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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 12/29/2016 02:31 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
LOL simply converting angular to linear momentums is trivial - think 
of a piston and crank, ball billiards or whatever..


You are confusing angular velocity, rotational energy, and kinetic 
energy with angular momentum and linear momentum.


A crank and piston doesn't convert linear momentum to angular momentum, 
any more than a resistor in an antenna converts the angular momentum of 
the EM wave into heat.


If you think otherwise then you don't understand CoA and there's no 
point in continuing this discussion.  And if you /don't/ think otherwise 
then you already know your example doesn't show conversion between the 
two and you are just trolling, in which case there's also no point in 
continuing the discussion.


And by the way, who are you?  I seriously doubt your parents named you 
"Vibrator".

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 12/29/2016 12:31 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
  So, there's an intriguing thought to end on - if an EM-driven 
spacecraft subsequently decelerates again by simply performing a 180° 
rotation and continuing to apply constant thrust, all of the 
'anomolous' momentum and energy is neatly returned to source.


Well, no, actually, it wouldn't be.

You've neglected angular momentum, which isn't so easily patched up as that.

In an inertial frame in which the craft is initially at rest, it's all 
good.  But if we assume that we're viewing it from a frame in which the 
craft was originally travelling on a line passing through the origin, 
/and/ we assume that its initial acceleration took place /perpendicular/ 
to that line, /and/ we assume (just to keep it simple) that it 
accelerated very hard for a very short time /just as it passed through 
the origin/, then, though its linear momentum changed, the initial 
acceleration didn't affect its angular momentum.


However, the final acceleration, which takes place after it has 
travelled a significant distance from the origin, will not be parallel 
to its radius vector, and hence will change its angular momentum but a 
significant amount.


Consequently, angular momentum won't be conserved in this scenario.

This is, BTW, one of the issues with teleportation as it commonly 
appears in sci-fi.  You can patch the linear momentum pretty easily but 
unless you want to throw CoAM overboard you've got a problem.


As I said to start with, none of this "proves" the EM drive can't work.  
However, it makes the /likelihood/ that it's anything more than bad 
measurements seem very small, as CoAM, CoM, and CoE have been verified 
many times over, in the exact realm the EM drive operates in.  It's 
reflecting reasonably garden-variety EM radiation in a cavity, which is 
well within the region where classical physics is most solid.  It's not 
like the thing has a black hole on board or something.

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 12/29/2016 12:46 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:

What's wrong with the centripetal tether example?


With the engine turned off (no thrust) putting the tether in place 
doesn't change the angular momentum at all.  The cross product of the 
linear momentum of the object with its radius vector remains unchanged.  
Since it's exerting no torque on the pivot, that must be true, classically.


Meanwhile, the linear momentum of the tethered object is changing 
constantly, as its velocity vector rotates.  But it's also exerting a 
force on the pivot point, as a result of which the linear momentum of 
whatever the pivot is anchored to is also changing constantly, in such a 
way that the sum of the two remains constant.  (Energy, not so much, as 
it goes as the square of the velocity and hence has zero derivative WRT 
velocity at zero velocity.)


There's no interconversion between linear and angular momentum.   As I 
already said, they're conserved separately.

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

They are closely related, as angular momentum (in classical mechanics) 
is the sum of the angular momentum of each object in the system measured 
about its own axis, along with the sum of the linear momentum of each 
object crossed with its radius vector.  Total angular momentum depends 
on where you put the origin -- but then, total linear momentum depends 
on your frame of reference, as does total energy.


However, linear and angular momentum are conserved separately. Given a 
particular frame of reference and origin, you can't start with 50 
kg-m/sec of linear momentum and magically reduce that to zero while 
increasing the angular momentum of the system by an equivalent amount.


Granted, in classical mechanics the conservation law for angular 
momentum is derived from the conservation law for linear momentum, but 
when you get into quantum mechanics, not so much.


