,
 breaking any bonding contact, or lifting the wire of the inner alumina tube
 in more and more places and leading to less and less conductive contact -
 prompting the wire to heat up as more as more of the energy it transmits to
 the reactor must be via radiation and conduction through gas rather than
 contact-conduction.  This is the likely what makes it appear that there is
 a gain above 1.

 On 16 October 2014 01:13, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

 New version with embedded wires.

 http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_hotcat_oct2014_141014b.php

 Here I've also assumed that the wires are a simple single strand, rather
 than the spiral form used in the earlier tests, and are in good thermal
 contact with the Alumina.

Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo

[Robert Lynn]

such units are not made as 3 phase helically wound assemblies, MoSi2 is
non-ductile/brittle and very difficult to make and even worse to bond to,
and there is still the unanswered problem of how do you bond inconel wire
that can survive only to 1350°C to an insulated heating element that is
supposed to be at higher temperature?

On 16 October 2014 08:40, John Page johnp...@comcast.net wrote:

   These might be pretty similar to Rossi's setup. (Google Superthal smu)
 Superthal heating modules

 Prefabricated heating modules consisting of vacuum-formed ceramic fibre
 with an integral Kanthal Super molybdenum-disilicide (MoSi2) heating
 element for up to 1750°C (3180°F) element temperature.

 Geometries
 Superthal heating modules are available in a variety of geometries and
 standard sizes. Tailor-made modules can be supplied to optimize the design
 and function of the particular application.
 Muffles
 Cylinders
 Half cylinders
 Radiating panels
 High-power reflectors

 On October 15, 2014 2:23:03 PM Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

 *From: *ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
 *Sent: *Wednesday, October 15, 2014 11:08:42 AM

  Me too, good job. Tube in a tube reminds of the model rockets I used to
 build.  Fin supports between tubes might explain the wider dark band seen
 as a spiral?.  Do you think a lot of the heat might be discharged in a
 space between tubes and out the ends?  Or are the ends completely
 sealed?

 The fins are too fine to be a source of the bands. And the ends are
 completely sealed, so the temperature and heat-loss will taper off at the
 ends.

 But your .. and your, and your ... guess on the structure and the banding
 is as good as mine. Very frustrating.

Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.

[Robert Lynn]

So how do you imagine it inductively heats the powder given low AC
frequency, weak solenoid magnetic field, tiny cross section area powder,
and high resistivity of nickel near its melting point?

The physics + mathematics to estimate the magnetic field strength and eddy
currents induced are high-school /freshman physics level (estimate wire
turns, solenoid inductance = applied voltage gives current rate of change,
= solenoid magnetic field strength rate of change = eddy currents induced
in particles of given diameter - power dissipation, so you could very
quickly do some calculation to confirm or disprove your theory, and numbers
would at least give foundation to your hope.

On 16 October 2014 09:25, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Does this not indicate that the wire must be producing inductive heating
 in the powder?

 On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 the resistor wire expands with respect to the alumina as it heats up,
 breaking any bonding contact, or lifting the wire of the inner alumina tube
 in more and more places and leading to less and less conductive contact -
 prompting the wire to heat up as more as more of the energy it transmits to
 the reactor must be via radiation and conduction through gas rather than
 contact-conduction.  This is the likely what makes it appear that there is
 a gain above 1.

 On 16 October 2014 01:13, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

 New version with embedded wires.

 http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_hotcat_oct2014_141014b.php

 Here I've also assumed that the wires are a simple single strand, rather
 than the spiral form used in the earlier tests, and are in good thermal
 contact with the Alumina.

Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.

[Robert Lynn]

Not if it is touching the walls of inner or outer alumina tube in places,
intermittent contact due to vagaries of original wire winding around inner
tube and subsequent large differential thermal expansion so that the wire
is quenched in some places but not in others.  Would explain the variation
in glow that we see (along with slight translucence of alumina tube), and
would change as the wire gets hotter and relaxes pre-existing springiness
that might otherwise hold the wire in contact with the inner tube - would
lead to wire temperature increasing faster than power input would suggest -
ie what we see with supposedly increasing COP.

Most likely means of construction is winding wires around an inner tube, or
winding them around a different mandrel and then slipping them over the
tube.  Bonding them to the inner tube is an extra step that (based on
inconsistency/variability of surface glow) has likely not been done and for
which their would be little initial motive anyway. And massive relative
thermal expansion of the wire (~1%) would likely have cracked any ceramic
bonding or attempts to rigidly encase the wires or bond them to the inner
tube anyway.

Differential thermal expansion means that the internal tube/vessel is
likely only bonded to the thermocouple end cap, otherwise the external tube
would be broken by axial stress due to differential thermal expansion of
higher temperature of inner tube compared to external tube.

On 16 October 2014 10:58, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:


 ​If the wire inside the reactor was hot enough to glow it should produce a
 more uniform spiral glow along the entire length of the tube.


 Harry

 On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 Additionally, look at the darkened photo, the wire exterior to the
 reactor sourrounded by cooler materials to radiate to are brighter than the
 bright wires in the reactor.  Hard to believe it would be colder inside the
 reactor surrounded by relatively hotter materials that are harder to
 radiate to.  I think that is pretty strong indication that it is the wires
 that are the bright areas.

 On 15 October 2014 20:14, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I am looking at high zoom at the same photos and finding it easy to draw
 the opposite conclusion.  Confirmation bias on both our parts :)
 I think it is equivocal at best.

 On 15 October 2014 19:52, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 If you zoom in very closely on the hot reactor photos you can see the
 the dark lines are of uniform width, continuity and shade.  I am 95%
 confident that is the shadow of the coil.  The light areas change in
 brightness, width, etc.

 On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 how do you know this?  How do you know the the wire is not the
 brightest area?

 On 15 October 2014 15:06, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 Some people suspect that the resistor wire can't be Inconel because
 they are predicted to melt at the reactor's operating temperature. 
 However,
 since we know the resistor wire casts a shadow in the alumina, the
 temperature of the wire remains below the operating temperature and
 therefore can't melt.

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.

[Robert Lynn]

Nullis in verba. :)  I believe my eyes more than others words.  In finding
so many potential faults with so little published information (they had a
month to investigate!!) I can only say that I am unimpressed by the
critical observational skills of the testers.  If they had approached this
demo with a more critical mindset I might be more inclined to believe them.

On 16 October 2014 11:41, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 Thanks for posting your ideas.
 I hadn't seen that picture of the march 2013 reactor sitting on the scale
 with heating coils visible.

 Why don't we just accept that the authors of the 2014 test also know
 enough about the construction of the reactor to say that the dark bands
 align with the wires?

 Harry


 On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

 I wrote up my analysis of the banding :  (Draft -- I'll rename it
 later).

 http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_hotcat_oct2014_141014a.php

 Short answer : we don't even know whether the bright bands line up with
 the wires, or the gaps between them.

 There are multiple explanations, which depend on the structure used to
 hold the wires, and on the properties of everything.

 Insufficient data !

Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.

[Robert Lynn]

Nullis in verba. :)  I believe my eyes more than others words.  In finding
so many potential faults with so little published information (they had a
month to investigate!!) I can only say that I am unimpressed by the
critical observational skills or reporting of the testers.  If they had
approached this demo with a more critical mindset I might be more inclined
to believe them.  There is a mountain to climb to convince the world, and
they have not really helped that process.

On 16 October 2014 11:41, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 Thanks for posting your ideas.
 I hadn't seen that picture of the march 2013 reactor sitting on the scale
 with heating coils visible.

 Why don't we just accept that the authors of the 2014 test also know
 enough about the construction of the reactor to say that the dark bands
 align with the wires?

 Harry


 On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

 I wrote up my analysis of the banding :  (Draft -- I'll rename it
 later).

 http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_hotcat_oct2014_141014a.php

 Short answer : we don't even know whether the bright bands line up with
 the wires, or the gaps between them.

 There are multiple explanations, which depend on the structure used to
 hold the wires, and on the properties of everything.

 Insufficient data !

Re: [Vo]:E-cat Lugano demo probably had no output.

[Robert Lynn]

done, not much point in doing more exhaustive calculations without better
knowledge of construction and dimensions, but the big guess with regard to
wire area doesn't make much if any difference considering nature of black
body cavity receiving surface that is inner wall of finned tube.  I think
the conclusion that the finned wall is only around 1000°C is pretty strong,
so I'll be interested to see what if any response or objections are stacked
up.

I am hugely excited about the prospects of LENR - and actually stand to do
very well commercially from it, but this first-principles evaluation of the
Lugano test makes it look like it was another bust with at best very low
COP :(

A curse upon perpetrators of poor calorimetry!

On 13 October 2014 18:46, Marcus Haber tr...@gmx.de wrote:

 Hello Robert!

 Why dont u go over to
 http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/722-Ask-questions-to-the-Working-Group-ECAT-long-term-test/?postID=1386#post1386
 and tell the professors doing the test about ur concerns regarding the
 temperature measurement?
 But maybe it would be helpful to do some real calculations first. Coming
 with crude ones is probably not enough...

 Regards
 Marcus

  *Gesendet:* Montag, 13. Oktober 2014 um 07:11 Uhr
 *Von:* Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
 *An:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Betreff:* [Vo]:E-cat Lugano demo probably had no output.
  Appears that there was an inner reactor vessel wrapped with helical
 resistance wires (hence shadows) from size of wires and necessary wall
 thicknesses this vessel is likely around 12mm diameter.

 Inner wall area of outer finned tube about Ø18mm, 0.2m long  .0113m²

 Inconel metal resistance wires can only survive a maximum of about 1350°C
 without melting (actually probably lower than that over a month long period)

 From photo 12a/12b the wires appear to be covering less than half of the
 core reactor vessel, giving them an area of (estimate) .005m² (this is only
 a guess)  We know that they dissipate 900W of electricity, and inconel has
 emissivity of around 0.7.

 In order for finned tube inner wall to absorb 900W from the wires at
 1350°C they would need to be around 1000°C.  At that temperature they would
 also transfer approximately 900W to the external environment via radiation
 and convection.

 If the inner reactor was any hotter or adding any heat to the system then
 it would necessarily increase the finned tube wall temperature to increase
 dissipation to environment, that would in turn increase the wire
 temperature greatly, including a further bump from the radiative heat
 transfer from reactor to resistance wires, increasing their temperature to
 far above the point of failure.

 These numbers are only approximate (this is a crude calculation only), but
 I think that quantitatively at least it appears that there is a strong
 possibility that this demo was producing little if any power, based on
 pretty simple physical constraints.  And most certainly not the 3.8 COP
 claimed.

 As to the explanation for the high temp readings - I suspect the IR camera
 was picking up the colour of the resistance wires and inner reactor vessel
 body through the partially transparent alumina to give an artificially high
 temperature reading.

Re: [Vo]:E-cat Lugano demo probably had no output.

[Robert Lynn]

I've just realised that if my no-LENR output power conclusion is sound,
then Rossi is in serious trouble trying to explain the Ni62 ash.  Could be
the end of him.

On 13 October 2014 20:11, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
wrote:

 done, not much point in doing more exhaustive calculations without better
 knowledge of construction and dimensions, but the big guess with regard to
 wire area doesn't make much if any difference considering nature of black
 body cavity receiving surface that is inner wall of finned tube.  I think
 the conclusion that the finned wall is only around 1000°C is pretty strong,
 so I'll be interested to see what if any response or objections are stacked
 up.

 I am hugely excited about the prospects of LENR - and actually stand to do
 very well commercially from it, but this first-principles evaluation of the
 Lugano test makes it look like it was another bust with at best very low
 COP :(

 A curse upon perpetrators of poor calorimetry!

 On 13 October 2014 18:46, Marcus Haber tr...@gmx.de wrote:

 Hello Robert!

 Why dont u go over to
 http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/722-Ask-questions-to-the-Working-Group-ECAT-long-term-test/?postID=1386#post1386
 and tell the professors doing the test about ur concerns regarding the
 temperature measurement?
 But maybe it would be helpful to do some real calculations first. Coming
 with crude ones is probably not enough...

 Regards
 Marcus

  *Gesendet:* Montag, 13. Oktober 2014 um 07:11 Uhr
 *Von:* Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
 *An:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Betreff:* [Vo]:E-cat Lugano demo probably had no output.
  Appears that there was an inner reactor vessel wrapped with helical
 resistance wires (hence shadows) from size of wires and necessary wall
 thicknesses this vessel is likely around 12mm diameter.

 Inner wall area of outer finned tube about Ø18mm, 0.2m long  .0113m²

 Inconel metal resistance wires can only survive a maximum of about 1350°C
 without melting (actually probably lower than that over a month long period)

 From photo 12a/12b the wires appear to be covering less than half of the
 core reactor vessel, giving them an area of (estimate) .005m² (this is only
 a guess)  We know that they dissipate 900W of electricity, and inconel has
 emissivity of around 0.7.

 In order for finned tube inner wall to absorb 900W from the wires at
 1350°C they would need to be around 1000°C.  At that temperature they would
 also transfer approximately 900W to the external environment via radiation
 and convection.

 If the inner reactor was any hotter or adding any heat to the system then
 it would necessarily increase the finned tube wall temperature to increase
 dissipation to environment, that would in turn increase the wire
 temperature greatly, including a further bump from the radiative heat
 transfer from reactor to resistance wires, increasing their temperature to
 far above the point of failure.

 These numbers are only approximate (this is a crude calculation only),
 but I think that quantitatively at least it appears that there is a strong
 possibility that this demo was producing little if any power, based on
 pretty simple physical constraints.  And most certainly not the 3.8 COP
 claimed.

 As to the explanation for the high temp readings - I suspect the IR
 camera was picking up the colour of the resistance wires and inner reactor
 vessel body through the partially transparent alumina to give an
 artificially high temperature reading.

Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures

[Robert Lynn]

The system is way too complex for thermography to be able to deal with.  I
note that most black-body radiation for 1400°C:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131016/ncomms3630/images_article/ncomms3630-f4.jpg
has majority of emission at 4um where the alumina transmittance appears
relatively high in that fig 6

But a key factor is that even with only 10% transmittance if the alumina is
relatively cool - say 1000°C then with 0.4 emissivity the power it is
radiating is only about 2x that of the much higher radiative output 1350°C
inconel wires+core reactor behind it.

Even worse, because the transmittance drops off at longer wavelengths the
power transmitted will be mostly at shorter wavelengths it will make the
resulting spectrum look hotter than it actually is, which will skew the
spectrum seen by the camera sees towards something that looks like a much
higher temperatures.

That is going to produce serious over-reading in temperature.

This is all looking worse and worse the more I see.


On 13 October 2014 22:35, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

 The good news : In fig 6 the transmittance of alumina drops off by 5um,,
 and drops off quicker at higher temperatures.

 The bad news : In fig 7 the emittance varies greatly by wavelength (1.0 to
 0.15), and also  varies by temperature.
 Levi et al do not mention the variation by wavelength, only temperature
 (Fig 6, plot1).

 I don't know whether the IR camera system takes this into account.

 And we still have the problem of a system calibrated at 450C being used at
 1400C
 --
 *From: *Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent: *Monday, October 13, 2014 6:23:11 AM
 *Subject: *[Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent
 materials at  elevated temperatures


 A corespondent sent me this link:


 http://www.eurotherm2008.tue.nl/Proceedings_Eurotherm2008/papers/Radiation/RAD_6.pdf

 He commented: My interpretation of figure 6 is that the tranmissivity of
 alumina goes down to zero. Hence, this shows the arguments about alumina
 translucency are moot.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

[Robert Lynn]

It seems clear that the thermography is way off - because the built in
inconel heater wires would fail at 1350°C. (The peak temp from
thermography is 1412°C).  And the wires would necessarily be much hotter
than the external surface of the reactor - if they are wound tightly around
an inner core with little or no conductive contact with outer shell then
that outer shell will only be around 1000°C and there will have been little
or no LENR output.

Until or unless that can be explained satisfactorily the rest of the test
results are nothing but castles in the air.

On 14 October 2014 09:06, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 Ø  The previous message I quoted from you was definitely an accusation
 of fraud in the calorimetry: No one would ever use an IR camera in this
 situation unless they have the intent to deceive.



 Of course I meant it - in the context that they received intense
 criticism for doing this in the previous report, and yet they went ahead
 and did it anyway without any additional concern for the accuracy – as was
 clearly the problem before.



 Callous disregard for the truth is tantamount to intent.


 Oh, okay. Now you are back to saying the calorimetry was callous disregard
 for the truth tantamount to fraud. I thought you agreed with Brian Ahern
 and his expert friend. Okay, that was 6 hours ago and you have flip-flopped
 again.



 As for libel, I would love to enter “discovery” with this Levi and his
 group. Bring it on.


 I meant that libel here is bad form. A million people on the Internet
 attack Rossi and Levi with unfounded BS. But we are not supposed to do that
 here. Especially not when you have zero evidence he has done anything
 wrong, and no reason to think he would do anything wrong -- other than your
 own private scientific theory that his results are impossible.

 I have been hearing people say this is impossible so it must be fraud
 since 1989.





 Ø  By the way, as far as I know Rossi had no say in design of this
 experiment. The decision to use an IR camera in the situation was made by
 Levi et al.



 And do you know that Levi has received no financial remuneration or
 promise of future funding  from this work ?  It would be a huge surprise if
 he had not.


 Ah, so he is on the take. And when Levi destroys his own reputation by
 putting in fake ash, or using an IR camera knowing it is the wrong choice,
 this will help Rossi and Levi . . . how again? Never mind. I am sure you
 have an elaborate conspiracy theory. We don't need the details. Anyway, in
 6 hours you will have a different theory.



  In short - all you really know is that you want this grossly deficient
 paper to transform into rock-solid proof of LENR, whether it is compromised
 or not…



 This isotope analysis stinks, and if it goes down, so can the rest of it.


 Ah, so the calorimetry is fraud -- again -- because you are convinced the
 mass spectrometry is. Or no, it isn't fraud, but the rest of it um . . .
 can go down. Because if Rossi committed fraud with fake ashes that means
 we cannot trust the calorimetry performed by other people when Rossi was
 absent. Because . . . because . . . we can't! We just can't. Rossi has
 magical ESP and he can change IR camera readings in the dead of night from
 another continent.

 - Jed

[Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo

[Robert Lynn]

-Max average Ecat temp recorded in test 1412°C, 2.8kW heat output.
- 20mm diameter, 200mm long, thermal conductivity of alumina 6W/m/K at
1400°C means for 1mm wall thickness would have 40°C through-wall temp
differential, for 2mm would be 80°C.
-So assuming 1mm wall thickness (probably conservative) the internal
reactor temp is at least 1450°C

Through wall temperature differentials like that induce large stresses as
external surface is subject to tensile stress and inner wall subject to
compressive stress.
http://www.ceramics.nist.gov/srd/summary/scdaos.htm
Alumina at 1400°C has thermal expansion of 8.5e-6/K, tensile strength of
22MPa, 343GPa elastic modulus so 40K temp difference means 33MPa
compressive stress at inner surface and 33MPa tensile at outer surface.  It
would crack and break letting oxygen in, particularly if made thicker
walls.  The external surface crenellations would create stress
concentrators that would only make this worse.

Resistive heating wires inside the alumina tube must necessarily be a lot
hotter than 1450°C in order to push 900W heat into reactor.  But there are
no non-refractory heating wires that can survive such high temperatures.
Refractorys can't handle oxygen exposure, and in some cases are no good
with lithium or hydrogen.  The wires have to be joined to non=refractory
wires before they contact air and yet at those joints must not melt the
non-refractory wire either.  I am also not aware of electrical
feed-throughs that can handle such high temperatures.

1455°C Ni melting point, but nano particles of metal have depressed melting
points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting-point_depression

The fuel/reaction particles as the source of all the heat would need to be
at a temperature far above the internal reactor surface temp of 1450°C,
probably at least 50-100°C higher, in order to radiate/convect the heat
away to the walls.

So at 1450°C we can expect that the Ni fuel particles are much hotter, and
liquid, making for rapid mixing.  Forget special crystalline structures
created by secret processes. LENR in a liquid matrix seems to run counter
to a lot of theories.

Lithium vapour pressure at 1450°C is around 5-10 bar, with approximately
.01g of lithium in reactor and perhaps 20-30mL volume that means nearly all
lithium is in vapour state or as Li liquid condensate on relatively cooler
reactor walls.  This reactor is mostly nickel droplets in lithium gas (the
hydrogen will all diffuse away through porous sintered alumina rapidly at
such high temperatures, but perhaps is useful to create reducing conditions
initially).

This internal lithium vapour pressure would also add to the physical stress
on the alumina - probably 5-10MPa, which would likely cause a failure given
any other stresses (such as aforementioned heat flux induced differential
expansion stresses).

Nickel vapour pressure is around 1Pa at 1500°C, so in a month long test we
can expect that along with liquid state of Ni fuel droplets' continual
evaporation and condensation, dissolving in lithium condensate of Ni within
the reactor vessel will lead to steady mixing between the droplets.

Li + Ni vapour will condense into a thin layer on the cool walls of the
reactor - basically acting as a lithium heat pipe and create very
consistent all-over temperatures.  Perhaps with small drops of lithium
condensing and rolling down sides with some dissolved Ni, or otherwise
simply leaving a thin coating of Ni and Li on walls.

Alumina is strongly attacked by liquid lithium reacting with it to form new
compounds - I would expect it to be quickly consuming the available lithium
in the slightly porous alumina.

And we do see that Nickel ash has very little Lithium (.03%, down from
1.17%)

Basically all fuel should end up very homogenous.

Liquid Nickel dissolves alumina and oxygen to a small degree- about 1.8%
and 1.6 % respectively, but only 0-.05% aluminium in analysed ash - that
probably indicates something in error
http://docs.sadrnezhaad.com/papers/176%20(Interaction%20Crucible%20NiTi).pdf

If there is a secondary smaller sealed reactor vessel within the alumina
tube then if must be even hotter.

So so questions that need to be answered:
1/ Why isn't there more aluminium in ash given claimed temperatures?
2/ How does theory deal with liquid Ni as the LENR matrix?
3/ How do heater wires survive these temps without melting - it is well
beyond temps that non-refractory metals can withstand, particularly given
that they must be a lot hotter than the reactor itself, and refractory
metal wires would fail at external joints.  Not to mention non-leaking
feed-throughs of heater wires into reactor while maintaining seal integrity
is probably not possible at such high temps due to differential thermal
expansion of metal vs ceramic and limited strength of materials.
4/ If within the reactor itself how do heater wires survive exposure to
1450°C lithium without dissolving/disintegrating.
5/ Given claimed heat flux and internal 

Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo

[Robert Lynn]

Some questions on the thermography:
Did they do thermography on all sides or only from front?  If so how do we
know that there wasn't some insulation internal to the alumina that
restricted the heat output from the sides + bottom that were not recorded?

The tube radiation would have heated the frame underneath the tube a lot,
and that would have meant that the air rising through that frame and past
the tube would not be at room temperature, but rather at higher temperature
and lower density, so the convection calculations are likely to be
significantly in error - but would require modelling in CFD to give an idea
as to how much.

Did they observe significantly cooler sides on the tube compared to the top
and bottom?  natural convection should cool the sides a lot more than the
top or bottom of the tube due to the higher air flow velocities in those
regions.  In fact the heat transfer and temperature differences created by
natural convection could be modelled with CFD and would be a way to
validate the power output via radiation.

Still wishing they had done some simple air-flow calorimetry with a hood
and chimney instead.

On 12 October 2014 17:39, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
wrote:

 -Max average Ecat temp recorded in test 1412°C, 2.8kW heat output.
 - 20mm diameter, 200mm long, thermal conductivity of alumina 6W/m/K at
 1400°C means for 1mm wall thickness would have 40°C through-wall temp
 differential, for 2mm would be 80°C.
 -So assuming 1mm wall thickness (probably conservative) the internal
 reactor temp is at least 1450°C

 Through wall temperature differentials like that induce large stresses as
 external surface is subject to tensile stress and inner wall subject to
 compressive stress.
 http://www.ceramics.nist.gov/srd/summary/scdaos.htm
 Alumina at 1400°C has thermal expansion of 8.5e-6/K, tensile strength of
 22MPa, 343GPa elastic modulus so 40K temp difference means 33MPa
 compressive stress at inner surface and 33MPa tensile at outer surface.  It
 would crack and break letting oxygen in, particularly if made thicker
 walls.  The external surface crenellations would create stress
 concentrators that would only make this worse.

 Resistive heating wires inside the alumina tube must necessarily be a lot
 hotter than 1450°C in order to push 900W heat into reactor.  But there are
 no non-refractory heating wires that can survive such high temperatures.
 Refractorys can't handle oxygen exposure, and in some cases are no good
 with lithium or hydrogen.  The wires have to be joined to non=refractory
 wires before they contact air and yet at those joints must not melt the
 non-refractory wire either.  I am also not aware of electrical
 feed-throughs that can handle such high temperatures.

 1455°C Ni melting point, but nano particles of metal have depressed
 melting points.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting-point_depression

 The fuel/reaction particles as the source of all the heat would need to be
 at a temperature far above the internal reactor surface temp of 1450°C,
 probably at least 50-100°C higher, in order to radiate/convect the heat
 away to the walls.

 So at 1450°C we can expect that the Ni fuel particles are much hotter, and
 liquid, making for rapid mixing.  Forget special crystalline structures
 created by secret processes. LENR in a liquid matrix seems to run counter
 to a lot of theories.

 Lithium vapour pressure at 1450°C is around 5-10 bar, with approximately
 .01g of lithium in reactor and perhaps 20-30mL volume that means nearly all
 lithium is in vapour state or as Li liquid condensate on relatively cooler
 reactor walls.  This reactor is mostly nickel droplets in lithium gas (the
 hydrogen will all diffuse away through porous sintered alumina rapidly at
 such high temperatures, but perhaps is useful to create reducing conditions
 initially).

 This internal lithium vapour pressure would also add to the physical
 stress on the alumina - probably 5-10MPa, which would likely cause a
 failure given any other stresses (such as aforementioned heat flux induced
 differential expansion stresses).

 Nickel vapour pressure is around 1Pa at 1500°C, so in a month long test we
 can expect that along with liquid state of Ni fuel droplets' continual
 evaporation and condensation, dissolving in lithium condensate of Ni within
 the reactor vessel will lead to steady mixing between the droplets.

 Li + Ni vapour will condense into a thin layer on the cool walls of the
 reactor - basically acting as a lithium heat pipe and create very
 consistent all-over temperatures.  Perhaps with small drops of lithium
 condensing and rolling down sides with some dissolved Ni, or otherwise
 simply leaving a thin coating of Ni and Li on walls.

 Alumina is strongly attacked by liquid lithium reacting with it to form
 new compounds - I would expect it to be quickly consuming the available
 lithium in the slightly porous alumina.

 And we do see that Nickel ash has very little Lithium (.03

Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo

[Robert Lynn]

Fig 12b. page 26.   Only just notice that they say they are inconel
resistance wires.  But how can the resistor wire, external to the reactor,
glow more brightly than the reactor itself (implying it is hotter)?  Also
if the reactor external surface is at 1250-1410°C, then on top of the
30-50°C temperature drop through the walls the resistive wire would have to
be even hotter (up towards 1500°C)  in order to be able to radiate the
900W!  And there are no inconel metal wires that can survive such
temperatures in air for a month.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

There is also a mistake in their discussion for these figures, the metal
resistors within the reactor would necessarily have to be hotter than the
reactor itself if they are to be able to output heat into the reactor.  But
then again at 1450°C inconel resistance wires would have turned into
puddles anyway.

The 2mm high fins on the outside, subjected to convective air cooling would
be 30-50°C colder than the base of the fins due to the longer conduction
path and hence greater temperature drop through the alumina.  And that
should influence the thermography to under-read, but also means the
temperature within the reactor would have to be even higher to create
1400°C average surface temperature.

So this proves that the thermographic temperature readings are off by a
very long way - at least 150-200°C too high if inconel wires that max-out
at about 1300-1350°C were to have survived for a month.  We now know there
is a huge error, we just don't know the source of the error, or how big the
error is.  But eg 1210°C vs 1410°C would drop power output by 40% from that
claimed so that the COP would be 2.

With the existence of such a huge error of unknown source the claims of
power output cannot not be trusted at all.

On the upside, it does however mean that the nickel was not melted, and
lithium vapour pressure was a lot lower.

Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo

[Robert Lynn]

inductive heating only works on conductive materials with sufficient
thickness/area through which the changing magnetic flux passes to allow
eddy currents to form.  With 150Hz pulses Nickel particles of tiny scale
would not be affected (like thin motor laminates) - it would only work to
heat a secondary metal body that could then heat via radiation (very
inefficient, and of no practical benefit).

On 13 October 2014 00:35, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
wrote:

 How do we know that iti s resistive heating that is taking place? Bob
 Greenyer at MFMP sugested that it is an inductive heater this means that
 the wires
 get a bit cooler then the heated core.

 On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 Fig 12b. page 26.   Only just notice that they say they are inconel
 resistance wires.  But how can the resistor wire, external to the reactor,
 glow more brightly than the reactor itself (implying it is hotter)?  Also
 if the reactor external surface is at 1250-1410°C, then on top of the
 30-50°C temperature drop through the walls the resistive wire would have to
 be even hotter (up towards 1500°C)  in order to be able to radiate the
 900W!  And there are no inconel metal wires that can survive such
 temperatures in air for a month.
 http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

 There is also a mistake in their discussion for these figures, the metal
 resistors within the reactor would necessarily have to be hotter than the
 reactor itself if they are to be able to output heat into the reactor.  But
 then again at 1450°C inconel resistance wires would have turned into
 puddles anyway.

 The 2mm high fins on the outside, subjected to convective air cooling
 would be 30-50°C colder than the base of the fins due to the longer
 conduction path and hence greater temperature drop through the alumina.
 And that should influence the thermography to under-read, but also means
 the temperature within the reactor would have to be even higher to create
 1400°C average surface temperature.

 So this proves that the thermographic temperature readings are off by a
 very long way - at least 150-200°C too high if inconel wires that max-out
 at about 1300-1350°C were to have survived for a month.  We now know there
 is a huge error, we just don't know the source of the error, or how big the
 error is.  But eg 1210°C vs 1410°C would drop power output by 40% from that
 claimed so that the COP would be 2.

 With the existence of such a huge error of unknown source the claims of
 power output cannot not be trusted at all.

 On the upside, it does however mean that the nickel was not melted, and
 lithium vapour pressure was a lot lower.

Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo

[Robert Lynn]

they dropped the powder in through a hole and then sealed it with alumina
refractory glue around a metal thermocouple (why are its readings not
reported???).  Apart from the fact that the 'glue' would have residual
porosity that would probably help vent all hydrogen at high temp that is
pretty strong indicator that there is no refractory metal shell in there to
prevent leakage if that is a big deal.

A metal shell would tend to shield any pulsed magnetic field that Rossi
claims is critical to operation.  Also a metal shell would need to be
insulated to prevent shorting of the resistor wires, and all of that would
make the inner vessel even hotter - which seems pretty undesirable.

An observer there for the opening reported no such refractory shell (though
might be under NDA).

And lastly refractory metals are heavy.  A quick check of density of
alumina and exterior size of reactor all weighing under Fig1 452g with
resistance wire inside is a strong indication of no such additional
components being inside.


On 13 October 2014 00:36, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 2:39 AM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:


 This reactor is mostly nickel droplets in lithium gas (the hydrogen will
 all diffuse away through porous sintered alumina rapidly at such high
 temperatures, but perhaps is useful to create reducing conditions
 initially).


 The report tells us the group saw sintered alumna.  We do not know what is
 used on the inside of the device.  My guess: not sintered alumina, for this
 reason.  Here is another possibility:

 http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3560

 Note that the form of alumina in this case is a nearly perfect oxygen and
 hydrogen barrier.  I do not know what its tensile, thermodynamic and
 chemical properties are, except that it is probably refractory.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo

[Robert Lynn]

far above curie limit for Ni, magnetic fields won't move powder
magnetically, only ions, but temps are too low for significant Li or H ions
to exist, and no ionising radiation sources in evidence.

On 13 October 2014 00:49, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Yes but in that case the core can be hotter then the cables. We don't know
 about the powder, and the changes of magnetic fields inside the core could
 stir the powder around and by changing that behavior you might end up
 controlling the reaction rate. Also inductive heating of an inner
 containing cylinder does produce a fast response to the actual cylinder
 which controls the heat radiative environment in there.

 On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 inductive heating only works on conductive materials with sufficient
 thickness/area through which the changing magnetic flux passes to allow
 eddy currents to form.  With 150Hz pulses Nickel particles of tiny scale
 would not be affected (like thin motor laminates) - it would only work to
 heat a secondary metal body that could then heat via radiation (very
 inefficient, and of no practical benefit).

 On 13 October 2014 00:35, Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
 stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:

 How do we know that iti s resistive heating that is taking place? Bob
 Greenyer at MFMP sugested that it is an inductive heater this means that
 the wires
 get a bit cooler then the heated core.

 On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 Fig 12b. page 26.   Only just notice that they say they are inconel
 resistance wires.  But how can the resistor wire, external to the reactor,
 glow more brightly than the reactor itself (implying it is hotter)?  Also
 if the reactor external surface is at 1250-1410°C, then on top of the
 30-50°C temperature drop through the walls the resistive wire would have to
 be even hotter (up towards 1500°C)  in order to be able to radiate the
 900W!  And there are no inconel metal wires that can survive such
 temperatures in air for a month.
 http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

 There is also a mistake in their discussion for these figures, the
 metal resistors within the reactor would necessarily have to be hotter than
 the reactor itself if they are to be able to output heat into the reactor.
 But then again at 1450°C inconel resistance wires would have turned into
 puddles anyway.

 The 2mm high fins on the outside, subjected to convective air cooling
 would be 30-50°C colder than the base of the fins due to the longer
 conduction path and hence greater temperature drop through the alumina.
 And that should influence the thermography to under-read, but also means
 the temperature within the reactor would have to be even higher to create
 1400°C average surface temperature.

 So this proves that the thermographic temperature readings are off by a
 very long way - at least 150-200°C too high if inconel wires that max-out
 at about 1300-1350°C were to have survived for a month.  We now know there
 is a huge error, we just don't know the source of the error, or how big the
 error is.  But eg 1210°C vs 1410°C would drop power output by 40% from that
 claimed so that the COP would be 2.

 With the existence of such a huge error of unknown source the claims of
 power output cannot not be trusted at all.

 On the upside, it does however mean that the nickel was not melted, and
 lithium vapour pressure was a lot lower.

Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo

[Robert Lynn]

inductive heating works based on the area of the conductive loop cut by the
changing magnetic field, the rate of change of the magnetic field and the
conductivity of the material.  Consequently microscopic powder made with
high resistivity hot iron/nickel will have extremely weak response to any
low frequency inductive heating.  If inductive heating was the way ahead a
microwave source delivered through a waveguide or exterior cheap
off-the-shelf high-frequency inductive heater would be far more effective
(and easier to implement) than crude resistor wires.

On 13 October 2014 01:08, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 There are also iron particles in the fuel mix that might support inductive
 heating local to the fuel mix. Inductive heating might result in the
 primary heater wire being colder than the fuel charge thus casting a darker
 shadow that we see in the pictures of the reactor in operation. I like the
 inductive heating idea.

 On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 The tubercles on the nickel powder function to ionize the hydrogen using
 dipole motion induced by heat.

 On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 far above curie limit for Ni, magnetic fields won't move powder
 magnetically, only ions, but temps are too low for significant Li or H ions
 to exist, and no ionising radiation sources in evidence.

 On 13 October 2014 00:49, Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
 stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:

 Yes but in that case the core can be hotter then the cables. We don't
 know about the powder, and the changes of magnetic fields inside the core
 could stir the powder around and by changing that behavior you might end up
 controlling the reaction rate. Also inductive heating of an inner
 containing cylinder does produce a fast response to the actual cylinder
 which controls the heat radiative environment in there.

 On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 inductive heating only works on conductive materials with sufficient
 thickness/area through which the changing magnetic flux passes to allow
 eddy currents to form.  With 150Hz pulses Nickel particles of tiny scale
 would not be affected (like thin motor laminates) - it would only work to
 heat a secondary metal body that could then heat via radiation (very
 inefficient, and of no practical benefit).

 On 13 October 2014 00:35, Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
 stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:

 How do we know that iti s resistive heating that is taking place? Bob
 Greenyer at MFMP sugested that it is an inductive heater this means that
 the wires
 get a bit cooler then the heated core.

 On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 Fig 12b. page 26.   Only just notice that they say they are
 inconel resistance wires.  But how can the resistor wire, external to 
 the
 reactor, glow more brightly than the reactor itself (implying it is
 hotter)?  Also if the reactor external surface is at 1250-1410°C, then 
 on
 top of the 30-50°C temperature drop through the walls the resistive wire
 would have to be even hotter (up towards 1500°C)  in order to be able to
 radiate the 900W!  And there are no inconel metal wires that can 
 survive
 such temperatures in air for a month.

 http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

 There is also a mistake in their discussion for these figures, the
 metal resistors within the reactor would necessarily have to be hotter 
 than
 the reactor itself if they are to be able to output heat into the 
 reactor.
 But then again at 1450°C inconel resistance wires would have turned 
 into
 puddles anyway.

 The 2mm high fins on the outside, subjected to convective air
 cooling would be 30-50°C colder than the base of the fins due to the 
 longer
 conduction path and hence greater temperature drop through the alumina.
 And that should influence the thermography to under-read, but also means
 the temperature within the reactor would have to be even higher to 
 create
 1400°C average surface temperature.

 So this proves that the thermographic temperature readings are off
 by a very long way - at least 150-200°C too high if inconel wires that
 max-out at about 1300-1350°C were to have survived for a month.  We now
 know there is a huge error, we just don't know the source of the error, 
 or
 how big the error is.  But eg 1210°C vs 1410°C would drop power output 
 by
 40% from that claimed so that the COP would be 2.

 With the existence of such a huge error of unknown source the claims
 of power output cannot not be trusted at all.

 On the upside, it does however mean that the nickel was not melted,
 and lithium vapour pressure was a lot lower.

Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo

[Robert Lynn]

if there was an inner metal cylinder to contain reactants (particularly
insanely leak-prone hydrogen at high temperatures) then it would be sealed
by welding not half assed approaches like alumina glue.  Until you have
worked with hydrogen (I worked with stirling engines containing hydrogen)
it is hard to appreciate just how disrespectful it is of things like
hermetically sealed containers and thin walled materials of all types.
Anyone with similar experience would find the idea of such a small reactor
with low volume small fuel charge and large thin wall operating for a month
at 12-1400°C while retaining hydrogen fuel totally unbelievable.

Also alkali metals are nasty on all metals that I am aware of at high
temperatures - particularly in heat pipe type applications like this - pure
lithium condenses on cooler wall surfaces, instantly dissolving metal atoms
from the surface and washing them away to the hot zone where the lithium is
evaporated.  This leads to fast corrosion/eating away of basically all
metals as they are all slightly soluble in lithium, made worse by elevated
temperatures.  This reactor is a lithium heat pipe, with hot nickel powder
heat source at the bottom of the tube and lithium washing down the walls
continually to deposit dissolved atoms at the bottom evaporation zone.