On 12/29/2016 12:42 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:



On 12/29/2016 12:31 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
Offering the implied presence of classical symmetry breaks as 
evidence of their impossibility - ie. "it can't be right because it'd 
break the laws of physics" - is surely redundant; the claim is 
explicitly a classical symmetry break, that's its whole prospective 
value, and reason for our interest.


It is of course trivial that linear momentum can be converted to 
angular momentum,


Do tell.

Got an example of that?

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 12/29/2016 12:31 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
Offering the implied presence of classical symmetry breaks as evidence 
of their impossibility - ie. "it can't be right because it'd break the 
laws of physics" - is surely redundant; the claim is explicitly a 
classical symmetry break, that's its whole prospective value, and 
reason for our interest.


It is of course trivial that linear momentum can be converted to 
angular momentum,


Do tell.

Got an example of that?

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

That's interesting.  That would resolve the conservation violations.

On 12/28/2016 01:54 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
I've seen some calculations showing that there is a toroidal electric 
field within the device. I wonder if the movement is due the pull of 
the magnetic field of the Earth.


2016-12-28 16:43 GMT-02:00 Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com 
<mailto:sa...@pobox.com>>:


Just to point something out -- the EM drive /obviously/ doesn't
need to be outside the craft to work, since it doesn't eject mass.

Furthermore (and consequently), it violates conservation of
momentum, conservation of angular momentum, conservation of
energy, and conservation of mass.  While data trumps theory, this
doesn't seem like the most likely explanation of the effect to me.

Gedanken:  Put an EM drive in a box.  Attach it to a wire.  Attach
the other end of the wire to a pivot (like one of those old gas
powered toy planes people used to have before the days of radio
control).  Let the box with the EM drive go.  It will accelerate
in a circle, around the pivot point.

Power consumption inside the box is presumably constant. Power
generated varies in proportion to the speed of the box (power =
force * velocity).  So, at some point it'll be generating more
power than it's consuming.  And there's the violation of CoE. 
(With a bit of cleverness you can turn it into a Type I perpetual

motion machine.)

Meanwhile it's going lickety split around the pivot, with
increasing angular momentum; with no mass ejection there's no
compensating decrease anywhere else.  There's the violation of
conservation of angular momentum.

And as its velocity increases, its mass increases as gamma*m. 
There's the violation of conservation of mass.


And violation of linear momentum is obvious.

On the other hand if it doesn't work, then all that's being
violated is the assumption that the handful of extremely delicate
high precision experiments that have been done to show the effect
were not somehow botched.

I'm not holding my breath on this one.


On 12/28/2016 02:02 AM, David Roberson wrote:

Russ,

Can you verify that the Chinese actually have a functioning EM
drive on their space station. Also, how much thrust are they
claiming? Finally, is that device or group of devices capable of
maintaining all of the orientation required for the station?

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:45 pm
Subject: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

A curious facet of the EM drive, such as the one now operating on
the Chinese space station is that it need not be on the outside
of the spacecraft, it’s thrust is independent of the position and
surrounding matter. This enables all manner of interesting
spacecraft geometries.





--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com <mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com>

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Just to point something out -- the EM drive /obviously/ doesn't need to 
be outside the craft to work, since it doesn't eject mass.


Furthermore (and consequently), it violates conservation of momentum, 
conservation of angular momentum, conservation of energy, and 
conservation of mass.  While data trumps theory, this doesn't seem like 
the most likely explanation of the effect to me.


Gedanken:  Put an EM drive in a box.  Attach it to a wire.  Attach the 
other end of the wire to a pivot (like one of those old gas powered toy 
planes people used to have before the days of radio control).  Let the 
box with the EM drive go.  It will accelerate in a circle, around the 
pivot point.


Power consumption inside the box is presumably constant.  Power 
generated varies in proportion to the speed of the box (power = force * 
velocity).  So, at some point it'll be generating more power than it's 
consuming.  And there's the violation of CoE.  (With a bit of cleverness 
you can turn it into a Type I perpetual motion machine.)