On 13 October 2014 01:18, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Robert I think you make good points, not sure what the inner cylinder is
 made of and I guess that if it is metal it has to be thin in order
 to not show up on the weight. There is also the possiblity that eddi
 current's heat the cyllinder at high temps but then can we keep the
 wires cold. Also, this is speculative, but we really don't know the inner
 process if this thing works, can there be a local magnetic field due
 to the reaction, the thing is the only way I can figure out that the
 nuclear process is happening without radiation is that the there is a
 deallocated
 electron squeezed between the reactants in the nuclear process that
 mediates the energy and momentum to the outer metal in the reaction in stead
 of releasing radiation, so there is a movement in the electron, if this is
 somewhat synchronized locally we might get some magnetics to show up. This
 is only speculating, but I think that we should be careful whith what we
 don't know, you seam to find good arguments against inductive heating, and
 this might leave us with resistive heating and a good evidence that the
 core is hot due to the reaction and not because of resistive heating.

 On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 far above curie limit for Ni, magnetic fields won't move powder
 magnetically, only ions, but temps are too low for significant Li or H ions
 to exist, and no ionising radiation sources in evidence.

 On 13 October 2014 00:49, Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
 stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:

 Yes but in that case the core can be hotter then the cables. We don't
 know about the powder, and the changes of magnetic fields inside the core
 could stir the powder around and by changing that behavior you might end up
 controlling the reaction rate. Also inductive heating of an inner
 containing cylinder does produce a fast response to the actual cylinder
 which controls the heat radiative environment in there.

 On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 inductive heating only works on conductive materials with sufficient
 thickness/area through which the changing magnetic flux passes to allow
 eddy currents to form.  With 150Hz pulses Nickel particles of tiny scale
 would not be affected (like thin motor laminates) - it would only work to
 heat a secondary metal body that could then heat via radiation (very
 inefficient, and of no practical benefit).

 On 13 October 2014 00:35, Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
 stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:

 How do we know that iti s resistive heating that is taking place? Bob
 Greenyer at MFMP sugested that it is an inductive heater this means that
 the wires
 get a bit cooler then the heated core.

 On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 Fig 12b. page 26.   Only just notice that they say they are inconel
 resistance wires.  But how can the resistor wire, external to the 
 reactor,
 glow more brightly than the reactor itself (implying it is hotter)?  Also
 if the reactor external surface is at 1250-1410°C, then on top of the
 30-50°C temperature drop through the walls the resistive wire would have 
 to
 be even hotter (up towards 1500°C)  in order to be able to radiate the
 900W!  And there are no inconel metal wires that can survive such
 temperatures in air for a month.

 http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

 There is also a mistake in their discussion for these figures, the
 metal resistors within the reactor would necessarily have to be hotter 
 than

Re: [Vo]:Incandescence is the wrong color

[Robert Lynn]

I would concur regarding the colour being too cold, but I have seen
previous pictures where digital cameras also do not show just how bright
something is glowing (from work in engine testing with exhausts at a
precisely measured 900°C) so would not be too critical on that alone.  The
visible banding is however of greater concern - should be a pretty
consistent colour all over, but it is not which must have implications for
the accuracy of the thermography (and heat conduction through walls).

On 13 October 2014 04:40, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote:

 Jed,

 As someone experienced with working at these kinds of temperatures in the
 glass industry, it was obvious that the temperature shown in the image is
 way below the reported operating temperature.
 I don't know whether this is because it was warming up, or because many
 consumer cameras don't show  red hot things correctly.

 I am now somewhat dated, but I would have used a type S platinum
 thermocouple, at the reported temperature, for the reactor control and
 would have reported that reading as a useful check against the IR reading.
I also wonder what they used for the heating element as that would have
 to be good for 1500C

Re: [Vo]:Air Flow Calorimetry

[Robert Lynn]

no small rankine turbines or steam engines are that efficient.  Best bet
would be a stirling engine from qnergy http://www.qnergy.com/.  About 3kW
output and 30-35% efficient and designed to feed into the grid.  If run in
some un-prepared location like a lecture hall or foyer that would make a
truly powerful demonstrator to the world.

On 13 October 2014 07:58, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote:

 I am probably naive. However, it seems to me that if one design a loop
 back, an absolute measurement can be had.
 Once the Ecat is at full operation let the ecat generate steam and run a
 turbine with an electrical generator. As the COP for the turbine is well
 known exact knowledge can be determined without very inaccurate flow
 measurement, A COP of 3.5 will be enough for a turbine with COP of 0.3
 -that should be no problem to reach.

 Best Regards ,
 Lennart Thornros

 www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
 lenn...@thornros.com
 +1 916 436 1899
 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a
 commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

 On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Steve High diamondweb...@gmail.com
 wrote:

   As a non-technical person who greatly enjoys and respects this
 forum I am extremely cautious about opening new threads, so I have thought
 long and hard about this and I think the time is right. I hope the brain
 trust here will take a little time to answer.

My question: why would this not work?

 1) Build a well insulated box about the size of a generous walk
 in closet, large enough to comfortably accommodate the ECat, its
 electronics, the frame and other supporting equipment, as well as a couple
 human technicians.

  2) Design and build an airflow system that, under steady
 conditions, can most accurately measure the temperature of the air coming
 in, leaving, and the volume of air being transferred.

   3) Perform a series of calibration runs using a resistance
 heater, and accurately measure the power coming through the outflow under
 all combinations of temperature and airflow (and pressure if that's an
 issue). By comparing these results to the known power being input to the
 resistance heater, one will know the power being lost through the insulated
 walls for all combinations of temperature and airflow.

4) Turn on the ECat and run it anyway you like provided it is
 at or close to a steady state. Adjust the airflow so the ECat is kept at a
 comfortable temperature. Follow four simple measurements, input power, temp
 in, temp out and volume of air transferred. Run your results through your
 calibrated software. Now you know how much power the ECat is producing.

 I think it is fair to say at this juncture that the current
 report if far from convincing, for regular posters at Vortex not to mention
 the general public, due to the byzantine issues being raised concerning the
 IR camera, the transmissivity of the alumina, and a host of other things. I
 would venture a guess that one would not be able to find a single,
 objective, expert member of the human race who could look at all this and
 say for certain whether the results are valid or not. And even if such a
 person existed, would he or she be able to convince the common person,
 given all the objections being raised by the skeptics?

I sincerely hope that Darden or one of his lieutenants is
 following this forum because I think I have something important to say. In
 order for the ECat to reach its stated goal of lifting fellow human beings
 out of poverty the technology is going to have to prove itself convincing
 to the common, reasonably well educated person, the journalist, the
 politician, the lobbyist,  the board member of the philanthropic
 organization that wishes to participate in the lifting up of humanity. In
 other words somebody like me. I think I would be a thousand times more
 convinced by a well-conducted airflow calorimetry than by the convoluted
 investigations that have taken place up to this point. If the brain trust
 at Vortex has any reason to say this wouldn't work, please let me know.

Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo

[Robert Lynn]

1% lithium in 1g fuel, so 0.01g, boils at 1342°C. At 1 bar,1342°C would
fill about 180mL volume, reactor volume probably about 30-50mL so will be
filled with lithium gas under pressure - operating as a heat-pipe to
equalise pressure.

I have just realised that we can probably infer the existence of an inner
reactor vessel because we see helical wires or wire shadows of only one
angle - we can't see both sides of wire helix through an open core because
there is an inner  core vessel in the way.  I had thought there was no such
vessel, so my conclusion about the wires being hotter no longer stands up.
The wire temperatures are electrically controlled to alter the amount of
radiative heat flux that leaves the inner vessel - a crude method of
controlling heat flux that suggests great improvements in COP if better
methods of heat flux control are employed (high temp coolant fluid or
moveable insulating shields).

That inner vessel must be crazy hot!  around 300°C higher than the already
hot outer wall in order to radiate the heat to the outer wall and hot
wires; eg if Ø20mm outer wall is at 1200°C (approx max given revised COP of
around 2 from temp reading that is obviously in error due to non-melting of
inconel, though could be significantly lower)  then an inner alumina tube
of Ø12mm outer diameter radiating 1kW  would need to be more than 1500°C
surface temperature (Actually higher given hot wires surrounding it), so
again it seems temperature within vessel must be up to range where nickel
is melted and lithium is gas at 5-10bar.

I wonder if that smaller hotter inner tube and translucence of outer
alumina tube is what is screwing up the thermographic calorimetry?  If the
camera is picking up the inner tube at 300°C temp higher than the outer
then the exterior tube temp might only be 1100°C and the COP could be a lot
lower

On 13 October 2014 10:01, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 The amount of lithium seems to be tiny from what I have read.  Do you
 think that enough of it is in there to perform the function you are
 suggesting?

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Oct 12, 2014 1:35 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature
 hot-cat Lugano demo

  if there was an inner metal cylinder to contain reactants (particularly
 insanely leak-prone hydrogen at high temperatures) then it would be sealed
 by welding not half assed approaches like alumina glue.  Until you have
 worked with hydrogen (I worked with stirling engines containing hydrogen)
 it is hard to appreciate just how disrespectful it is of things like
 hermetically sealed containers and thin walled materials of all types.
 Anyone with similar experience would find the idea of such a small reactor
 with low volume small fuel charge and large thin wall operating for a month
 at 12-1400°C while retaining hydrogen fuel totally unbelievable.

  Also alkali metals are nasty on all metals that I am aware of at high
 temperatures - particularly in heat pipe type applications like this - pure
 lithium condenses on cooler wall surfaces, instantly dissolving metal atoms
 from the surface and washing them away to the hot zone where the lithium is
 evaporated.  This leads to fast corrosion/eating away of basically all
 metals as they are all slightly soluble in lithium, made worse by elevated
 temperatures.  This reactor is a lithium heat pipe, with hot nickel powder
 heat source at the bottom of the tube and lithium washing down the walls
 continually to deposit dissolved atoms at the bottom evaporation zone.

 On 13 October 2014 01:18, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
  wrote:

 Robert I think you make good points, not sure what the inner cylinder is
 made of and I guess that if it is metal it has to be thin in order
 to not show up on the weight. There is also the possiblity that eddi
 current's heat the cyllinder at high temps but then can we keep the
 wires cold. Also, this is speculative, but we really don't know the inner
 process if this thing works, can there be a local magnetic field due
 to the reaction, the thing is the only way I can figure out that the
 nuclear process is happening without radiation is that the there is a
 deallocated
 electron squeezed between the reactants in the nuclear process that
 mediates the energy and momentum to the outer metal in the reaction in stead
 of releasing radiation, so there is a movement in the electron, if this
 is somewhat synchronized locally we might get some magnetics to show up.
 This
 is only speculating, but I think that we should be careful whith what we
 don't know, you seam to find good arguments against inductive heating, and
 this might leave us with resistive heating and a good evidence that the
 core is hot due to the reaction and not because of resistive heating.

 On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l

Re: [Vo]:Air Flow Calorimetry

[Robert Lynn]

a tall well insulated chimney would sort that out, and flow velocity (and
hence mass flow) in chimney can be accurately inferred from temperature
given column pressure differential caused by air density difference.
Calorimetry with just two thermocouples to measure inlet and outlet air
temps!

On 13 October 2014 09:13, Steve High diamondweb...@gmail.com wrote:

 Well I spent an hour or so in the HVAC world and sure enough Jed was
 right. Apparently the standard for measuring air flow in a round
 duct involves checking wind speed in 18 locations along three separate
 axes, which is probably not practical when you are trying to assess air
 flow in a dynamic system. On the other hand I think it is safe to assume
 that the purveyors of natural gas have worked out a way to know precisely
 how much petroleum is flowing through their pipes. In the lung doctors
 office you can blow into a tube that will show precisely how much air your
 lungs are moving. So if there was a monetary reason to efficiently know
 how much air is moving through a system  we would probably have a reliable
 means of doing so.

 On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I have had wretched experiences trying to do air-flow calorimetery. It is
 done by HVAC installers on a daily basis, so it does work, although I
 gather it is imprecise. I know it is hard to do right.

 The hard parts are determining the flow rate of air, and finding the
 temperature, which varies in the stream even when you go to great lengths
 to mix the air.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Incandescence is the wrong color

[Robert Lynn]

like the reddish glow discharge from a lithium plasma in an alumina vessel
that is partially transparent to IR?

On 13 October 2014 11:43, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 I refer to the opposite effect in this case Harry.  In other words, can
 the color appear to be too dark in the visual region to our eyes compared
 to the emission of thermal energy in the IR.

 Are there surfaces that are very poor emitters of energy in the visual
 region that behave more like a black body in the infrared region?  This is
 more of a question instead of a statement since it seems like that might be
 happening in this special case.  The light emitted does not have a color
 that matches what is expected to be seen from a surface of a broad band
 black body.  I wonder if anyone on the list has seen materials with that
 characteristic.

 If you consider the behavior of a RF radio transmitter, you will
 understand the jest of my question.  In that case, the amount of power at
 its transmission frequency, being narrow band and so low in Hertz, would
 indicate a black body that was at an enormous temperature if the complete
 spectrum were available as expected.  But we know that it does not
 represent a true black body since it is narrow band.  Can anything of a
 similar nature exist at other frequency ranges such as IR?

 Sorry about the rambling, but it is getting late and I am quite tired.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Oct 12, 2014 10:56 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Incandescence is the wrong color

  what is the other direction?
 (I am having hard time following the flow of thought in this particular
 thread)

  harry

 On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 10:31 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:

 How does the emissivity of the alumina effect the optical appearance
 with regard to color?  Is it possible for most of the energy to be emitted
 in the IR spectrum while limited at optical wavelengths?

 I recall looking at a piece of brightly glowing insulator in some NASA
 photo.  The material was being held within a volunteer's hand and did not
 burn that person.  Had the radiation been emitted at the level expected by
 the brightness, the person would have suffered severe burns.  Could this
 process work in the other direction such as we seem to question in this
 discussion?

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Oct 12, 2014 4:39 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Incandescence is the wrong color

  Jed,

 As someone experienced with working at these kinds of temperatures in
 the glass industry, it was obvious that the temperature shown in the
 image is way below the reported operating temperature.
 I don't know whether this is because it was warming up, or because many
 consumer cameras don't show  red hot things correctly.

 I am now somewhat dated, but I would have used a type S platinum
 thermocouple, at the reported temperature, for the reactor control and
 would have reported that reading as a useful check against the IR
 reading. I also wonder what they used for the heating element as
 that would have to be good for 1500C

[Vo]:E-cat Lugano demo probably had no output.

[Robert Lynn]

Appears that there was an inner reactor vessel wrapped with helical
resistance wires (hence shadows) from size of wires and necessary wall
thicknesses this vessel is likely around 12mm diameter.

Inner wall area of outer finned tube about Ø18mm, 0.2m long  .0113m²

Inconel metal resistance wires can only survive a maximum of about 1350°C
without melting (actually probably lower than that over a month long period)

From photo 12a/12b the wires appear to be covering less than half of the
core reactor vessel, giving them an area of (estimate) .005m² (this is only
a guess)  We know that they dissipate 900W of electricity, and inconel has
emissivity of around 0.7.

In order for finned tube inner wall to absorb 900W from the wires at 1350°C
they would need to be around 1000°C.  At that temperature they would also
transfer approximately 900W to the external environment via radiation and
convection.

If the inner reactor was any hotter or adding any heat to the system then
it would necessarily increase the finned tube wall temperature to increase
dissipation to environment, that would in turn increase the wire
temperature greatly, including a further bump from the radiative heat
transfer from reactor to resistance wires, increasing their temperature to
far above the point of failure.

These numbers are only approximate (this is a crude calculation only), but
I think that quantitatively at least it appears that there is a strong
possibility that this demo was producing little if any power, based on
pretty simple physical constraints.  And most certainly not the 3.8 COP
claimed.

As to the explanation for the high temp readings - I suspect the IR camera
was picking up the colour of the resistance wires and inner reactor vessel
body through the partially transparent alumina to give an artificially high
temperature reading.

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Robert Lynn]

Excellent point.  Would be easy enough to do a second control run even now
to add some confidence to the calorimetry.  The alumina + wire will be
off-the-shelf all someone need do is ask Rossi for specs of tube and wire -
he should be happy to provide them in the interests of clarity.

On 10 October 2014 13:40, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 This is wonderfully simple calorimetry. The easiest I have seen in cold
 fusion. If you cannot understand this, you cannot understand any
 experiment, and you know nothing about this subject.


 To be honest, the calorimetry left some things to be desired in my opinion.

- The calibration run was operated at a much lower temperature than
the live run.
- The calculations for radiant heat and convection were byzantine.  I
don't know how anyone could have any confidence in them without some kind
of additional check (such as the one they actually did, against the
calibration run).

 Measuring the heat would have been more reliable by running a control at
 the same temperature as the live run, with heat exchanger and a working
 fluid, calibrating the power measured against the power delivered to the
 control and then using the same setup to measure the net power during the
 live run.  The fancy calculations did not add anything and were a
 distraction.

 That said, I'm still basically happy with the calorimetry, because I'm not
 a physicist and at minimum it provides a good back-of-the-envelope number,
 and it probably a much better number than that.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Robert Lynn]

De-cloaking long term lurker.
Latest test result issues that raise my suspicions:

   - The uniformity of the Ni ash concerns me, the burn mechanism somehow
   converts all natural Ni isotopes (smaller and larger!! so fusion and
   fission in evidence) to Ni62, but with miraculously no radioactive isotopes
   produced?
   - The test is stopped at a pre-determined time where all the Ni just
   happens to have been converted, and nearly all the Li7, Rossi must have
   done exhaustive development to judge it so perfectly.
   - Huge consumption of Li, Ni 'fuel' - almost to exhaustion, yet the
   reaction power and COP appears to not change significantly through the
   test.  To me that is exceptionally strange (practically magical) behaviour.

If I were setting up a fake there are simple means to get power into the
unit invisibly- like IR or UV lasers, fiber lasers, x-ray tubes, focused
microwaves etc but I don't have enough info about the setup and facilities
to make any judgement on things like this.  I'm happy with black box
reactor approach, and optical thermography/calorimetry is OK for these
COPs, but flow calorimetry would be better.  Unless and until truly
independent testers have full control over the environment and calorimetry
in facilities not controlled by Rossi these tests will not convince the
world.

I'll continue to observe, and hold some hope, but given the track record of
sub-par demos and rumours of unpublished negative results I will need
independent external testing by other than old associates of Rossi.

On 9 October 2014 10:26, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jed, perhaps someone is trying to discredit Rossi and thought this was the
 best way to do so.

 On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:

 If Rossi switched out the ash, he's a fraud.  End of story.


 Here is something you think about. Why would he switch out the ash? What
 possible benefit would that bring to him? What motivation would he have?
 The answers are no reason, none and none. Reasons:

 1. The people paying for this work do not care about what causes the
 effect. They are interested in excess heat. Whether it comes from Ni
 transmutation or zero-point-energy is beside the point. It will not be more
 convincing to them if Rossi puts unnatural Ni isotopes into the mix. On the
 contrary, that will only confuse the issue and delay the research.

 2. Suppose he did it. He is bound to be caught sooner or later. If this
 technology ever goes anywhere it will be independently replicated by people
 Rossi never meets, in labs he never goes to. It is certain they will find
 out he is faking. Long term, he will fail. So what short term gain can
 there be?

 3. Along the same lines, if it is not true, he cannot get a patent for
 it, or a Nobel, or anything else.

 4. Since people would soon distrust him, this would get in the way of
 proving the excess heat is real, and setting up commercial ventures. The
 excess heat is the only thing with commercial value at this stage, and
 Rossi is only interested in commercial development. He does not give a fig
 about science.