Meanwhile it's going lickety split around the pivot, with increasing 
angular momentum; with no mass ejection there's no compensating decrease 
anywhere else.  There's the violation of conservation of angular momentum.


And as its velocity increases, its mass increases as gamma*m. There's 
the violation of conservation of mass.


And violation of linear momentum is obvious.

On the other hand if it doesn't work, then all that's being violated is 
the assumption that the handful of extremely delicate high precision 
experiments that have been done to show the effect were not somehow botched.


I'm not holding my breath on this one.

On 12/28/2016 02:02 AM, David Roberson wrote:

Russ,

Can you verify that the Chinese actually have a functioning EM drive 
on their space station.  Also, how much thrust are they claiming?  
Finally, is that device or group of devices capable of maintaining all 
of the orientation required for the station?


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Russ George 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:45 pm
Subject: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

A curious facet of the EM drive, such as the one now operating on the 
Chinese space station is that it need not be on the outside of the 
spacecraft, it’s thrust is independent of the position and surrounding 
matter. This enables all manner of interesting spacecraft geometries.

Re: [Vo]:Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity inside a spherical shell.

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 12/09/2016 01:54 PM, H LV wrote:



On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com 
<mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote:


Well known result -- gravitational time dilation has to do with
the gravitational potential, not the strength of the field.


​GR's principle of equivalence depends on the concept of a force and 
not on the concept of a potential.
A person in an elevator without windows can only detect either the 
presence or an absence of a force.​


A person in an elevator also can't detect redshift or blueshift of light 
moving into or out of the elevator, because they are restricted to 
making measurements /inside the elevator/. Gravitational time dilation 
is a non-local effect, detectable only by comparing the results of 
measurements at highly separated points.  The elevator metaphor doesn't 
have anything to do with it. In fact there is *no* time dilation of any 
sort associated with either acceleration or a strong local G-field.


On the other hand a person in an elevator */can/* tell whether there's a 
gravitational field present, by checking for tidal effects, which are 
IIRC linear in the spatial dimension and hence detectable even at small 
scales.  That breaks the "elevator=gravity" correspondence, as real 
gravitational fields /always/ exhibit tidal effects.  (Constructed 
fields which result from funniness at a domain boundary don't show tidal 
effects but they're also not real.)


Don't confuse explanations using a metaphor with actual reasoning about 
the results.  The elevator is a metaphor, useful in looking for general 
principles, but imperfect in detail.  The drop-a-rock-down-a-well 
experiment, on the other hand, can in principle be quantified, and in 
the absence of gravitational redshift which depends on the potential, it 
results in a violation of CoE.  In fact it, or a simple variation on it, 
is what led to the concept of gravitational redshift to begin with, or 
so I've read.





Simple gedanken:  Drop a rock through a slender shaft into a
spherical hollow cut out of the center of a spherical planet.  The
rock has more kinetic energy when it gets to the center of the planet.

Turn the rock (along with its kinetic energy) into photons, and
beam them back up the shaft.  At the top of the shaft, catch the
beam and turn it back into a rock.

The rock must have the same mass at the end as it had to start
with (or something's very wrong), which is smaller than the mass
it had at the bottom of the shaft (due its additional kinetic
energy which shows up as a mass excess).  This can only be true if
the beam of light was *redder* at the top of the shaft than the
bottom. So, there must have been a gravitational red-shift as the
light climbed the shaft.

So, the /frequency/ of the light at the top of the shaft must be
*lower* than the frequency at the bottom of the shaft.

But the *total number of wave crests* in the beam of light can't
change.  (You can count them, using appropriate equipment; in that
sense they behave like marbles.)  A certain number of wave crests
in the beam entered the shaft at the bottom; the same number of
wave crests must have come out the top.

So, if the /frequency/ measured by an observer at the top of the
shaft is /lower/ than the frequency measured at the bottom of the
shaft, the wave crests must have taken more time to exit the top
of the shaft than they took to enter the bottom of the shaft, and
so, /time must be passing faster for the observer at the top of
the shaft.

/


​The experiment is different in that it doesn't involve an exchange of 
mass or energy between the surface and the interior.​


Harry

On 12/07/2016 12:53 AM, H LV wrote:

According to the shell theorem  the gravitational force on a test
mass inside a hollow sphere is every where zero. This paper
argues that this situation is not equivalent from the standpoint
of General Relativity to the situation where gravity falls to
zero far outside the sphere. They conclude that General
Relativity predicts that a clock located inside a hollow sphere
should run slower than a clock located outside the hollow sphere.
(By contrast most people are familiar with the fact that General
relativity predicts a clock should run faster as the force of
gravity approaches zero far from a gravitational body) This could
provide a laboratory test of Newtonian gravity which predicts
that both clocks should run at the same rate.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.4428.pdf
<https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.4428.pdf>


Harry

Re: [Vo]:Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity inside a spherical shell.

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Well known result -- gravitational time dilation has to do with the 
gravitational potential, not the strength of the field.


Simple gedanken:  Drop a rock through a slender shaft into a spherical 
hollow cut out of the center of a spherical planet.  The rock has more 
kinetic energy when it gets to the center of the planet.


Turn the rock (along with its kinetic energy) into photons, and beam 
them back up the shaft.  At the top of the shaft, catch the beam and 
turn it back into a rock.


The rock must have the same mass at the end as it had to start with (or 
something's very wrong), which is smaller than the mass it had at the 
bottom of the shaft (due its additional kinetic energy which shows up as 
a mass excess).  This can only be true if the beam of light was *redder* 
at the top of the shaft than the bottom. So, there must have been a 
gravitational red-shift as the light climbed the shaft.


So, the /frequency/ of the light at the top of the shaft must be *lower* 
than the frequency at the bottom of the shaft.


But the *total number of wave crests* in the beam of light can't 
change.  (You can count them, using appropriate equipment; in that sense 
they behave like marbles.)  A certain number of wave crests in the beam 
entered the shaft at the bottom; the same number of wave crests must 
have come out the top.


So, if the /frequency/ measured by an observer at the top of the shaft 
is /lower/ than the frequency measured at the bottom of the shaft, the 
wave crests must have taken more time to exit the top of the shaft than 
they took to enter the bottom of the shaft, and so, /time must be 
passing faster for the observer at the top of the shaft.


/
On 12/07/2016 12:53 AM, H LV wrote:
According to the shell theorem  the gravitational force on a test mass 
inside a hollow sphere is every where zero. This paper argues that 
this situation is not equivalent from the standpoint of General 
Relativity to the situation where gravity falls to zero far outside 
the sphere. They conclude that General Relativity predicts that a 
clock located inside a hollow sphere should run slower than a clock 
located outside the hollow sphere. (By contrast most people are 
familiar with the fact that General relativity predicts a clock should 
run faster as the force of gravity approaches zero far from a 
gravitational body) This could provide a laboratory test of Newtonian 
gravity which predicts that both clocks should run at the same rate.



https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.4428.pdf


Harry

Re: [Vo]:more jobs are going away

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

And of course it can read the RfID chip in your credit card as well, so 
there's no real need to even pause -- you'll (eventually) automatically 
pay for everything in your cart simply by leaving the store.


And of course anyone in the area with the right kind of equipment 
(stashed in a briefcase, in their pocket, or in the van parked outside) 
can read your credit card info too, as well as obtaining a list of 
everything you bought.  And they can probably backtrack it to you, so 
they know who you are, as well as what you're buying. "Only works in the 
near-field of the card" ... but how "near" is "near"?  That's like 
saying "Only works with a heap of sand".  How far the "near field" 
extends depends on the equipment reading it.


Most of the spies will just be working to produce more targeted 
advertising (where the "YUGE" money is) but there will no doubt be some 
identity thieves as well.  And then the vendors can say "OMG we totally 
didn't see this coming!  These security problems were entirely unexpected!"