 Levi and Rossi's backers also have zero motivation to fake the Ni
 results. It would not benefit them at all, for the same set of reasons.

 Can you suggest any reason he *would* want to do this? Since this is
 your hypothesis, it is up to you to give a plausible reason why it might be
 true.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Robert Lynn]

so the claim is essentially that this soup of elements were also consumed
to exhaustion, without changing power input or output as their quantities
reduced, in an amazingly perfect process that has as its only product the
highest binding energy Ni62 (also consuming Ni64) and without creating any
observable radiation during the process and no radiative ash.

It will require a very high level of proof to convince the world of the
truth of that.

On 9 October 2014 11:15, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 You have some unfounded assumptions in your thinking that are the same
 assumption that the testers suffer from.

 The reaction does not center on the nickel or the lithium. The LENR
 transmutation is done in the hydrogen and the aluminum and other elements.

 Did you see this line on page 53?

 Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very
 fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel
 also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these
 are not found in the ash.

 This means that C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn were consumed in the LENR reaction.

 On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 De-cloaking long term lurker.
 Latest test result issues that raise my suspicions:

- The uniformity of the Ni ash concerns me, the burn mechanism
somehow converts all natural Ni isotopes (smaller and larger!! so fusion
and fission in evidence) to Ni62, but with miraculously no radioactive
isotopes produced?
- The test is stopped at a pre-determined time where all the Ni just
happens to have been converted, and nearly all the Li7, Rossi must have
done exhaustive development to judge it so perfectly.
- Huge consumption of Li, Ni 'fuel' - almost to exhaustion, yet the
reaction power and COP appears to not change significantly through the
test.  To me that is exceptionally strange (practically magical) 
 behaviour.

 If I were setting up a fake there are simple means to get power into the
 unit invisibly- like IR or UV lasers, fiber lasers, x-ray tubes, focused
 microwaves etc but I don't have enough info about the setup and facilities
 to make any judgement on things like this.  I'm happy with black box
 reactor approach, and optical thermography/calorimetry is OK for these
 COPs, but flow calorimetry would be better.  Unless and until truly
 independent testers have full control over the environment and calorimetry
 in facilities not controlled by Rossi these tests will not convince the
 world.

 I'll continue to observe, and hold some hope, but given the track record
 of sub-par demos and rumours of unpublished negative results I will need
 independent external testing by other than old associates of Rossi.

 On 9 October 2014 10:26, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Jed, perhaps someone is trying to discredit Rossi and thought this was
 the best way to do so.

 On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:

 If Rossi switched out the ash, he's a fraud.  End of story.


 Here is something you think about. Why would he switch out the ash?
 What possible benefit would that bring to him? What motivation would he
 have? The answers are no reason, none and none. Reasons:

 1. The people paying for this work do not care about what causes the
 effect. They are interested in excess heat. Whether it comes from Ni
 transmutation or zero-point-energy is beside the point. It will not be more
 convincing to them if Rossi puts unnatural Ni isotopes into the mix. On the
 contrary, that will only confuse the issue and delay the research.

 2. Suppose he did it. He is bound to be caught sooner or later. If this
 technology ever goes anywhere it will be independently replicated by people
 Rossi never meets, in labs he never goes to. It is certain they will find
 out he is faking. Long term, he will fail. So what short term gain can
 there be?

 3. Along the same lines, if it is not true, he cannot get a patent for
 it, or a Nobel, or anything else.

 4. Since people would soon distrust him, this would get in the way of
 proving the excess heat is real, and setting up commercial ventures. The
 excess heat is the only thing with commercial value at this stage, and
 Rossi is only interested in commercial development. He does not give a fig
 about science.

 Levi and Rossi's backers also have zero motivation to fake the Ni
 results. It would not benefit them at all, for the same set of reasons.

 Can you suggest any reason he *would* want to do this? Since this is
 your hypothesis, it is up to you to give a plausible reason why it might be
 true.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Robert Lynn]

P29:

By the researchers calculations there are 3MWh released from transmutation
of Li7, and Ni isotopes, and supposedly all of the other initial chemicals
transmuted into Ni too as not present in Ash (which would release huge,
though unquantified amounts of binding energy), yet only 1.5MWh output
recorded, and calorimetry which is supposed to be accurate to ~10%.

more magic involved? fusion + fission transmutations that release copious
neutrinos with no gammas, betas, neutrons or alphas?

It's starting to smell.

On 9 October 2014 11:52, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 I may have missed the paragraph that stated the amount of material that
 was taken from within the reactor as ash.  Did they recover approximately
 the same amount as was put in?

 Also, I do not recall how much of the ash by weight was nickel and
 lithium.  Perhaps I need to read the report again to look for these
 details.  Does anyone know whether or not the isotropic shifted
 metals actually added up to the total amount of nickel, etc. at the
 beginning?  I would not be surprised to find that some of the metals from
 the fuel found their way to being attached to the body of the reactor due
 to the extreme temperatures.

 Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wed, Oct 8, 2014 10:51 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

   Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:


 I can't imagine how, but perhaps what was left behind inside the reactor
 when added to the ash would show that no isotopic shifts took place.


  Sorry, but that makes no sense. The material that came out proves there
 are isotopic shifts. What stayed behind cannot unprove that. What did you
 have in mind? That the other isotopes all got left behind? That would be an
 isotope separation technology of a totally unexpected and inexplicable new
 type. It would be as miraculous as transmutation.

  Also, if you cannot imagine how then your assertion has no place in a
 serious scientific discussion. You have to imagine how, and other people
 have to agree that what you imagine is plausible. This is not a fantasy
 role playing game, where you can invoke dragons or miracles.

  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Who has the best Stirling Engine?

[Robert Lynn]

Not due to environment, all kinematic (=Siemens style 4 cylinder alpha
arrangement) are fundamentally flawed due to highly stressed non-lubricated
piston rod seals that only last a few months in continuous use.

Alternative free-piston engines (eg infinia) are screwed due to very high
tolerances required for gas lubricated bearings/seals and low speed heavy
generators.

Stirling engines are the perpetual bridesmaids of the heat engine world.
 Cyclone power looking good if they can deliver the 30%+ eff promised.


On 27 March 2014 04:37, AlanG a...@magicsound.us wrote:

  I believe the SES Stirling engine was designed by Kockums. It had
 reliability and maintenance problems in the dusty desert environment of the
 Maricopa solar plant, but is claimed to work well in the original submarine
 application:

 http://www.kockums.se/en/products-services/submarines/stirling-aip-system/

 AlanG

 On 3/24/2014 7:42 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:

There are a few efforts that look like they might break out in 2015,
 whether it's Rossi or Brullion or Defkalion or whomever.

  All of them would need to convert heat to electricity.  That means a
 Stirling engine, unless you believe the guys at Deuo Dynamics who have a
 direct thermoelectric conversion in their LENR diode.

  Which Stirling Engine is the best?

  Cyclone Power?  They have Dr. Kim

  Infinia?  bankrupt, sold Stirling stuff to qenergy.com

  Dean Kamen?  The Segway inventor went silent on his Stirling patent
 www.stirlingengine.com/*kamen/dean*_*kamen*_patent.html

  Any others worth looking at?  When LENR hits big, stirling cycle engines
 will have their day in the sun.

Re: [Vo]:ECAT Active Cooling Control

[Robert Lynn]

you can get tremendous thermal conductivity by using smaller tubes.
 hypodermic stainless steel tubing is made cheaply and in very large
quantities.  Alternatively (and more easily) use a pump to actively
circulate the fluid.  But having heat sink fluid close to same temperature
of reaction with low thermal resistance between the two is key to getting
rock-steady control.  Forms a much harder wall against run-away thermal
events.

Above the critical point of water 374°C and 22MPa you do not get steam
bubbles forming - as is a supercritical fluid (single state).

in nearly 3 years with many flawed demos Rossi has not demonstrated any
particular talent for practical management of engineering thermodynamics,
(defkalion showed more much more sensible approaches, even if their heat
generation may not be working as well)  so I do not expect the seeming
control-freak Rossi to do anything particularly clever or even sensible in
this respect now or in near future.



On 9 October 2013 19:54, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 A lot of this depends on the internal heat conductivity structure of the
 device not developing hot-spots that runaway.  Is there a good model of
 this conductivity structure?


 On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 That would be a very simple means of providing excellent high temperature
 control.

 A coil of tube inside the reactor containing water with a pressurised
 cold reservoir attached to one end to keep it filled with water and a
 pressure relief valve at the other end to release steam above a certain
 pressure.  The pressure release setting could control the temperature very
 accurately, at any point from 100°C to 6-700°C, and the steam from the
 pressure relief valve could be sparged into a water tank for simple
 calorimetry.

 The water filled tube would absorb relatively little energy until the
 rector temperature rose above it's set point, at which point it would
 absorb a huge amount of energy with small temperature increase.

 Would give safe reliable hot-cat operation without danger of thermal
 run-away.


 On 9 October 2013 16:18, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote:

  On 9/10/2013 12:20 PM, David Roberson wrote:

 I finally got around to checking my ECAT model performance with active
 cooling control and the results were very interesting.   First, I applied
 normal heating to the device which leads to thermal run away conditions if
 allowed to go beyond a certain critical core temperature.   As expected,
 the model showed that the ECAT began a path toward melt down.

 The path to destruction would proceed even when the original drive is
 removed since the critical temperature was exceeded.  Then, I allowed the
 model to continue heating for a period of time and applied the brakes
 quickly with a new load that withdraws a significant amount of extra heat
 power from the system.  This might be possible in real life if for instance
 a phase change coolant were sprayed onto the core directly.  The extra
 cooling must be applied continuously while the temperature drops and
 until an optimum trip temperature is reached.  The turn around point must
 be above the normal critical temperature since no additional heating is
 required to achieve a condition where thermal run away can begin anew.

 The model demonstrated that this type of cycle could be repeated
 indefinitely while the total power being generated by the device is
 significantly above that safely obtained by heating control alone.  I would
 assume that a cooling method similar to that suggested above would take
 less input power than the standard heating process that I have modeled
 earlier so this type of control would result in a higher COP for the system.

 The model also demonstrated that a continual application of the extra
 cooling resulted in the cores return to room temperature as desired.
 Actually, the powerful cooling was not required to be applied once the
 critical run away point was passed.  In this case, the core would be
 subjected to positive feedback that forces it toward turn off by itself.

 It is evident that a hybrid type of control system that uses both power
 resistive heating as well as active cooling would perform the function.  If
 both techniques were available it might be possible to keep the ECAT
 temperature very near the critical point in which case the COP would be
 extremely high.  For this type of tight control to work the loading as well
 as all the other parameters which cause the critical temperature to vary
 must be kept under tight control.  This might be possible.


 Good to see someone thinking!  In fact I think the problem is really
 simple.  (And there should be no extremely high for overunity devices -
 if they are not beyond infinity then you haven't got an engineer worth his
 salt working on it).  There should be no need even for an active system.
 You simply need a passive system that presents a steeper load onset

Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE

[Robert Lynn]

Don't think I have Microsim pspice lying around anywhere anymore (and
non-GUI is very slow and clumsy if not using it frequently), it was an
excellent little tool (or was in late 90's when I used it last) that I
spent 100's of hours with, and is useful even for the amateur, probably
still out there somewhere on the interwebs if hunted for.

Principle problem with using it is that it doesn't have models for the
clamp ammeters transfer functions.  I also don't have the hours required to
hunt this down and run it at the moment.


On 31 May 2013 22:14, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

 Robert,

 Dave Roberson has challenged anyone to do a spice model RE: at least one
 of the concerns over DC input power.  Do you know how to use Spice, and
 would you be willing to try to duplicate his model in order to determine if
 its valid, and if not, why?

 -Mark

 ** **

 *From:* Robert Lynn [mailto:robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Friday, May 31, 2013 1:26 PM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE

 ** **

 Another EE here (plus mechanical undergrad).  On balance I think Rossi has
 something, but I have been disappointed by too many of his slap-dash demos
 over the last two years to put my reputation on the line in backing him.
  And there are some potentially big holes in the electrical power delivery
 (that have been discussed to death here).  I can't give him the benefit of
 the doubt give his dubious history, and It would need a more rigorously
 instrumented test by people who are more aggressively skeptical than in his
 tests to date for me to give unequivocal support.

 ** **

 On 31 May 2013 18:51, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'd like to throw in as the 4th EE, graduated from University of
 California Santa Barbara 1998.  I would sign.  But if I were there and had
 the wherewithal, I would have insisted on bringing in our own generator to
 provide the input power.  

 ** **

 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:16 AM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com
 wrote:

 I join Terry and Jed on this.  EE, 1962.
 I might hesitate, in view of the subversion of some holy pronouncements of
 the physics establishment, but sign I would.


 Ol' Bab



 On 5/31/2013 12:46 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

 Well, I graduated from Georgia Tech in 1977 with an EE, am a
 registered professional engineer and manage a group of mostly EE
 consulting engineers and I agree with Jed.

 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de
 wrote:

 Jed wrote: I do not think it takes long for an electrical engineer to
 conclude that there is no possibility of fraud in these tests.

 I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who would
 sign such a statement.

 ** **

 ** **

 ** **

 ** **

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Robert Lynn]

Kevin, that doesn't look like sneering to me, more like simply Joshua's
assessment of the motivations for positions that others are taking, without
invective or nastiness that I can see.

I am generally saddened to see the recent witch-hunt/culling of
dissent/heresy in the Vort.  The 'sneering' rule is being applied
asymmetrically, and frankly of late it is becoming more like a doctrinal
church.

Killing off opposing views like Abd, Andrew and others does not improve the
quality of the discourse.  I like that imagination, wild ideas and hope
have free rein here, but I also think it is essential to temper that with
dissenting views to get to the heart of problems.


On 31 May 2013 10:29, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 I thought that the DC issue was put to rest.


 Only according to the credulous true believers.




 you want it to be true.


 ***Sneering.  Against the rules.

 Joshua, I'm gonna give you a big hint to realize just how stupid it is to
 engage in this manner.

 Put yourself in the shoes of those 7 scientists who have placed their
 reputations on the line.  They have a 6 month test coming up.  They're
 gonna need someone who's creative and committed to rooting out fraud and
 magic tricks. Where do you think they'll look?  Well, the first place
 they'll look is Vortex, to see who's been challenging the vorts with some
 fire-branded  tested skepticism.  But they will quickly overlook someone
 who seems dishonest enough to sabotage the results.

 So, do yourself a favor and get rid of the sneering.   Honest skepticism
 is welcome.

Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE

[Robert Lynn]

Another EE here (plus mechanical undergrad).  On balance I think Rossi has
something, but I have been disappointed by too many of his slap-dash demos
over the last two years to put my reputation on the line in backing him.
 And there are some potentially big holes in the electrical power delivery
(that have been discussed to death here).  I can't give him the benefit of
the doubt give his dubious history, and It would need a more rigorously
instrumented test by people who are more aggressively skeptical than in his
tests to date for me to give unequivocal support.


On 31 May 2013 18:51, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'd like to throw in as the 4th EE, graduated from University of
 California Santa Barbara 1998.  I would sign.  But if I were there and had
 the wherewithal, I would have insisted on bringing in our own generator to
 provide the input power.


 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:16 AM, David L Babcock 
 ol...@rochester.rr.comwrote:

 I join Terry and Jed on this.  EE, 1962.
 I might hesitate, in view of the subversion of some holy pronouncements
 of the physics establishment, but sign I would.


 Ol' Bab



 On 5/31/2013 12:46 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

 Well, I graduated from Georgia Tech in 1977 with an EE, am a
 registered professional engineer and manage a group of mostly EE
 consulting engineers and I agree with Jed.

 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de
 wrote:

 Jed wrote: I do not think it takes long for an electrical engineer to
 conclude that there is no possibility of fraud in these tests.

 I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who
 would
 sign such a statement.

Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

[Robert Lynn]

Wasn't there a similar AC power measurement cock-up on a previous 2011 or
2012 Rossi test?


On 28 May 2013 14:56, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:

 **
 I said
  *The measurement task has been made unnecessarily difficult by
 specifying 3-phase input to the control box.  Normal single-phase input
 would suffice here, given the power levels.*


 There is nothing difficult about measuring 3-phase power. Power meters
 have been doing this for 130 years.

 Buildings in industrial parks are often served with 3-phase power. I
 assume Rossi is developing his control circuitry to work with 3-phase power
 for this reason. There is nothing nefarious about that.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

[Robert Lynn]

Totally agree Andrew.  Rossi is possibly snatching defeat from the jaws of
victory by not allowing sufficiently clear measurement.

I find myself in a similar situation to 2011, tests that looked initially
compelling, appear with greater thought to have potentially significant
flaws.  There is no need for 6 month long tests.  He could make billions in
a matter of weeks with just one unambiguous well documented 4-day demo.
 Yet for 2 and a half years he has prevented this from happening and now
(seemingly) plans to waste another year on similarly poorly instrumented
closed testing.  In my opinion his behaviour is starting to give off a
nasty odour.


On 26 May 2013 14:42, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:

 If you are a scientist, then what you do is cut the Gordian knot of doubt.
 The resistors are powered single-phase in the latest incarnation of the
 control, meaning a normal 2-wire connection. You put a scope across these
 while the device is in operation, and ditto a spectrum analyzer. If you are
 disallowed to do so - not by some fundamental law of physics, but by Rossi
 -
 then you conclude that it is not possible to conclude anything about the
 real COP value.

 That's if you're an honest scientist. YMMV.

 Andrew


 - Original Message - From: Ransom Wuller rwul...@peaknet.net
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:44 AM

 Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis


  I loved Carl Sagan but the biggest mistake he made in his lifetime was
 making that phrase popular.  A claim requires evidence, it doesn't matter
 what kind of claim.

 If what you are saying is science can't consider the possibility of
 something extraordinary unless they are clobbered over the head into
 submission, science is tantamount to religion and not science.  Obviously,
 for science to conclude anything the proof needs to be conclusive, but
 that is true of any claim.

 I would never urge a lack of prudence. But your discussion (what you are
 calling it) can't be advanced to certainty and that seems to be what you
 are after.  I have seen and read enough to conclude that some deception
 can be imagined.  There is likely no proof of deception and probably won't
 be any.  If some is shown it sould be considered, but lacking any what
 more can be said.  Everyone is likely to have a different opinion as to
 how likely such a crime is.

 The question is, given the above what do you do as a scientist regarding
 the recently disclosed report?  I was simply pointing out that ignoring it
 or concluding without proof of fraud that it isn't some evidence is at
 least imprudent.

 Ransom

  If it's silly to urge prudence, then go ahead and be as wise as you
 like.  Your handwaving generalities and misrepresentations of my position
 don't progress the discussion any further, unfortunately.

 I will say two things: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
 evidence, and, if this were Fleischmann, I would not be nearly as
 concerned.

 Andrew
   - Original Message -
   From: Randy Wuller
   To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
   Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:54 AM
   Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis


   Andrew:


   Your point is not well taken.  Proof is a continuum.  In this case you
 must posit fraud to counter proof.  Fraud may or may not be actually
 possible in this case but it can always be imagined.


   The real question is whether the scientific community is required to
 ignore these results because they can imagine fraud.  Such a position is
 beyond lunacy to me.  Of course not.  What they should do is consider
 them in light of the range of proof from zero to conclusive and if they
 feel conclusive proof is absent, insist that the next investigation
 remedy the issue.


   They certainly should not take the position that since we can imagine a
 possibility where the proof is not conclusive that we can then, 1)
 ignore the results, or 2) without proof of the imagined exception
 conclude NO proof exists.


   You seem to be insisting on black or white even to embrace the
 possible.
  This the kind of silly position taken by Cude.


   Ransom

   Sent from my iPhone

   On May 26, 2013, at 1:19 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:


 The bottom line is that currently there is no way to deny the thesis
 that all the output power derives from the input power. The due
 diligence exercised by all these august testers was quite frankly of a
 disappointingly low standard, because they failed to obtain a
 resolution to this question. What is worse, they appear not to have
 been aware of it, since it finds no mention in the report. Elephant in
 the room syndrome, quite likely.

 Andrew
   - Original Message -
   From: Rich Murray
   To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ; Rich Murray ; Joshua Cude
   Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:54 PM
   Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis


   Thanks, Duncan --


   

Re: [Vo]:web feed

[Robert Lynn]

On 25 May 2013 21:35, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:


 That is precisely why I (and Duncan Cumming) are calling for a test
 whereby there is no power input for a decent amount of time.


 My understanding is that the Hot Cat will blow up if you do that. It is
 not stable running in heat after death mode.


If it operates in the way he claims and Dave has modelled then all he needs
to do is put the reactor in a high temperature thermostatically controlled
fluid bath, like molten salt, that has very steeply increased heat transfer
out of the reactor when it rises above the bath temperature and it will
then run just fine in self sustaining operation without electrical input
and using a thermostatically controlled feed of coolant water to control
the bath temperature.  And I am sorry, but if he hasn't figured that out in
the last 2 years then he is a total muppet.

Re: [Vo]:Some reasons Rossi has personal credibility

[Robert Lynn]

Strange, in my observation 3 things define the best engineers I know (of
few hundred I have met):
1 Excellent/encyclopedic memory - at least for engineering stuff, may not
be able to remember their friends names or where they put their keys.
2 Good at mental calculation (assess what-ifs quickly).
3 Powerful work ethic.

Raw smarts help too.


On 23 May 2013 23:05, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote:


 . . . it doesn't surprise me

 that someone with a poor memory can also be an excellent engineer. The
 two traits go together. With me, for instance, it's because I have a
 hard time remembering, that I have become an excellent problem solver.
 When I look at code that I've written, just a few months earlier; it's
 like looking at new code which I've never seen before. I then have to
 reconstruct the solutions to the problems -- again -- from scratch.


 That is an interesting observation. I have the same kind of mind. I too
 see programs afresh the next day.

 That is helpful for jobs that require you to do the same thing over and
 over, year after year, such as teaching 5th grade. I imagine you would be
 bored to tears doing that if you could not find the same old historylesson
 interesting the 10th time around.

 I suppose Yul Brynner must have had this quality since he was able to
 perform The King And I on stage 4,625 (!) times. I guess that is a good
 thing.

 I think that the ability to forget is essential to many formsof
 creativity. There are people who do not forget things. They have prodigious
 memories and they can remember details from years or decades ago. If this
 ability gave us an evolutionary advantage everyone would have it. Since
 most of us tend to forget things I assume that promotes survival in natural
 circumstances.

 - Jed

[Vo]:Why did Rossi prevent detailed measurement of the power input?

[Robert Lynn]

This has only just occurred to me, but in my mind is a bit of a red flag:

The reactor vessel is a sealed metal container, no electrical or magnetic
signal of any frequency will penetrate it (It is a faraday cage).  And all
of the resistive heating elements are positioned around it, so they do
nothing but deliver heat to the reactor contents - no special magnetic or
electrical excitation can pass through the reactor vessel.  All of these
configurational details were revealed to the testers by Rossi.

So why did Rossi feel the need to prevent detailed analysis of the input
power to these resistors that are no more than resistive heaters? We know
he ran it in at least a partially pulsed 35% on 65% off mode with period of
about 6 minutes from the thermography.   So what possible harm could have
come from allowing continuous measurement of voltage drop and current flow
through the resistors?

As such preventing that measurement serves no sensible purpose that I, or
any other engineer/scientist could see, it is a pointless obfuscation.  All
it achieves is raising suspicion about just what electrical power is really
flowing through those resistors.

Re: [Vo]:Why did Rossi prevent detailed measurement of the power input?

[Robert Lynn]

To repeat myself, there will be no significant em field penetrating the
reactor.  So don't try to fool yourself that there is some special secret
about using em fields to instigate or promote the reaction, also Rossi has
claimed in past to have it running using gas heating.  Rossi's setup only
allows for heat to get in.  The skin depth of the 3mm thick SS vessel will
exclude all fields above probably about 100-200Hz entirely, and will
greatly attenuate lower frequencies as well (DC would get through) but the
surrounding magnetic fields in the resistors themselves are very weak
anyway. (not that many turns).

If he wanted or needed magnetic fields to penetrate the reactor then he
would not be using spiral wound resistors arrayed around the reactor
vessel, he would have a coil wound around the reactor vessel.

As such preventing measurement of current and voltage through the heating
resistors looks very suspicious - as there is nothing there to be sensibly
hidden if we take him at his word.


On 24 May 2013 17:56, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  Looks like Dardik’s superwave tech is an application – not a granted
 patent

 ** **


 http://www.google.com/patents/US20080316782?dq=energetics+dardikei=LJufUbHwM8XsiwLe5oDgDgcl=en
 

 ** **

 ** **

 Mark,

 ** **

 In the end – it looks to me like the secrecy about the wave-from was
 probably due to similarity to the Energetics patent and not a “trade
 secret” per se; and that Rossi is using the magnetic properties of the
 waveform to stimulate the nickel powder, which is itself ferromagnetic. **
 **

 ** **

 Would you agree?

 ** **

 SS spec sheet:

 ** **


 http://www.northamericanstainless.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Grade-310S-314.pdf
 

 ** **

 ** **

 ** **

 *From:* MarkI-ZeroPoint 

 ** **

 “It is possible that RF would pass through these ceramics, no?”

 Yes, more than likely that RF could pass thru a ceramic, however, if
 electrically conductive, then probably not.  

 ** **

 An E or B field will most likely go thru the ceramics, but the reactor
 vessel is stainless steel:

 ** **

 “The  most  important  element  of  the  E-Cat  HT  was  lodged  inside
  the  structure.  

 It consisted of an AISI 310 steel cylinder, 3 mm thick and 33 mm in
 diameter, housing the powder 

 charges.  Two  AISI  316  steel  cone-shaped  caps  were  hot-hammered
 in  the  cylinder,  sealing  it 

 hermetically. Cap adherence was obtained by exploiting the higher thermal
 expansion coefficient 

 of AISI 316 with respect to AISI 310 steel.”

 ** **

 End caps are made of 316 due to greater coef of thermal expansion:

 310:15.5x10-6

 316:16.5x10-6

 ** **

 For our noninvasive glucose sensor, we used a Ni-plated soft iron housing
 which acts as both a faraday cage to shield outside EM, and to complete a
 magnetic flux circuit which channels the flux from internal permanent mags.
 

 ** **

 Since stainless is only about 50% Fe, a mag fld should penetrate it, but
 due to its electrical conductivity, an E-fld would not.  In that case, is
 he using magnetic properties to help control the reaction?  Is it causing
 alignment of grains, or forcing dipole oscillations to be aligned?

 ** **

 -Mark

 ** **

 ** **

 *From:* Jones Beene 

 ** **

 Robert Lynn wrote:

  

 And all of the resistive heating elements are positioned around it, so
 they do nothing but deliver heat to the reactor contents - no special
 magnetic or electrical excitation can pass through the reactor vessel.  **
 **

 ** **

 There is still confusion on that point. From Forbes article: 

 ** **


 http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/
 

 ** **

 They described the E-Cat HT as a cylinder having a silicon nitride ceramic
 outer shell, 33 cm in length, and 10 cm in diameter. A second cylinder made
 of a different ceramic material (corundum) was located within the shell...
 

 ** **

 It is possible that RF would pass through these ceramics, no?

Re: [Vo]:Why did Rossi prevent detailed measurement of the power input?

[Robert Lynn]

Mark, please note I have design experience in electromagnetics (postgrad
degree in EE machine design) so as I said excepted DC (in common electrical
engineering parlance that is the non-time varying portion) and possibly
some very attenuated low frequency (100's of Hz) EM my point remains.
 Rossi is (to me worryingly) needlessly obfuscating/preventing measurement
of voltage current and so power in resistive heaters, because they do no
more than supply heat to the reactor, there is no other magic in what they
contribute.

Many here would do well to spend a minute or two reading up on the simple
concept of AC EM field exclusion via skin effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect


On 24 May 2013 22:18, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

 Mr. Lynn,

 You’re a bit too quick on the trigger…

 ** **

 Let me repeat myself, a **magnetic** field WILL penetrate most austenitic
 stainless steels.

 ** **

 However, I know that a static mag-field is not the same as the magnetic
 component of an oscillating EM field, so I called a colleague who worked
 for Varian for 40 years, and who has a lot of magnetics expertise.  He said
 that static, and possibly VLF, magnetic fields will penetrate nonmagnetic
 stainless steels, but that the magnetic component of EM waves of any
 significant frequency will probably not.

 ** **

 Another consideration, and I think this was mentioned in the Collective
 two (or was it three) years ago right after Rossi’s first January
 demonstration, is that when the electrical resistance heaters are energized
 (with DC), they will generate a mag-fld around them.  This can probably be
 considered a static mag-field, and will likely penetrate the non-magnetic
 310 stainless cylinder, so the internal core of the reactor may very well
 feel this PWM-modulated field.

 ** **

 -Mark Iverson

 ** **

 *From:* Robert Lynn [mailto:robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Friday, May 24, 2013 10:57 AM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Why did Rossi prevent detailed measurement of the
 power input?

 ** **

 To repeat myself, there will be no significant em field penetrating the
 reactor.  So don't try to fool yourself that there is some special secret
 about using em fields to instigate or promote the reaction, also Rossi has
 claimed in past to have it running using gas heating.  Rossi's setup only
 allows for heat to get in.  The skin depth of the 3mm thick SS vessel will
 exclude all fields above probably about 100-200Hz entirely, and will
 greatly attenuate lower frequencies as well (DC would get through) but the
 surrounding magnetic fields in the resistors themselves are very weak
 anyway. (not that many turns).  

 ** **

 If he wanted or needed magnetic fields to penetrate the reactor then he
 would not be using spiral wound resistors arrayed around the reactor
 vessel, he would have a coil wound around the reactor vessel.

 ** **

 As such preventing measurement of current and voltage through the heating
 resistors looks very suspicious - as there is nothing there to be sensibly
 hidden if we take him at his word.

 ** **

 On 24 May 2013 17:56, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Looks like Dardik’s superwave tech is an application – not a granted patent
 

  


 http://www.google.com/patents/US20080316782?dq=energetics+dardikei=LJufUbHwM8XsiwLe5oDgDgcl=en
 

  

  

 Mark,

  

 In the end – it looks to me like the secrecy about the wave-from was
 probably due to similarity to the Energetics patent and not a “trade
 secret” per se; and that Rossi is using the magnetic properties of the
 waveform to stimulate the nickel powder, which is itself ferromagnetic. **
 **

  

 Would you agree?

  

 SS spec sheet:

  


 http://www.northamericanstainless.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Grade-310S-314.pdf
 

  

  

  

 *From:* MarkI-ZeroPoint 

  

 “It is possible that RF would pass through these ceramics, no?”

 Yes, more than likely that RF could pass thru a ceramic, however, if
 electrically conductive, then probably not.  

  

 An E or B field will most likely go thru the ceramics, but the reactor
 vessel is stainless steel:

  

 “The  most  important  element  of  the  E-Cat  HT  was  lodged  inside
  the  structure.  

 It consisted of an AISI 310 steel cylinder, 3 mm thick and 33 mm in
 diameter, housing the powder 

 charges.  Two  AISI  316  steel  cone-shaped  caps  were  hot-hammered
 in  the  cylinder,  sealing  it 

 hermetically. Cap adherence was obtained by exploiting the higher thermal
 expansion coefficient 

 of AISI 316 with respect to AISI 310 steel.”

  

 End caps are made of 316 due to greater coef of thermal expansion:

 310:15.5x10-6

 316:16.5x10-6

  

 For our noninvasive glucose sensor, we used a Ni-plated soft iron housing
 which acts as both

Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test -how to melt ceramic

[Robert Lynn]

And what of the reagents within the reactor? the hydride or other hydrogen
supplying material.  These are very combustible/oxidisable in air at high
temp, quite likely to the point of melting stainless.


On 24 May 2013 22:30, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

  David, have you ever actually heated stainless steel. I suggest you take
 a spoon from your collection in the kitchen and heat it to red hot.  You
 will find that the spoon will turn black but will not ignite. If you keep
 heating to a higher temperature, it will soften and bend, but will not
 ignite.  So tell me, why would you suggest the stainless in the Rossi
 device would ignite?

 Ed Storms



 On May 24, 2013, at 3:21 PM, David L Babcock wrote:

  I have no idea what it would take to ignite stainless steel, but this
 may be what happened.  A breech occurred, air entered, steel burned.
 Enough extra heat generated to melt the ceramic.

 The chemical energy for this short event would be plenty, no need to have
 NAEs still operable in liquid state!

 Ol' Bab, who was as engineer...



 On 5/24/2013 2:38 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

 Please people, stay in the real world. The description Alex gives has no
 relationship to what has been described in the paper or to what is
 possible.  We have no way of knowing the melting point of that material
 claim to melt. We have no way of knowing how much melted. At the vary
 least, once the stainless steel container in which the Ni was located
 formed a hole, the H2 would escape and the nuclear reaction would stop. In
 addition, we do not know the melting point of the Ni in the container
 because it was reacted with a secret catalyst. In other words, we know
 nothing that would support such speculations.

  Ed Storms


  On May 24, 2013, at 12:17 PM, David Roberson wrote:

  Axil,

 You pose some interesting questions.  If what you suggest is true, then
 this form of LENR would be a bulk effect.

 Dave
 -Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Fri, May 24, 2013 2:12 pm
 Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

  The other very important piece of the puzzle that this Rossi demo has
 revealed is how extreme the LENR can get. This tells us important new
 things about the LENR reaction.
 When the E-Cat melts down, its temperature reaches at least 2000C. The
 melting point of the ceramic used is in that temperature range.
 We know that ceramic is used in the reactor and that the LENR reaction can
 melt it. This is exciting.
 At that temperature, the nickel powder and the AISI 310 steel has long
 reached its melting point.
 The LENR reaction must be able to function in a liquid metal environment.
 The concept of an NAE supported in only solid material must be discarded.
 LENR must function in liquid and vapor.
 Riddle me that one batman.
 Collective, in other words, I will be awaiting your theories.


  SNIP

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Robert Lynn]

Have a bit more of a think about it Jed, IR laser beams wouldn't need to be
any more intense than the heat being radiated by the E-cat.  In fact by
shining in from multiple directions they could be less intense than the
emitted heat from the E-cat (like concentrating relatively diffuse sunlight
to make something hotter at the focus point).  So how would that burn or
blind people?  Are you burnt or blinded by looking at something glowing
red-hot?

As for the other; are you seriously disputing that 2kW of AC electrical
power could be sent through those wires to the Ecat?  Take test 1: If 400V
rms AC was connected then that is only 5A rms which a 1mm diameter copper
wire can easily handle.

Now set up your 'visible' signal to be 50hZ 400V 2.5A turned on about 1/3
of time.  Meter detects this with ease.
Add a 50khz AC 400V rms 4A rms AC supply to that and you deliver another
1600W  that is invisible to the low frequency sensitive meter.
Knowing more about the meter would allow more sophisticated choices to beat
it.  DC might also be undetectable depending upon the instruments used.

Neither of these scenarios is likely, but they don't appear to be ruled out
by what is published.  The November melt-down demo is also very interesting.



On 22 May 2013 23:15, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I wrote:


 You are joking! I have seen lasers strike objects, such as the items in a
 cash register checkout line. You can't miss that. It is obvious. We have
 all seen it.


 Oops. You said infrared lasers. My mistake.

 My other points hold. People would be burned and blinded.

 It just isn't possible.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi hotcat paper --- shutrossidown

[Robert Lynn]

Gary Wright, Rossi's Florida factory claim nemesis


On 23 May 2013 18:56, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:

 Someone actually paid for the url shutdownrossi.com ? Altruistic rarely
 extends to paid attacks... I would ignore any information on a site with
 this sort of url.
 Fran

 -Original Message-
 From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com]
 Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:38 PM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Levi hotcat paper --- shutrossidown

 Clearly not impressed.  Annotated paper at :


 http://shutdownrossi.com/e-cat-science/thoughts-on-the-latest-andrea-rossi-giuseppe-levi-and-hanno-essen-paper/

 I've only skimmed it. Jed is mentioned.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Robert Lynn]

An IR laser wouldn't need to be intense, it/they could be spread out over a
wide beam/spot, not eye dangerous, and not particularly noticeable if you
weren't looking at it and you were in close proximity to the hot e-cat
(could even be optically triggered to turn off off if someone moved in
front).  Not saying it was done, just that it could be done, and would only
cost a few $1000s at ~$4/Watt for laser diode bars.

And Andrew makes a valid point about the power supplies.  Clamp ammeters
are a bad solution compared to inline resistance measurement, + voltages
across all the wires.  The meter in question can measure harmonic
distortion, but looks at a primary frequency and assumes balanced 3 phase
AC, so an additional high frequency, DC or other distortions would likely
be invisible to the meter.

It appears that these clamp ammeters on this AC optimised meter cannot
measure DC, which is unfortunate seeing that some Hall-Effect type clamp
ammeters can.
http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/clamp-meter-pce-holding-gmbh-clamp-meter-pce-830-1-det_56526.htm?_list=kat_listpos=12
Most three phase sources also have a ground wire, that would be unlikely to
have been checked for current (I doubt the testers could check this with
the equipment they had without disconnecting the power supply, which they
probably couldn't during the test).

And the possibility of a DC supply grounded through the frame would also
need to be checked - could be done by putting clamp around all wires, just
as for the 3 phase power supply.

Point is that it looks like it might be possible to hide additional
electrical power supply within what the testers looked at, and we don't
have enough information from the testers to check on all of these issues,
however it is possible that they performed sufficient checks.

I am on balance fairly convinced, but like many I harbour doubts about
Rossi based on his dodgy history and apparent willingness to mislead at
times.  It needs rigorous (skeptical) testing to really get doubters onside.


On 22 May 2013 02:47, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers.  Can you
 imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path
 radiation caused serious injuries?  This is far outside the realm of
 reality.

 The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be
 set aside with the proper scrutiny.

 Dave
  -Original Message-
 From: Andrew andrew...@att.net
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

  Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly
 coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know.

 If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.

 Andrew

 - Original Message -
 *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

  And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that
 they were all blinded by the high power IR.  Give me a break.

 Dave
  -Original Message-
 From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

 Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.

 Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.

 Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
 create spot heating of the test device.

 :-)

Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released

[Robert Lynn]

Haven't commented here in a while, pretty excited that after a couple of
years of Rossi's shenanigans it's all perhaps about to happen.  But I come
from a hard test and measurement background (mechanical and electrical
engineer, specialising in thermodynamics) and am by nature quite skeptical,
so while compelling I am still not totally satisfied with this demo in
Rossi's own facilities using Rossi's own equipment and setup.