Bleagh.  With every reduction in the number of "clicks" needed to buy 
something things get less secure.



On 12/06/2016 10:10 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This article says that Amazon is using cameras and AI to implement 
this. IBM and others are working on RfID technology that would make 
"grab and go" grocery stores much easier to implement. Here is an 
advertisement showing how this would work:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eob532iEpqk

As you see, the scanner works at a distance and it scans all items 
simultaneously.


A few years ago, RfID tags were still too expensive for grocery items, 
but the prices were falling rapidly. I think this system is inevitable.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Possible generation of heat from nuclear fusion in Earth’s inner core

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Re: Lighter materials migrating to where the gravity is lower:  It 
doesn't work that way.  A pingpong ball on the surface has no way of 
knowing that 1000 miles down it would be lighter.


What migrates up, and what migrates down, depends only on the local 
gravitational field, and the relative densities of the items in 
question.  Locally, over the regions where convection is actually 
sorting things out, the strength of gravity can be considered to be 
constant.


Convection, just like the buoyancy force, is due to differential 
pressure on the bottom and top of an object.  When we're dealing with 
tiny objects, the differential pressure is due essentially entirely to 
the density of other "stuff" around the object, which results in 
increasing pressure with depth.  Again, on the scales which are relevant 
to sorting molecules, fine particles, tiny bubbles, etc, gravity can be 
treated as constant.



On 12/03/2016 11:21 AM, H LV wrote:


Q: why don't lighter elements find there way to the centre of the 
Earth if gravity is lowest at the centre?


Harry​


New study indicates Earth's inner core was formed 1 - 1.5 billion 
years ago

October 7, 2015
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-earth-core-billion-years.html

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 10:47 AM, H LV > wrote:


Possible generation of heat from nuclear fusion in Earth’s inner core

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep37740


<>

Harry

Re: [Vo]:How much helium?

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

As I suppose everyone reading this thread has already recalled, one of 
Bill Beaty's "red flags of fraud" 'way back when was responding to 
questions and challenges with outrage and anger, while failing to 
actually address the question being raised.


We've certainly seen this sort of behavior before.  At least Russ didn't 
call you a snake.


On 11/17/2016 02:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Russ George wrote:

Why, because you are an armchair self-serving critic who never
does anything but try to raise your own worth by trolling
worthless comments . . .


Well, at least I have edited and published papers. You have published 
little or nothing, so you have made no contributions. Science is not 
science unless you publish and inform others what you have done.



The fact that you won’t spend 5 minutes finding the answers to
your own questions . . .


That's silly. There are different instruments and techniques. I am 
curious to know which ones you used, but not so curious I will subject 
myself to childish abuse. Forget it.



On a personal note, let me add that you have anger issues. You have no 
reason to be upset with me. You know that I have helped you at various 
times in your life, yet this is how you treat me. And how you treat 
others who have helped you. This is one of the reasons you have 
trouble in life.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Long Peace 18 min video slide show on all war deaths since Fall of Rome -- after 70 million in WWII, lower and lower to now...: Rich Murray 2016.11.06

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

And since WWII there's been the Pax Atomica.

It may have been the first time in the history of the world that two 
dominant powers were ideologically opposed and were at each other's 
throats for decades and yet never went to war.



On 11/07/2016 01:41 AM, Rich Murray wrote:

vortex-l@eskimo.com 

The Long Peace 18 min video slide show on all war deaths since Fall of 
Rome -- after 70 million in WWII, lower and lower to now...: Rich 
Murray 2016.11.06


http://www.fallen.io/ww2/

Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:New Record Low Solar Price in Abu Dhabi – Costs Plunging Faster Than Expected

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Sounds sort of reasonable.

But something comes to mind -- the E field they apply, as described, 
doesn't do any work, as far as I can tell.  It /just/ biases the cell.  
IOW it's a static E field.