That is singularly because it relies upon Rossi being honest - something of
which I am not totally assured given his history (I thought his Mat Lewans
demo looked distinctly dodgy, and some of his others weren't great either).
 And I can think of a number of ways of cheating to get heat into the
reactor: Altering the electrical measurement equipment supplied, fiber
optic lasers hidden in cable, two-strand wires inside wired clamped
ammeters (no net current), infrared, uv, x-ray, or radio frequency heat
sources directed at reactor from afar, delivering combustible fuel into
reactor via wires/cables (0.05g/s for 2000W).  Probably most of these could
be ruled out by the observers present, but as they are associates of Rossi
I really don't know if they were looking for such.  It would have been a
far better approach for Rossi to engage aggressively skeptical testers to
do the job.
http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/power-analyzer-pce-holding-gmbh-power-analyzer-pce-830-1-det_60706.htm
Anyway I look forward to more demos in preferably neutral locations to
assuage my concerns.


On 21 May 2013 14:44, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:

 - one way to be wrong would be to make a temperature error. since power in
 in T^4, error is 5^1/4, about 1.5, thus +50%/-33%, assuming no convection.


 Yes, temperature measurement is critical. That is why they checked the
 surface temperature with a thermocouple to confirm the IR camera is set
 correctly. In the previous test, they just assumed emissivity is 1, meaning
 as bad as it can be.

 It makes no sense to assume no convection. There has to be convection.

 Also, as you see in Fig. 10, the flange is large and it must be radiating
 and convecting a lot of heat. They did not try to measure that.

 On p. 20 they say unaccounted for heat losses were 58 W out of 810 W
 during the calibration with joule heating. 7%. Actually, that is remarkably
 good accounting for a system like this.



 Am I reasoning well ?
 is COP=1 ruled out ?


 I think so, but actually even if the COP was exactly 1, that would
 indicate excess heat. You would not expect it to be better than 0.93 as
 shown by the 7% loss during calibration.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Bribing 2,000 climatologists

[Robert Lynn]

Jed the issue is not the warming, it is the attribution.

As all scientists know correlation does not equal causation. - particularly
true when we are only looking at a couple of decades out of a series that
is literally billions of years long. There are demonstrably (historically
any time before the 1950's) other large and mostly unknown causative
effects with huge influences that are not CO2.  Take for example
temperatures spiking upwards by about 1.5°C at the start of the Minoan and
the Medieval Warm periods 3300 and 1100 years ago, and about 1°C at the
start of the Roman warm period:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
these other causes are as yet unknown, and cannot be ruled out as drivers
for modern warming - and the 1100 year periodicity of Minoan-Roman-Medieval
and now modern Warming should make any scientist suspicious of what is
driving our current warming.

So when you see that 97% figure quoted the remember that the question asked
was: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in
changing mean global temperatures?:
*
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/
*

I am surprised they could find even 3% that would deny warming is
occurred during the 20th century, and how could humans not be having some
influence?  How could anyone answer such a question in the negative?  It's
patently a ridiculous (and politically loaded) question to ask when the
data is so unequivocal.  But to then quote that as support for the IPCC
consensus is disingenuous at best.  What is needed is a more nuanced
question asking opinions on what proportion of recent warming is produced
by CO2 - and say 5 bins to group responses, and a similar question on
likely future trends.  This is sadly not something that any IPCC aligned
group wants to ask because they wouldn't get the black and white result
they need to support their particular its all CO2 belief system.

And despite what you might believe there are very large numbers of
professional scientists who doubt the validity of the IPCC CO2 driven
thermageddon thesis eg 3+ including 9000+ PhD's in this one petition:
http://www.petitionproject.org/



On 5 December 2012 02:12, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Some people here think there may be a conspiracy of climatologists to
 bamboozle the public. Alternatively, someone may have threatened these
 researchers, bashing in their cars. People who take these hypotheses
 seriously should give some thought to the practical ramifications. Such as
 --

 How many people do you need to bribe? CNN polled 3,146 climate experts.
 97% agreed that global warming is real.


 http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD

 It would not do any good to bribe 10 of them, or 100. Scientists do not
 have much influence on one another. The top 100 leaders in a field could
 not impose fraudulent data on all of the others. Someone would spot it, and
 would use this information to oust a top leader and take his place. They
 often fight for power.

 So you need to bribe many. Perhaps not all. Let's say you bribe 2,000 and
 you hope the others will go along because they don't want to be in the
 minority. Scientists seldom worry about being in the minority, and they
 often pay no attention to what other scientists say, so this is a risky
 proposition. You may need to bribe 97% to pull this off, but let's say
 2,000.

 How much do you need to pay? These are middle class people who studied
 until age 30 to enter the profession. They probably never did anything
 else, and they are not qualified to do much else. If they are caught taking
 a bribe, they will be fired and their lives will be ruined. They will spend
 the rest of their lives working in fast food restaurants and living on food
 stamps. I suppose they make an average middle class salary of $50,000. You
 can't bribe them for $5,000 each. No one would risk ruin for that.

 You can't give them $1 million each. Their colleagues and the IRS would
 notice they live in huge houses and drive Ferraris to work. Also, that
 would cost $2 billion. That is a heck of a lot of money to risk on
 scientists, who are undependable at best, and who have little or no
 influence on society. Even though these people have published hundreds of
 papers, Congress has done nothing to address the problem. So the person
 spending $2 billion to bribe them has so far earned nothing in return.

 I suppose $200,000 would be a reasonable sum, paid over 10 years. That's
 $400 million. I wish someone would bribe the cold fusion researchers for
 that amount! And me!!!

 So you pay them. Many problems might arise --

 You have to hope their bosses, their unbribed colleagues, new reporters,
 bloggers and others never hear a word about this. No one notices these
 researchers are suddenly flush, buying new cars and 

Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

[Robert Lynn]

Jed, the argument from authority approach with regard to climate change
doesn't work because there are so many highly educated dissenting voices,
so many examples of deficient analysis work in Climatology (check out
Climate Audit), and yet seemingly so little interest in improving woefully
bad scientific practices amongst climatologists.

No one (with a brain) disputes that we have experienced warming during the
20th century, and most agree that CO2 increases are causing some warming,
but there is way too much evidence that chalking it all up to increases in
CO2 is wrong.  Predictions of several degrees of future temperature rise
are based on extrapolations of a temperature increase from 1980-2000 that
has since halted, but that rise was similar in size and speed to the
1920-1940's - which was before CO2 took off.  The projections of
catastrophe are further founded on assumed large positive water vapour
feedbacks multiplying the impact of CO2 by 2-8 times that are looking less
and less tenable as more data is collected.  A rather nice summary of
uncertainty in that at:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/

Amongst the many holes:
- CO2 started rising sharply in the mid 40's, yet the world then cooled for
30 years till the mid 70's.
- world has not warmed in the last 15 years (how much longer does that
trend need to continue before IPCC acknowledges their model predictions are
wrong?)
- missing tropospheric hot spot that is a central prediction of CAGW
climate modelling (in other branches of science failed predictions = failed
theory/model, but apparently not so in climatology)
- lack of acceleration in sea level rise during last few decades - the rate
is basically unchanged for 80 years (since before significant CO2 rise)
- temperatures that have varied by 3°C during the current interglacial
(holocene) for unknown reasons.
- temperatures getting colder as CO2 level rose during last 7000 years of
holocene (since holocene climate optimum that was a lot warmer than today) :
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
- unexplained 1100 year periodicity in historical warming (Minoan Warm
period, Roman Warm period, Medieval warm period, next one in that series
would be ... now, but no, this time it's definitely all CO2.
- no explanation as to why 18th century little ice age (basically the
coldest period in last 8000 years) occurred.
- claims of worse storms, droughts, heat waves, floods etc
in disagreement with historical data.
- Global Climate Models do not account for very long period ocean and
thermo-haline circulation processes that appear to dominate climate as
evidenced by the well known 60 year PDO and AMO cycles.
- GCM's do not account for noted correlation between sun-spot cycle and
temperature.
- GCM's not even remotely capable of modelling cloud physics (and quite
probably never will be given difficulties of modelling cloud nucleation,
and associated convective circulation process on a grid that is fine enough
to be useful, turbulence modelling on a mind numbing scale).  You cannot
hope to get modelling right if you can't accurately model cloud formation,
as even a 1% change in cloud cover has more effect than CO2.
- GCM's tuned in post-hoc manner by fudge factors like aerosols when the
the historical concentration and distribution of aerosols is not known, and
even if they were known their actual influence on climate is not known
(being tied up with cloud nucleation physics and some really hairy
light propagation physics).  Exceptionally poor practice that is more
augury than science.

Most educated people, particularly anyone with a background in STEM find
that the more they look into catastrophic CAGW the less convinced they are.
 In fact you could say that it is a perfect example of a positive feedback
system in human terms when the proponents (Climatologists, Activists,
Politicians, Corporates involved in carbon trading) of CAGW get ever more
power and money for creating and promulgating bigger and badder scare
stories.  It's naive to think that the IPCC could ever let the message be a
balanced one of scientific uncertainty in the face of such powerful and
venal motivating factors.


On 4 December 2012 12:25, Robert McKay rob...@mckay.com wrote:

 On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:02:33 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 I will grant that in some cases, experts are blinded by their own
 professional knowledge and by the bias of the field as a whole. That
 is why many physicists do not believe in cold fusion. But the key


 That's pretty much exactly the problem with climatologists- they only
 believe in global warming (sorry climate change) because that's what they
 do.. as you say the field as a whole is biased.

 IMO you don't need to know anything about climate science to understand
 global warming - it's all about politics and banking (imagine a global
 economy 

Re: [Vo]:National Ignition Facility, not one watt?

[Robert Lynn]

On 28 November 2012 16:29, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:


 The take-home, though, is that NIF is far, far from practical power
 generation. Cold fusion long ago reached this relaxed definition of
 ignition. I'll venture a prediction, based on what I've been seeing, that
 we'll have practical power from cold fusion long before hot fusion. A
 corollary: the huge hot fusion programs will be shut down within a few
 years.


Probably a safe prediction, through It is interesting to note that
Tri-Alpha now have $140 million in funding from private investors/VC's,
including Goldman Sachs.  Unlike the government such investors expect
results and don't give people money just to look at interesting things.
 While they have released minimal info to the public it does suggest that
they, and their investors, believe that they have a very good chance of
making hot fusion work soon enough to pay back some pretty large up-front
investment.

Polywell is similarly running dark at the moment (hope for a little more
light soon) with continued navy funding - suggesting that they are seeing
positive results.  There is also another privately funded group General
Fusion (steam powered liquid imploding liner on Magnetised Target Plasma)
that has 10's of millions in funding.  I think there is more reason to be
optimistic about the prospects of these small left-field players than there
is about big ticket ITER and NIF that we know won't work for at least
economic reasons (even if their huge technical problems are solved).  Yes
these little guys have technical hurdles to clear, but at least they have
some chance of being commercially viable if those problems can be solved.

Re: [Vo]:A dreadful price to pay

[Robert Lynn]

Another hyperbolic Climate Change scare story.

Arabica is grown between 600 and 2000m altitude.  At typical 0.65°C per
100m lapse rate in tropics that is a about an 8°C temperature range.  The
world warmed by 0.7°C last century, (though no rise in last 15 years) so
that the same temperature occurs 100m higher up the mountain, and seemingly
current coffee production is doing very well.  If the world heated up by a
further 2°C then the optimal growing region might be 300m higher.

In Jamaica Blue Mountain Coffee is grown between 900 and 1700m elevation -
a range of 800m or about 5°C

One wonders how these coffee plants ever survived the 10°C colder
temperatures of the last ice age, or the 3°C hotter temperatures of the
Holocene Climate Optimum 5-9000 years ago.  Or when the media will start
applying even a modicum of scepticism to such obviously ridiculous
scaremongering claims.


On 12 November 2012 04:43, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

  All Jamaica Blue Mountain coffee is grown from the Arabica species of
 coffee.   So sad, this product is also on the road to eventual extinction.
   Cheers:Axil

 On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
  Climate change threat to Arabica coffee crops
 
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20252472
 
 
  The dreadful price wrought by climate change mounts increasingly higher.

 There's always Jamaican Blue Mountain.

Re: [Vo]:The Greenland High

[Robert Lynn]

People who get rich off of climate change research (academics and green
fund-raisers/politicians) like to claim that climate change leads to more
'extreme weather' like hurricanes, droughts etc, but they only get away
with it because of short human memories.  Actual data shows that there is
no upwards trend and the last few years have been very quiet. In fact for
hurricanes the cycle appears to follow the 60year Pacific Decadal
Oscillation, and if anything the trend is downwards with increasing
temperature:
http://regmedia.co.uk/2012/03/29/global_hurricane_energy_1974_2011.png
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/28/warming-reduces-landfalling-hurricanes-again/



On 5 November 2012 11:06, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hurricane Sandy grabbed matter and energy from the atmosphere around her.
  Climate change gives her more energy to consume and she formed an
 accretion disk around her orbiting particle center.  She was organized by
 the mass and angular momentum of the orbiting particle and was steered into
 the location near Albion New York where she first entered the Earth and
 shutdown the Erie Canal for repairs this summer..  As she had a closed
 string orbit at sub, relativistic speeds, she attracted other particles
 orbiting in the area and they all followed string interactions according to
 M Theory, resulting in some of the beautiful photos of ice halos and
 rainbows interacting before she arrived, all aligning/interacting with the
 more massive Sandy Particle.

 Stewart
 Darkmattersalot.com

 On Monday, November 5, 2012, Axil Axil wrote:

 The first clearly recognizable consequence of global warming has
 insinuated itself into our lives, and as we have all feared these
 consequences will not be good.

 This weather feature is called the “Greenland High” a stationary dome of
 high pressure. It has taken up residence over Greenland and this weather
 pattern was the guiding force that steered and strengthened the
 nor’easter/hurricane Sandy forcing it ashore onto the Mid-Atlantic
 shoreline.

 Another nor’easter is due to form in the middle of this week and be
 guided by the jet stream once again up the eastern sea board.

 This year’s winter will be abnormally cold due to the diving jet stream.
 Any low pressure system moving across the country will be redirected south
 then north following the same storm track as Sandy: These weakly repeating
 nor’easters will dive into the Southern states, where they will pick up
 moisture from the Gulf of Mexico, next they will strengthen off of the
 coast of the Carolina’s and then proceed up the East Coast, dumping rain
 and wind, then when the cold of the winter sets in, snows in prodigious
 amounts.

 For those who live in the eastern third of the US, you will be in for a
 hard and snowy winter, so get your snow blowers and emergency generators
 serviced and in good working order, get in a lot of wood in for your stoves
 and enjoy an extended case of cabin fever.

 If you own a place on the Atlantic shoreline, you will be in for some
 major problems and loss. The weakly precession of these coastal storms one
 worse than the next will erode the beaches well inland taking many find
 beach houses with it.
 P.S. To advance your best interest in this upcoming period of repeated
 serial disasters, you might not want to elect  leaders that espouse the
 political philosophy “every man jack for himself” because you will need
 competent help and plenty of it.


 Cheers:   Axil

Re: [Vo]:Celani's setup and exotherm effects on hydrogen absorbtion in Nickel

[Robert Lynn]

Reactor has a 1m long 0.2mm isotan44 wire (Cu37 Ni62 Mn1 alloy) weighing
about 0.3grams, and puts out about 10-20W excess heat with 3-8 bar of H2.
 Ie 50kW/kg of metal, reaction carrying on for days.
At those levels of power output any chemical power source associated with
the 0.3g wire would be exhausted within minutes.



On 5 November 2012 11:10, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote:

 I've been reading the ICCF-17 papers of Celani and I wonder whether Celani
 has included the exothermic effect that absorbtion of Hydrogen in Nickel
 has. It could well be that during operation absorbtion of Hydrogen in his
 ISOTAN 44 wire goes on, generating non-anomaly heat.

 Anyone with a view on this?

Re: [Vo]:The Greenland High

[Robert Lynn]

I don't doubt it - Rossby waves (meanders in the polar jet stream) do
sometimes create locally anomalous behaviours - like the Russian heat wave
of a few years back, or in this case a blocking high over Greenland.  They
are responsible for most extreme or long duration persistence in weather at
temperate latitudes.


On 6 November 2012 05:08, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote:

 Actually, I can attest that the National Weather Forecast Discussion for
 Hurricane Sandy did indeed describe this ridge of high pressure over
 Greenland. This was as it was moving north past Florida and the Carolinas,
 several days before it made (second) landfall in New Jersey. They called
 this area of high pressure anomalous or extremely anomalous or some
 words to that effect.

 Jeff



 On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:57 AM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 People who get rich off of climate change research (academics and green
 fund-raisers/politicians) like to claim that climate change leads to more
 'extreme weather' like hurricanes, droughts etc, but they only get away
 with it because of short human memories.  Actual data shows that there is
 no upwards trend and the last few years have been very quiet. In fact for
 hurricanes the cycle appears to follow the 60year Pacific Decadal
 Oscillation, and if anything the trend is downwards with increasing
 temperature:
 http://regmedia.co.uk/2012/03/29/global_hurricane_energy_1974_2011.png

 http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/28/warming-reduces-landfalling-hurricanes-again/



 On 5 November 2012 11:06, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hurricane Sandy grabbed matter and energy from the atmosphere around
 her.  Climate change gives her more energy to consume and she formed an
 accretion disk around her orbiting particle center.  She was organized by
 the mass and angular momentum of the orbiting particle and was steered into
 the location near Albion New York where she first entered the Earth and
 shutdown the Erie Canal for repairs this summer..  As she had a closed
 string orbit at sub, relativistic speeds, she attracted other particles
 orbiting in the area and they all followed string interactions according to
 M Theory, resulting in some of the beautiful photos of ice halos and
 rainbows interacting before she arrived, all aligning/interacting with the
 more massive Sandy Particle.

 Stewart
 Darkmattersalot.com

 On Monday, November 5, 2012, Axil Axil wrote:

 The first clearly recognizable consequence of global warming has
 insinuated itself into our lives, and as we have all feared these
 consequences will not be good.

 This weather feature is called the “Greenland High” a stationary dome
 of high pressure. It has taken up residence over Greenland and this weather
 pattern was the guiding force that steered and strengthened the
 nor’easter/hurricane Sandy forcing it ashore onto the Mid-Atlantic
 shoreline.

 Another nor’easter is due to form in the middle of this week and be
 guided by the jet stream once again up the eastern sea board.

 This year’s winter will be abnormally cold due to the diving jet
 stream. Any low pressure system moving across the country will be
 redirected south then north following the same storm track as Sandy: These
 weakly repeating nor’easters will dive into the Southern states, where they
 will pick up moisture from the Gulf of Mexico, next they will strengthen
 off of the coast of the Carolina’s and then proceed up the East Coast,
 dumping rain and wind, then when the cold of the winter sets in, snows in
 prodigious amounts.

 For those who live in the eastern third of the US, you will be in for a
 hard and snowy winter, so get your snow blowers and emergency generators
 serviced and in good working order, get in a lot of wood in for your stoves
 and enjoy an extended case of cabin fever.

 If you own a place on the Atlantic shoreline, you will be in for some
 major problems and loss. The weakly precession of these coastal storms one
 worse than the next will erode the beaches well inland taking many find
 beach houses with it.
 P.S. To advance your best interest in this upcoming period of repeated
 serial disasters, you might not want to elect  leaders that espouse the
 political philosophy “every man jack for himself” because you will need
 competent help and plenty of it.


 Cheers:   Axil

Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Politics by mortar in North Korea

[Robert Lynn]

They are incredibly evil people. Read this harrowing account of a child
bought up in one of their concentration camps who managed to escape
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/mar/16/escape-north-korea-prison-camp,
China, morally and ethically bankrupt, is totally to blame for their
continued existence via their support of the regime as a buffer between
themselves and the West.  This support is perhaps not totally surprising
given their recent record of being run by the number 1 most evil man in
history:

From 1958 to 1962 Mao's efforts to collectivise China caused roughly 53m
unnecessary deaths.  Most of these were by starvation- perhaps 15% by the
deliberate withdrawing of food from 'undesirables' (that is those who
opposed the madness ).  People who were too old , too young or sick were
also denied food. In one town the locals queued night and day for the
opportunity to dig clay that they then ate.- 250,000 tonnes of it.  Many of
these people died of constipation, others from ruptured sphincters.   5% to
10% of the total deaths were by executions or beatings.   At this time
China was shipping food to Soviet Russia, East Germany, Albania and Cuba to
maintain the pretence that there was no famine.  In socialist fervour,
local cadres inflated local harvests- to the point that when the state
then took it's 30%, there was none left at all.  The hierarchy were not
fooled by these inflated figures- but they took the harvests anyway.

Today Mao's birthplace it was basically a shrine with thousands queueing up
daily to worship the great helmsman.  What is wrong with the Chinese?  It
scares me that such people will soon run the world.


On 6 November 2012 02:20, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:

 At least it was mostly painless.

 Regards,
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 www.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC How to survive a robot uprising

[Robert Lynn]

Just make sure you are an engineer - will need someone to design and
maintain all of the killing machines.

On 28 October 2012 23:31, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 I thought I had seen this before.


 This must be where I first saw the video. ;)

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:More leaked (?) info from Defkalion GT

[Robert Lynn]

So if they funded the trip then why didn't they publish any results?
After all they are a charity that is trying to promote and expand LENR
research - and publishing good results would surely help this.

I can only surmise that Defkalion prevented publication, which would
contradict their earlier statements about allowing independent testers
to publish.  Hiding poor results?

On 23 October 2012 18:59, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 2012-10-22 14:14, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

 Hello group,


 As a side note, it appears that the entity which funded Michael A. Nelson's
 traveling expenses was not the Free Energy Foundation, but rather the New
 Energy Foundation. This correction comes from Mark Gibbs of Forbes. See [1]
 and footnotes on [2].

 The New Energy Foundation is none other than:
 http://www.infinite-energy.com/whoarewe/whoarewe.html

 Cheers,
 S.A.

 [1]
 http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/10/20/cold-fusion-gets-a-little-more-real/2/
 [2]
 http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/10/20/cold-fusion-gets-a-little-more-real/3/

Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7

[Robert Lynn]

I've been disappointed by his claims too many times - with his uncanny
ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory through sloppiness.  As
far as most of the world is concerned (and even a lot of people who follow
this closely) until we see independent confirmation this is just more
unverified claims from a known liar.  I am however optimistic that we will
eventually get that confirmation.

On 12 October 2012 17:46, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote:

 Awesome! He ran it for 228 hours.

 Unless he's deluded or lying, he's got it.

 Craig

 On 10/12/2012 12:36 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
 
 http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/leonardo-corp-releases-new-hot-cat-report/
 

Re: [Vo]:Save the Balloon!

[Robert Lynn]

Accumulated alpha particles from radioactive decay collecting in gas
trapping rock formations.  Basically a non-renewable resource after we have
worked through available supplies of shale gas.

Helium can be extracted from the atmosphere - about 5ppm, but will probably
cost ~$5000/kg.  Nuclear reactors make a relatively tiny amount, but may be
useful when we run out.  As this is not really going to be a problem for
100's to 1000's of year yet, we can probably economically scoop-mining
Saturn or Jupiter with a fusion powered tanker, though it will cost a lot
more than current prices.

For a lot of cryogenic applications Hydrogen (14K melting temp) or Neon
(24k melting temp) can be used instead of Helium, particularly as high temp
superconductors are more widely adopted.  For lift gases we will have to
use hydrogen, methane or neon (renewable from atmosphere) instead.  Neon
would be fine for party balloons, will cost a few dollars per balloon, and
won't leak away as quickly, so not really much worse than Helium.

I doubt it is worthwhile anyone investing in large scale bulk storage of
Helium as speculative investment.  Though if LENR replaces Natural Gas then
cheap Helium will run out much sooner.

On 24 September 2012 08:00, Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com wrote:

 from the article:
  Helium is extracted from deep underground, where deposits of the gas
 have built up.

 pray tell us, how did the helium deposits get there ?

 On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote:
  The world faces an unimaginable fate: the demise of the helium balloon.
 
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19676639
 
  Only LENR can save us!
 
   ;-)
  Jeff
 

[Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons?

[Robert Lynn]

http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/rossi-on-the-safety-of-cop-6/

Admittedly this is from Mr Unreliable, so caveat emptor, but if there are
neutrons being released under some conditions why not all the time?

Neutrons would be really bad news for LENR.  Very penetrating and hard to
shield - and produce long term accumulation of radioisotopes in surrounding
environment.  Just the kind of thing that regulators would jump on to
restrict applications.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons?

[Robert Lynn]

I am less optimistic that neutron production is only occurring under
special circumstances and not all the time - would seem to me to require
more good luck than is likely (what was McKubre's line about conservation
of miracles?)

I believe low energy neutrons are relatively hard to detect - requiring
specialist equipment that may not yet have been applied to the new
generation of high output Ni-P LENR.  Fingers crossed it doesn't turn out
to be a big problem.

On 22 September 2012 16:23, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 It's possible that Rossie is seeing more neutrons than he has let on, even
 in his smaller devices running at low COP.  Weighing against this is the
 fact that many of the LENR researchers have also seen neutrons, but only at
 very low levels -- Ed Storms provides a single, short paragraph in chapter
 7 of his book on what is detected that says that neutrons not seen at any
 significant level, and the book includes references to Celani, who has
 looked at Ni/H.

 My hunch is that neutrons are arising in relatively uncommon side branches
 in most cases.  If this is right, I also suspect that these branches can be
 reached more frequently if the system is driven harder or if the
 experimental conditions are adjusted in the right way.

 Eric



 On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/rossi-on-the-safety-of-cop-6/

 Admittedly this is from Mr Unreliable, so caveat emptor, but if there are
 neutrons being released under some conditions why not all the time?

 Neutrons would be really bad news for LENR.  Very penetrating and hard to
 shield - and produce long term accumulation of radioisotopes in surrounding
 environment.  Just the kind of thing that regulators would jump on to
 restrict applications.

Re: [Vo]:New Miley Patent

[Robert Lynn]

It is all about the way it is written, a patent examination based on LENR
application alone might or might have been rejected, but by including it in
a list alongside more mainstream applications, and concentrating on
material processing side they have found a way to get it through without as
much difficulty, that is a relatively way to skin the cat, and I believe
Celani is doing something similar.

The patent examination process is rather arbitrary in most cases (for
example vast numbers of ridiculously obvious phone and software patents in
last 20 years).

On 12 September 2012 21:24, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jeff Berkowitz wrote:

  Isn't this sort of big deal? Not so much because of what the patent
 covers, but because the USPTO actually granted it? Claim 11, for example,
 specifically mentions charged particles and x-rays.


 Yes, it is a big deal. I don't know what to make of it. Perhaps the P.O.
 has changed its policy. Maybe not . . . In the past, a few patents such
 Patterson's got through on a technicality. I do not know what happened here.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Website on LENR Fuel Preparation

[Robert Lynn]

OK, I'll bite Why gold coated and why does it need to be of triangular
form?  Basically why would that make any positive difference?

Adding gold coating is the antithesis of trying to find a cheap fuel, and
Celani has been doing fine using round wires - also seems that round that
would give more opportunity for consistent processing and for the hydrogen
to get in around the wires.

On top of which I don't think that you want large thick bundles of fuel in
a reactor if there is a positive temperature coefficient to the reaction.
 Want thin layers with good cooling everywhere to prevent run-way hot spots
from forming, or perhaps powder in a fluidised bed where the powder rapidly
convects.

Doesn't really seem to be adding much to the public knowledge base (unless
I missed something).


On 13 September 2012 15:01, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote:

 Greetings Vortex-L,

 I hope that this is new:

 http://lenr-coldfusion.com/2012/09/12/universal-lenr-reactor-fuel-preparation/

 Respectfully,
 Ron Kita, Chiralex
 Doylestown PA

[Vo]:Bussard Ramjet

[Robert Lynn]

One of the cool things about Ni-H LENR is that it has the potential to make
Bussard Ramjets more feasible (assuming it is H-H fusion as now seems most
likely).

A Bussard Ramjet is a Rocket that scoops up hydrogen from the interstellar
medium using a vast magnetic and/or electrostatic field, then fuses it and
fires it out the back.  The concept has always had a major flaw in that
hydrogen is nearly fusion-proof in conventional hot fusion except as part
of Carbon-Nitrogen fuel cycle.

Even if that whole fusion reaction happened in a LENR cell and the power
conversion requires a heat engine the energy could still be used to drive a
particle accelerator that accelerated the ash (Helium?) out the back.  You
would essentially never run out of fuel (so long as your LENR lattice
does't get used up), so possibly much faster trips to the stars without the
requirement for ridiculously large exotic (deuterium, lithium or He3) fuel
storage tanks.

Speed might still be limited to a few % of c, but even that looks pretty
good from where we are standing now, as they can also be used for
decelleration and Bussard LENR ramjet ships might be a lot cheaper and more
compact than what was hither-to thought possible.

[Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Robert Lynn]

http://ecatnews.com/?p=2417#comments

quoting from article:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=svtl=enjs=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=2eotf=1u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyteknik.se%2Fnyheter%2Fenergi_miljo%2Fenergi%2Farticle3535258.ece


Investor Group had instructed the SP Technical Research Institute of
Sweden, to monitor the measurement, and the researchers who attended
measuring an input electrical power that was two to three times higher than
Rossi himself measured. Despite this, Rossi presented a measurement report
September 9 based on earlier tests where a lower input power and an energy
surplus reported.

And any trust that may have been re-established in Rossi is now totally
destroyed.

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Robert Lynn]

As an investor I would be quite OK with it being unreliable, as long as he
was open and honest about it, allowed proper instrumentation and
calorimetry, and it worked sometimes, RD by competent scientists and
engineers would soon get to the bottom of the unreliability.

What I would run screaming from is someone who faked results with a
straight face (as we saw in one of the demos last year), you couldn't trust
a word that comes out of their mouths, and without a very careful
full-access test you could never be sure that there wasn't some hidden
power source.

I wish Rossi would just disappear, he is currently little more than a LENR
saboteur.

On 10 September 2012 15:14, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:


 And any trust that may have been re-established in Rossi is now totally
 destroyed.


 No one in his right mind would ever trust Rossi. However, some of his
 measurements have been inherently trustworthy despite the poor quality of
 the tests and instruments. Some of his results were clearly in error,
 especially during the NASA visit when the outlet hose was plugged up.
 However, there have many other Ni-H results lately, and that fact plus the
 fact that some of Rossi's results are credible makes me think he does have
 something.

 I suppose his results are intermittent and unreliable. That's what you
 expect with cold fusion. That is what you have to expect with any
 technology at this stage of development. It is nothing to worry about. It
 should not affect anyone's decision to fund the research.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Robert Lynn]

I would say most of last years steam-based demos.  Claiming COPs that were
far higher than what was realistic, but specifically
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8SeOteFPtM 3:00-4:00 doesn't exactly
inspire confidence, looks to be tweaking the power to increase steam output
when Lewan is out of the room and he is not being watched (far more steam
as Lewan replaces the tube than when he first pulled it out).

I no longer think it was ignorance on Rossi's part that lead to such
consistently bad calorimetry and ambiguous results, he was trying to create
uncertainty and wiggle room for himself to be able to exaggerate his
results.  It is notable that the few independent groups of testers that
really had proper access to check results (NASA linked group, Defkalion now
Swedes) have all had tests that were either didn't work or under-delivered
on promises, would love to hear from insiders who were there.  And we know
that Rossi has lied on many other occasions too (eg shipment of 1MW unit).

Totally massively untrustworthy.

On 10 September 2012 15:58, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 To what faked results are you referring exactly?

 On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 What I would run screaming from is someone who faked results with a
 straight face (as we saw in one of the demos last year)...

Re: [Vo]:High temperature E-Cat - preliminary report published

[Robert Lynn]

reading about the thermal camera:

http://www.optris.com/thermal-imager-pi160?file=tl_files/pdf/Downloads/Infrared%20Cameras/PI_Brochure.pdf
http://www.optris.com/thermal-imager-pi160?file=tl_files/pdf/Downloads/IR-Basics.pdf

Has stated accuracy of +/- 2% which at typical 1000K of Rossi's
demonstration would be +/- 20K.  So not too bad, and supports claims but
nowhere near as good as a thermocouple.  Rossi has at least done 1 thing
right - painting the surface black to improve accuracy, but there is
apparently some choice in spectral emission range and also it is only rated
for 900°C, so pretty good chance for errors in setup and trying to operate
outside measurement range.

Re: [Vo]:High temperature E-Cat - preliminary report published

[Robert Lynn]

Also I note that there is no neutron detection in the radiation measurements

On 9 September 2012 10:29, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.comwrote:

 reading about the thermal camera:


 http://www.optris.com/thermal-imager-pi160?file=tl_files/pdf/Downloads/Infrared%20Cameras/PI_Brochure.pdf

 http://www.optris.com/thermal-imager-pi160?file=tl_files/pdf/Downloads/IR-Basics.pdf

 Has stated accuracy of +/- 2% which at typical 1000K of Rossi's
 demonstration would be +/- 20K.  So not too bad, and supports claims but
 nowhere near as good as a thermocouple.  Rossi has at least done 1 thing
 right - painting the surface black to improve accuracy, but there is
 apparently some choice in spectral emission range and also it is only rated
 for 900°C, so pretty good chance for errors in setup and trying to operate
 outside measurement range.

Re: [Vo]:High temperature E-Cat - preliminary report published

[Robert Lynn]

http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/high-temperature-e-cat-report-published/

No glaring problems.  Though for the life of me I can't work out where the
reactor is in the arrangement - they detail the outer and inner tubes
(which are not the reactors, their mass is consistent with dense 310 SS,
inner tube 1.375 OD x.08 thick, outer 3.375ODx.064 thick ), Resistors
(look like tube furnace), ceramic putty and paint, but as far as I can tell
no indication of what the reactor is, size, shape, weight - is it lumped in
with the 2.2kg resistors?

COP about 2-2.5, 18kWh output and 8KWh input.  Calcs are reasonable and
probably conservative.

To be honest I think this 2ish COP might be close to what Rossi has had all
along - just not quite good enough to be commercially useful. Earlier
claims of higher COP might have been either his poor calorimetry, or
deliberately misleading, but either way this demo is probably more
convincing than his previous tests

Criticisms:

Calorimetry is still not good and lack of instrumentation is Rossi at his
time wasting worst, don't like the thermal camera - as I lack familiarity
with them and don't know if it requires calibration or is subject to
significant errors I don't know about, or if its readings could be
intentionally manipulated in some way.  Was it Rossi's or someone else's?
Perhaps others may be able to confirm its accuracy.  Small temperature
differences make huge power differences in radiative emissions (double
power for increase of 200°C) - so errors are magnified.  No thermocouples
is just silly.

Input power measurement between control box and wall were inconsistent
(why?).  Any checks of hidden power supplies in control box?  No ability to
tell if their were unmeasurable higher frequencies coming from wall.

He needs an aggressive sceptic to do a proper test, not someone in his
circle or in his employ.

Skeptics hat: Not enough detail about reactor, could have been combusting a
fuel for example (off top of my head) aluminium powder + hydrocarbon in air
that would have same weight at start and finish,1kg would be enough to
supply 10kWh heat seen

Celani is doing a much better job of convincing people.

Re: [Vo]:High temperature E-Cat - preliminary report published

[Robert Lynn]

Just realised, if top of reactor was significantly cooler than bottom then
all power calculations would be bollocks.  Were there checks done on this
and could the internals have allowed such an uneven heat distribution?

Re: [Vo]:What a self-sustaining demonstration by Celani might accomplish

[Robert Lynn]

From current results 4-5 times the number of wires (=60-75W) should just
about be self-sustaining, and should probably not run-away.

On 22 August 2012 08:11, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Someone suggested that Celani's device could not handle a much higher
 temperature than it currents exhibits.  If this is true, he is restricted
 in the net power output and number of wires without a major redesign.

 Dave
  -Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wed, Aug 22, 2012 2:35 am
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:What a self-sustaining demonstration by Celani might
 accomplish

   If Celani wanted to demonstrate an easily detectable LENR reaction, he
 would only need to multiply the number of wires he uses in his device by 10
 or 100. A 150 or 1500 watt excess output would be hard to misinterpret.
  Cheers:  Axil

  On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote:


 It's true that the calorimetry shown is currently not conclusive, but
 will this matter anymore once he manages to run it in self-sustaining or
 mostly self-sustained mode?


  I do not know what a mostly self-sustaining mode would be. A fully
 self-sustaining run lasting more than 10 minutes with no temperature
 decline would be irrefutable proof that the effect is real, and anomalous.
 There is less than a gram of wire in the cell plus hydrogen gas. There is
 no doubt the heat originates at the wire. There are no chemical changes to
 any of the materials in the cell. So once you eliminate all doubts about
 the calorimetry, by making it self-sustain, any measurable amount of heat
 is anomalous.

  He plans to let it run for a week or more. That is thousands of times
 longer than you need to make the case. Why not go for thousands? -- good
 idea.

  If Celani can make it self sustain, this will be as conclusive and
 irrefutable as the Fleischmann and Pons boil off experiments of 1992, which
 produced massive heat after death. It was easily measured and far beyond
 the limits of chemistry. See:

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

  These 1992 experiments did not convince any prominent skeptics, because
 those people are pathological skeptics who have abandoned the scientific
 method. Or because they are scientific illiterates such as Taubes, the
 Wikipedia editors, or your typical mass media science writer. They do not
 understand middle-school level science. They have no idea what the limits
 of chemistry or 4 eV per atom means.

  A self-sustaining gas loaded experiment by Celani will not convince
 these people. They will:

  1. Ignore the results OR,

  2. Misunderstand the results.

  2. Come up with absurd reasons to dismiss the results.

  3. Accuse Celani of lying.

  You must ignore such people to preserve your sanity. Dealing with them
 is a no-win proposition. Never try to address their concerns. They will
 only invent one crazy objections after another. Like the people who
 claimed that thousands of thirsty rats invaded Mizuno's laboratory every
 night to drink the hot water in the bucket during his heat-after-death
 event. Or this nutcase Rep. Akin -- a member of the House Committee on
 Science, Space, and Technology committee no less! -- who imagines that
 women's bodies have a magical ability to avoid pregnancy after rape.

  If Celani takes the right steps he can easily convince a hundred
 thousand sane, professional scientists and engineers. The right steps
 include:

  1. Allow independent observers to confirm the result.

  2. Present the results in a properly written paper with lots of details
 and data.

  3. Allow me and others to upload the paper, the full dataset from the
 instruments, photos, papers from the independent observers, and other proof
 of the claim.

  As I said in presentation at ICCF17, addressing the researchers, [if
 you will only do this] you will be believed, you will be funded, and we
 will triumph.


  Whether Celani or any of the others will follow my advice or not I
 cannot predict. So far, every cold fusion researcher who has had the
 opportunity to convince the public has failed to do so.

  People such as Patterson and Rossi failed deliberately. They went out
 of their way to avoid convincing the public, because that is their market
 strategy. Patterson told me so. Rossi has not told me that, but it is the
 only explanation I can imagine for his no tests! policy. I mean the fact
 that he refused to let me and many others spend a few minutes confirming
 his claims with proper instruments. We offered; he said no. Emphatically
 no. There has to be a reason. Since he *did* allow other highly
 qualified to people to verify the effect independently, but only under
 NDAs, I assume he doe not want people to know for sure his claims are true.
 That is not an unusual business strategy.

  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract

[Robert Lynn]

Just how hard would it be to detect if Deuterium is the product in Ni-H
LENR?