In particular, since there's no path for the charge to leave the 
"plates" (front and back coatings) there's certainly no way for the 
charge to do any work.


But that means it also consumes no energy.  Consequently, all you'd need 
are conductive coatings on the front and back of the cell, and you could 
charge them from anything at all, including a voltage multiplier driven 
by the cell's own output.  In essence, you stick the cell into the 
middle of a charged capacitor.


It's not hard to believe this would affect the solar cell, and might 
very well improve its efficiency.  OTOH if that's correct, then the 
"pyrolytic film" seems like unnecessary decoration on the basic idea.


On 09/22/2016 04:55 PM, Jones Beene wrote:


Here is the patent application – or one of them

https://www.google.com/patents/US20120216847

Abstract

A method to increase the efficiency of a solar cell comprises applying 
one of a transparent pyroelectric film and a plurality of films in a 
stack on a front surface of the solar cell and applying one of an 
opaque pyroelectric film and plurality of films in a stack on another 
surface of the solar cell. An electromotive force is generated to bias 
the solar cell such that an open circuit voltage is created.


**

Terry,

They seem to contradict themselves: elsewhere they claim “the Efficoat 
technology” provides 15-20% improvement in power production from 
ordinary solar panels over the course of a typical day.” This would 
lead one to believe that the panels are coated.


If the coating is not on the panels but contained in a remote box, 
then why not sell the box to Tesla and let the cars get 20% more out 
of the battery pack ? Who needs the solar panels?


Hmmm … do we know that Tesla doesn’t do this already ?

*From:*Terry Blanton


Is there a better description of their tech?  Say, a patent app?  'Cuz 
I don't get the impression that they do anything to the solar cell 
itself.  From the FAQ:


*Is the Pyroelectric coating on the panel directly?*

/No, the Pyroelectric glass and coating reside inside the sealed 
Ultrasolar QuantunBoost™ device. There are no user serviceable parts 
in the device that need to be accessed by the user or field technician./


*How does Pyroelectric help increase the power of a solar cell?*

/We create electric field from a coating of pyroelectric material on 
glass. The field is applied on the solar cell using the electrodes of 
the solar cell. The applied electric field removes electrons and holes 
from traps and accelerates them towards the electrodes. This increases 
the current resulting in increase of DC power from the panel./


So, er, has anyone tried substituting a battery for the solar cells?  
After all, as Monty Python says, "Every electron is special."  So the 
origin should not matter.  (It was 'electron', right?)


Okay, I'll stop.  Bollocks!

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Do you honestly believe that modern relativity theory takes Einstein's 
conclusions from his original papers and just blindly uses them?  What 
kind of idiots do you take physicists to be, anyway?


The modern version of SR is based on tensor calculus with little or no 
connection with Einstein's original algebraic work.  His GR papers still 
look quite modern, but even there all of his work has been redone, 
rederived, many times over.


You can pick at his 1905 paper from now 'til the cows come home, or go 
waste your time on something else, it makes no difference. Whether there 
are errors in the derivations in that paper or not, seriously, /nobody 
cares/.


(Sorry, everybody, in years past I wasted a lot of time in arguments in 
the relativity news groups.  Some people just don't understand the math 
of SR and will never believe that it works.)



On 09/22/2016 04:15 PM, ROGER ANDERTON wrote:

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

One trivial point -- if you're in free fall I don't think there is any 
Rindler boundary.  You're following a geodesic, and not "really" 
accelerating.


You can't just apply SR in the curved spacetime around a gravitating 
mass and get the right answer.  In fact, while you certainly /can/ apply 
SR in an accelerated frame (with some care), you can't really apply it 
at all in non-flat space.  The math of SR assumes a fixed metric, which 
you haven't got in a gravitational field.   In general, while I don't 
_think_ there is, I have no idea how you'd go about determining for sure 
whether there's an event horizon due to acceleration when free-falling 
in a gravitational field.


On 09/22/2016 12:48 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:

I have read Dr. McCulloch's book and find his theory interesting.

However, my training in RF gives me a different perspective on wave 
phenomena that doesn't seem to match up with his theory. In his 
theory, he drops out wavelengths of EM background radiation that would 
be filtered in the frequency domain due to the Rindler boundary which 
moves closer to the object depending on acceleration.  However, in the 
time domain these waves would have to propagate the distances to the 
discontinuity and back before any cancellations could occur. The 
boundaries in question are huge distances away.  For example, for a 
free fall acceleration on the Earth (9.8m/s^2), the boundary would be 
changed to 10 light years away.  The change in inertial mass induced 
by an acceleration will not know of the discontinuity until twice the 
time to the discontinuity.  That would mean that the object being 
accelerated at 9.8m/s^2 should not know of the boundary for at least 
20 years.  If the object instantaneously experienced a change in 
inertial mass, it would seem to violate causality by this theory.


I have written to Dr. McCulloch to ask him how I get past this 
understanding.  Do any of you have an opinion on this issue?


On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Jack Cole > wrote:



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

Re: [Vo]:LENR deployment methods

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

So now we're posting science fiction here?

(Or does stuff from Rossi count as pure fantasy rather than sci-fi?)

On 09/20/2016 04:40 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Norman
September 20, 2016 at 7:28 AM
Dear Andrea Rossi:
Update of the work on the QuarkX?
Cheers,
Norman

Andrea Rossi
September 20, 2016 at 8:29 AM
Norman:
Still in very good standing, but also still dangerous. Working mainly 
on safety issues now.

Warm Regards,
A.R.

If seems that LENR reactors are not as inherently safe as we all once 
thought. But the safe deployment of LENR technology could still be 
accommodated into the current power infrastructure.


The development of ocean deployment of huge wind turbines will serve 
LENR reactor deployment well. A safe method of LENR deployment will 
entail the use of those floating platforms located just off shore.


The technical feasibility of deepwater floating LENR platforms will 
not be questioned, as the long-term survivability of floating 
structures has been successfully demonstrated by the marine and 
offshore oil industries over many decades. However, the economics that 
allowed the deployment of thousands of offshore oil rigs have yet to 
be demonstrated for floating LENR reactor platforms. For deepwater 
wind turbines, a floating structure will replace pile-driven monopoles 
or conventional concrete bases that are commonly used as foundations 
for shallow water and land-based reactors. The floating structure must 
provide enough buoyancy to support the weight of the reactor as a 
function of its size and power production rating and to restrain 
pitch, roll and heave motions within acceptable limits.


Since muon shielding is so problematic, distance from any population 
is the one dependable risk mitigation method.


The distance of LENR deployment offshore would be a function of the 
range of muon travel before decay and the inverse square law dilution 
of muon density together with safe muon exposure limits.


The floating LENR reactor will be bigger than a sea buoy, but smaller 
than a floating wind turbine. Robotize remote controlled maintence 
could allow for human free maintenance of the LENR reactor such as 
refueling. The activated waste fuel could be dumped into the deep 
water or dissolved in acid.

Re: [Vo]:LENR needs mortar and unity!

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 09/18/2016 04:54 PM, Jones Beene wrote:


*From:*Peter Gluck

Ødear Jones,some 10% of the sum in dispute usually goes to the 
attorney, lawyers, hudges...everywhere.


Very funny. I mistook this for a serious discussion…




Hasn't been that, for at least a couple months.

It is clear that Penon is facing misdemeanor charges in Florida for 
operating a boiler without a license and failing to have US 
certification as a practicing engineer. Actual fraud has been 
mentioned by IH.


If you were Penon, would you return?



Only if I were extradited.

It was a dirty job, and he's surely glad it's over.

Re: [Vo]:LENR needs mortar and unity!

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 09/16/2016 03:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


A researcher with a good experiment should contact I.H. They might 
fund the research. No one else will. No government will.


Once burned twice shy.

Do you really think I.H. would take another flier on cold fusion at this 
point?