I don't have good data on P-P=D fusion, but based on mass difference it
releases about 2.31e-13J/deuteron formed.  Assuming that to really produce
a strong Deuterium signal in needs to double in concentration from about
1/6000th to 1/3000th in hydrogen that means that 1/3000th of the hydrogen
in the reaction needs to be converted to deuterium.  That means about
23MJ/gram of hydrogen needs to be released to double the deuterium
occurrence.

In Rossi's claimed 50cc ~10kW ecat reactor at 20bar (about 0.1 grams in
hydrogen gas, significantly more in the nanopowder) that would only take
about an hour.  For Celani with 15W, and a reactor vessel of 200mL at 8 bar
(about 1.3grams Hydrogen + whatever metal loading was) that would take
perhaps 2-3 weeks, but might be tricky due to leakage of hydrogen through
walls.  Defkalion at about 1kW would be perhaps 1 day.

Much tougher to see in non-gas phase LENR due to large inventory of H in
the water.

These basic calculations suggest that probably Rossi or Defkalion already
know (my money would be more on Defkalion, given their better scientific
practices), and that Celani might be able to find out in next few weeks to
months (easier if he increases the power output using more mass of wire).

So hopefully we should know one way or the other quite soon.


On 21 August 2012 17:52, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:

 At 02:37 PM 8/20/2012, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

 On 2012-08-20 21:23, Peter Gluck wrote:
 [...]

 I am very sorry but Pd is not good despite...everything..
 Don't make the skeptics happy!


 Here's where experiments such as Celani's come into help: by showing the
 LENR community that excess heat can be [scientifically] large and
 reproducible at will pretty much anywhere.

 Hopefully others will learn.


 Look, Celani's work is great. His willingness to demonstrate it publicly
 is great. Don't make too much of it, though. The calorimetry shown is not
 conclusive. His lab reports are more valuable.

 A JET Nanor ran for, what was it? -- months? -- at MIT early this year.

Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract

[Robert Lynn]

translations:

To err is human, to knowingly persist in error is diabolical.
The mountains will be in labor, and a ridiculous mouse will be brought forth

very apt.

On 20 August 2012 20:23, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 I am looking this paper with very mixed feelinga.
 Admiration for a great effort, however 5% success rate
 due to palladiumphilia can be described by two nasty Latin sayings- too:

 Errare humanum est, persverare diabolicum
 Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus

 I am very sorry but Pd is not good despite...everything..
 Don't make the skeptics happy!

 Peter


 On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Akira Shirakawa 
 shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 2012-08-20 20:46, Jed Rothwell wrote:

  *Anomalous Results in Fleischmann-Pons Type Electrochemical*

 [...]

 This should be the result of what was mentioned in the 2012 DARPA budget
 review:

 http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/**07/darpa-nanotech-projects-**
 nanoscale.htmlhttp://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/darpa-nanotech-projects-nanoscale.html
 http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67364.**htmlhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67364.html

 Cheers,
 S.A.




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

Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration

[Robert Lynn]

 Is there any way to guesstimate – assuming the best reasonable kind of
 insulation is added to retain heat, something like aerogel, etc – how much
 more mass of active wire (if any) would be necessary to get close to a
 nominally self-sustaining system?

 ** **

 Jones


That would be very easy to do, no need for anything fancy, just wrap it in
Fiberglass insulation and tape it on, like lagging a pipe.  Quick mental
calculation suggests on the order of 0.1W per cm of thickness per degree of
temperature differential, so for 15W and 100 degree temperature
differential you would need about 6mm thickness of fiberglass.  Would only
take 5-10 minute to set up.

Bigger problem is stopping it from over-heating. Ideally need to surround
it in a heat sink with a controllable temperature - eg 120°C so that as the
reactor gets hotter than that it will rapidly start to transfer heat to the
heat sink.  Want the heat sink close to the reactor operating temperature
(I think this was one of Rossi's problems in getting safe controllability
last year)

So put the whole reactor inside a really well insulated metal container
filled with oil that can be heated up to as much as 190°C, and perhaps a
way of dripping water into the oil if you need to get rid of heat (20cc
water per hour would do it for 12W)  The oil will prevent rapid thermal
run-aways with it's thermal inertia.

Re: [Vo]:Re: ProdEngAssemble.avi

[Robert Lynn]

Our IC engine testing euphemism for fires and explosions was a thermal
event

On 18 August 2012 14:49, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:40 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
  Fast Recomb?

 Fast recombination of the H2 and O2 back into water and heat.

 T

[Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?

[Robert Lynn]

Neutrons are hard to shield and when absorbed can produce radioactive
materials. Could this be a potentially killer blow to otherwise safe LENR?

Fission reactors typically create up to 10^13 neutrons per cm² per second,
and this experiment was only making about 20 per s, over (I assume) the
full 4Pi sphere but was also probably only a few watts of power.  If this
is a standard feature of LENR and is scaled up to 10's or 100's of kW for
transport applications maybe we are looking at more like 10^10 per s will
it be ultimately be dangerous?  The oil industry will be looking for
exactly this sort of flaw to keep themselves in business.

Why haven't other researchers seen Neutrons, were they not looking or are
they at too low an energy or flux to be easily detected?

On 17 August 2012 22:10, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 2012-08-17 20:39, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

 Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using
 shock
 procedure
 - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible


 I'm not a theoretician (so please correct me if I'm wrong), but isn't this
 *not* predicted by the W-L theory?

 Cheers,
 S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration

[Robert Lynn]

From those numbers (30°C room, 120°C at 48W and 140°C when LENR active) I
calculate 16W excess if you assume all radiative heat transfer.  But it
will actually be slightly less than that because the hotter tube surface
will convect heat away at a rate that is roughly proportional to the air to
tube temperature difference.  The next level of complication is that the
natural convection air flow will also be slightly faster due to the
increased buoyancy, so the heat transfer coefficient will increase as
temperature increases too, typically at a rate proportional to the
temperature differential to the power of 0.25.

I'll do the calculation assuming constant heat transfer coefficient and
then with variable heat transfer coefficient caused by increased
temperature, shouldn't be much difference due to relatively small relative
temperature increase.

From his paper he says that the tube dimensions are Ø40mm OD and 280mm
long, I will use the full length assume that the temperature is the same
everywhere due to internal convection of that most magical of heat transfer
fluids hydrogen.  Borosilicate glass has emissivity of about 0.9 so the
tube is radiating about 27.4W at 120°C and 36.7W at 140°C in a 30°C
environment.  So 48-27.4=20.6W convected at 120°C and
20.6x(140-30)/(120-30)=25.2W at 140°C.  Add that 25.2 to the 36.7 and
subtract 48 input and you get 14W excess.

Assuming that the heat transfer coefficient increases in proportion to the
temperature differential to the power of 0.25 then the convected and
therefore excess heat rises by about 1.2W to 15.2W

All the same calculations repeated for a 25°C ambient temperature instead
of 30°C drop the excess heat from 15.2W to 14.6W, again not much difference

There might be a little more complication with the end caps etc, but I
think you can pretty confidently state that it is over 10W.

Also perhaps someone did a check on the temperature at the top and bottom
of the outside of the tube to see if there was a significant temperature
difference?  I think it is pretty unlikely but you never know.



On 18 August 2012 01:53, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Several experts in calorimetry expressed doubts about the Celani
 demonstration at ICCF17. Mike McKubre in particular feels that it is
 impossible to judge whether it really produced heat or not, because the
 method is poor. He does not say he is sure there was no heat; he simply
 does not know. Others feel that he exaggerates the problem.

 There were concerns because Celani has programmed in the Stephan-Boltzmann
 law which multiplies things to the a 4-th power. Srinivasan worried that he
 makes a mountain out of a molehill.

 The temperature is measured at one point on the surface of the tube. I
 asked Brian of NI to give me the actual temperature readings. With 48 W of
 input power only, before excess heat or with the Ar calibration, in a room
 with 30 deg C ambient temperature, the temperature rose to 120 deg C. When
 the excess heat appeared it rose to 140 deg C. Celani says that equals 14 W
 excess, and that is what was displayed by the instrument. McKubre and
 others worry this may be caused by decreased pressure in the cell. However,
 the pressure fell only gradually, and stabilized in the last 2 days. They
 also worried about changes in conduction within the tube, and uneven heat
 on the surface. I do not think that such effects can account for a 20 deg C
 temperature rise, especially given the smooth line produced when there is
 no heat, with H or Ar. The temperature returned to the same level with 48
 W, in Italy, Texas and Korea, after the gas had been changed out twice.

 Anyway, I would like to note that these people have doubts. Others agree
 with me that the method is crude but unlikely to produce such a large error.

 Celani hopes to run it in self-sustaining mode with better insulation.
 That will put to rest all questions about calorimetry. He hopes to do this
 as quickly as 2 weeks from now! More power to him.

 He has run it for as long as a month, so a 1 or 2 week self-sustaining run
 should not be a problem. Given the mass of wire, even 10 minutes would be
 convincing.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:NIWeek2012 slides - Status of CMNS/CF/LENR Research at Kobe-Technova

[Robert Lynn]

Quick look through.  A variety of materials tried with hydrogen and
deuterium.  Best results 1-2W per gram of Ni35-Cu8-Zr57 and Hydrogen, at
573K (300°C) running for weeks quite happily.  They found adding Cu to NiZr
made it work much better.   They are getting far better results than they
get with P-D (which seems to stop after short time).

So another pretty powerful high temp gas phase replication with CuNi+H

On 16 August 2012 18:43, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hello group,

 These NIWeek2012 slides (26 pages) about recent progresses at
 Kobe-Technova got just posted on the National Instruments website. I don't
 think their content should be much different than what is supposed to be
 presented during ICCF-17, but it's interesting to see that - as by NI
 policy for submitted slides [1] - the company logo appears everywhere.

 https://decibel.ni.com/**content/servlet/JiveServlet/**
 download/23750-1-51320/TS9240%**20Status%20of%20CMN%20CF%**
 20LENR%20Research.pdfhttps://decibel.ni.com/content/servlet/JiveServlet/download/23750-1-51320/TS9240%20Status%20of%20CMN%20CF%20LENR%20Research.pdf

 Source: 
 https://decibel.ni.com/**content/docs/DOC-23750https://decibel.ni.com/content/docs/DOC-23750

  Status of CMNS/CF/LENR Research at Kobe-Technova

 The Kobe-Technova team has worked to elucidate the underlying physics of
 anomalous heat evolution effects in deuterium (D) and protium (H)
 gas-loaded nano-metal-compound systems. Basic tools are the twin D(H)
 gas-loading equipment and the supporting theoretical modeling by the TSC
 multibody fusion theory. Using various Pd-based and Ni-based nanofabricated
 samples, the team has reproducibly observed anomalous heat effects with
 isotopic differences using time-dependent (dynamic) data of thermal-power
 evolutions, D(H)/metal-atom loading ratios, and their temperature
 dependence (for Ni-based cases).

 Akito Takahashi, Technova Inc.


 Cheers,
 S.A.

 [1] See other misc. documents here: https://decibel.ni.com/**
 content/groups/niweek-2012?**view=documents#/?per_page=50https://decibel.ni.com/content/groups/niweek-2012?view=documents#/?per_page=50

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Fleischmann obit in the Washington Post

[Robert Lynn]

And another in the economist (in the middle of an 8 minute audio from
Babbage Column prefaced by a discussion on walled gardens), 3:40 on.  Very
negative and critical, and probably rather embarrassing to the columnists
in a few months time.

http://www.economist.com/multimedia?bclid=1242934274001bctid=1785974317001

On 16 August 2012 00:36, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 There was an interesting obit for Martin Fleschmann this morning in the
 Washington Post:


 http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/cold-fusion-scientist-fleischmann-dead-at-85/2012/08/14/10c12e10-e5c7-11e1-8f62-58260e3940a0_story.html

 In the comment section I mentioned the Celani demonstration.

 Here is something from obit:

 As a boy, Dr. Fleischmann twice escaped the Nazis with his family. Once
 they fled the Nazi-occupied region of Czechoslovakia into another part.
 Then, when Nazi power expanded, they left for England, with at least one
 close call. After leaving Prague by train, they had crossed Europe to the
 border of Netherlands. There, Dr. Fleischmann recalled, according to the
 Telegraph in London, the Germans were clearing refugees from the train.

 “We were in the last coach, and my father said: ‘No, sit tight; don’t get
 off the train.’ ”

 That refusal to obey apparently saved their lives. With the family still
 on board, the train left the station, making possible their arrival in
 England.

 In the past I mentioned here that Fleischmann's father was killed by the
 Gestapo. He was, but the story is a little complicated. He was severely
 beaten and then for some inexplicable reason they let him go. As described
 here, the family managed to get on a train and they escaped. He father
 survived the trip to England but he died there from the effects of his
 wounds.

 That is what Martin and Gene Mallove told me. I don't know any more
 details than that.

 Years ago Martin told me about his early life in England. As I recall, he
 said: At age 14 I found myself in England, living in a chicken house. I
 was lazy. The laziest boy in England. One day I told myself that if I did
 not get off my butt, get to school and get to work, I would be living in a
 chicken house the rest of my life.

 It is hard to imagine him lazy, since he worked nearly to the end of his
 life, but that is how he told the story.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The faint young Sun paradox

[Robert Lynn]

Probably the most sensible solution is that the atmosphere was
significantly thicker.  30% less heat input would drop the earth's
temperature by about 20°C, but 20% more mass of air would increase the
temperature by about 20°C at ground level.  We know that during the age of
the dinosaurs that there was a lot more oxygen in the atmosphere, it was up
to about 30% O2 vs 20% now.  Assuming the quantity of nitrogen is about the
same (pretty safe as it doesn't react significantly or leak away) then you
are looking at another 10°C just in the extra thickness of atmosphere
caused by that extra oxygen.


Before about 800 million years ago the atmosphere had very little O2 and a
whole lot of CO2, which would have made the atmosphere even thicker and
further increased the temperature at the surface.



Also the earth was spinning a lot faster and the thicker atmosphere
transported heat better from the tropics to the poles, producing a wider
latitudinal band of temperature climates (this is known from geological
studies)

On 14 August 2012 23:27, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 Models of the Sun's evolution predict the Sun was 70% percent as
 bright 2 billion years ago, and the Earth should have been an ice ball
 at that time. Yet the geological record indicates the oceans were
 liquid.

 A number of explanations have been proposed which haven't faired well
 upon closer study. The lastest explanation says that the Earth at one
 time orbited closer to the Sun:

 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120530152034.htm


 Here is another: If LENR occurs inside the Earth then perhaps there
 was sufficient LENR activity in the Earth billions of years ago to
 keep the oceans liquid.


 harry

Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation

[Robert Lynn]

Wire diameter 0.2mm, 1000mm long gives 0.031cm³, or about 500W/cm³, you
were off by a factor of about 1000.  It is likely that not the whole
thickness is active, and this is only early days in development, not even
running at high temperature yet.

On 15 August 2012 02:23, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

 That's 14W/(PI*(0.3)^2)*1)~14W/(0.3mm^3)~45KW/cm^3. DAMN!

Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation

[Robert Lynn]

Argh,  I meant a factor of 100 (never a good look to cock up your own
arithmetic when correcting someone)

On 15 August 2012 02:32, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 Wire diameter 0.2mm, 1000mm long gives 0.031cm³, or about 500W/cm³, you
 were off by a factor of about 1000.  It is likely that not the whole
 thickness is active, and this is only early days in development, not even
 running at high temperature yet.

 On 15 August 2012 02:23, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

 That's 14W/(PI*(0.3)^2)*1)~14W/(0.3mm^3)~45KW/cm^3. DAMN!

Re: [Vo]:Detailed inside information about Rossi's 1000C test reactor

[Robert Lynn]

I'll top-post this reply to make it easier to read:

What I meant is that the device does not look at all convincing, this
release could be Rossi's way of getting some early feedback on the types of
objection that critics are likely to have when he unveils it for his next
set of demonstrations, so I am perhaps doing him that small service.  :)

Hydrides release hydrogen at higher and higher pressures as the temperature
increases, increasing temperature from 500°C to 1200°C could increase
pressure by an order of magnitude.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Metal_hydride_hydrogen.storage.graph.gif
http://www.rebresearch.com/sorbers.html
pressure would be increasing massively as your temperature increased - a
very dangerous situation for a reactor that is rapidly losing strength.
 And this would be quite scary in terms of the lack of control over the
reaction that it would give (depending on what the influence of pressure is
upon the reaction).  He apparently has no way of measuring or releasing
pressure - again very dangerous, and he would be lucky not to have a
dangerous accident if he was really using such a system.

Even using only a small amount of hydride (not running at pressure
equilibrium) you would then have a pretty dangerous situation with pressure
increasing as metal strength decreased.  at 1200°C all superalloys are
extremely weak.  And the rate of hydrogen leakage would also increase
massively at such high temperatures - you would need some way to compensate
for that leakage.

And then there is the added problem of how to ensure that the source of
your heat energy is not leaking and reacting hydrogen (they store a lot of
energy).


It makes no difference what the temperature is under the skin - like the
earth's core is thousands of degrees, but the surface is only about 280K on
average, and it is the surface that radiates (or convects) away the heat.
 Though the hole you point to does look to be more like 700-800°C it is
only a tiny area, and will be radiating very little energy.  Almost the
whole surface is barely starting to have a hint of red - so the temperature
looks to be under 500°C.  His stories about not being able to get close
because it was too hot sounds like rubbish, you can easily put your hands
in front of a bar heater or radiant gas heater operating at the power
levels he is claiming, and 13kW on the surface of a 1.2m radius sphere is
only about the same heat flux as the sun has on a cloudless day.

His statement about heat being radiated by inner walls sounds like he
doesn't understand basic radiative physics, as all that energy must leave
through the small holes at the end, those holes are the only area that
count (in terms of the heat energy from the inner tube).

On 11 August 2012 03:52, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote:

 A technical analysis at last!


 On 2012-08-11 04:05, Robert Lynn wrote:

 Looks like Rossi has invented a tube furnace,or bought one and coated it
 in a refractory.


 Yep, a very crude device. Makes you wonder about others', or maybe the
 opposite depending on your point of view.


  Not a very convincing picture.  No visible connections for gas or other
 fluids, no temperature sensors, just a couple of electrical supplies.
   Typically shoddy Rossi work, and again I ask myself is this deliberate
 to create more uncertainty, or simply lazy?


 This was posted by a *very* reliable inside source (probably one of
 Rossi's technical advisors - he has direct, first hand access to his
 devices, reports having disassembled them and performed measurements
 personally, including those of this high temperature E-Cat core) who never
 deliberately gave misinformation to his public. Although there's still the
 chance this could have happened, I think it's quite small. For what it's
 worth, Daniele Passerini confirms too the authenticity of this photo,
 having already seen similar ones privately some time ago. But you might
 probably not consider him a reliable source.

 I thought it was a known fact that Rossi now uses hydrides instead of
 Hydrogen gas. Maybe my impression was wrong?

 As for other [cooling] fluids, this is a bare reactor. Do you remember the
 first public Defkalion GT testing protocol? They were supposed to make the
 invited scientists test stripped down reactors, with no cooling other than
 optionally blown air. Same deal here, except there was probably no cooling
 performed when this photo was taken.

 Temperatures, as the description reports, in this case are measured
 through laser thermometers and a thermal camera. So the visible electrical
 connections are all is needed to make this work.

 Again, it's a very crude device. But if it's just supposed to make a lot
 of uncontrolled heat, it could be more than enough for the job.


  Also unclear how this heat is being radiated away when there is only a
 small hole for the heat to leave through, and from the colour it doesn't
 look like it is over 1000°C (though