Rossi did a great job.  He has totally nuked the chances of CF to go 
anywhere for a long, long time to come.  Between getting egg on a lot of 
people's faces, costing some people a lot of money, and making some CF 
experts look like idiots for not seeing through him sooner (which should 
have surprised nobody -- con man versus scientists, con man usually 
wins), whatever aura of respectability the field might have had has gone 
in the dumper at this point.


Anyhow that's my sad opinion on the situation :-(

Re: [Vo]:I am fighting for the right to think differently

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 09/12/2016 02:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Peter Gluck > wrote:

"To learn who rules over you- simply find out who you are not
allowed to criticize (Voltaire)


Who are you talking about?


Sounds like maybe his wife?

Can't think of anyone else in that category, off hand.

Re: [Vo]:I am fighting for the right to think differently

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

They sure are out there!  See this article:

http://educate-yourself.org/mc/

And this:

http://www.starshipearththebigpicture.com/2013/10/25/ever-seen-a-mind-control-tower-bet-you-have/

And that's just a start.  Once you start looking, there's /lots/ of 
information on the Internet about the mind control towers and how they 
cause people to hear voices in their heads.


And now we find out our very own Peter Gluck has been targeted by the 
mind control people.  This is so sad.



On 09/12/2016 10:05 AM, ChemE Stewart wrote:

"there's no mind-police out there trying to zap you"

They're out there...

http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2012/09/the-thought-police-are-coming-2464566.html

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Esa Ruoho > wrote:


I think Jed is pretty on-the-nose with his comment. If Peter Gluck
from Romania, is fighting for the right to think differently, then
he probably knows who he is fighting against, and how they have
shown themselves to him - who they are, what do they say, and how
do they resist his right to think differently.

On the other hand, if this is just a psychological trick that
Peter Gluck is playing, to get some more clicks to his blog, i.e.
"They're suppressing meee Click here to
see how!", then there is no actual person, persons or group of
people who he has to fight against.

The whole concept of "fighting for the right to think differently"
is kind of wonky in my honest opinion. In the privacy of your own
home (in this case, mind), you are free to think whatever you want
to. There really is nobody stopping you, there's no mind-police
out there trying to zap you out of thinking like this or that.

So hence Jed's "You brave soul." commentary comes into full focus
as pointing out that Peter, by wanting to think differently, does
not actually have any enemies out there that he is fighting against.

So it's just another blogger trying to survive by posting posts
with hyperbole in the subjectline.



On 12 September 2016 at 14:14, Lennart Thornros
> wrote:

Jed
You asked;

Who are you fighting? Who prevents you from thinking differently?

Somtimes a question becomes A great answer. This reveals an
enormous naive mindset. It also explains your inability to see
that the truth has many appearances sometimes in conflict but
true.
Thanks for explaining yourself.
Kennett Thornros

On Sep 11, 2016 19:48, "Jed Rothwell" > wrote:

Peter Gluck wrote:

I am fighting for the right to think differently.


You brave soul! How admirable.

Who are you fighting? Who prevents you from thinking
differently?

- Jed




-- 
---

http://twitter.com/esaruoho // http://lackluster.bandcamp.com
 // +358403703659
 //
skype:esajuhaniruoho // http://esaruoho.tumblr.com/ // iMessage:
esaru...@gmail.com  //

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 09/03/2016 01:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com <mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote:

And more important, how could the dirt /circulate?/  It wouldn't
make it past the boil/vaporize/recondense stage.


If there really was steam, the dirt could be coming from the condenser.


But it wouldn't /build up/.  The stain in the water would all be fresh 
wash-off from the condenser, picked up on that pass through it.


The condenser would have to have been literally scaling away, 
disintegrating on the inside, for that to happen if the crud didn't make 
it around the circuit along with the water -- and then the whole thing 
would have clogged up essentially instantly, as the dissolved guts of 
the condenser reappeared in the boilers.


And supposedly photos of the rig showed that the water got dirtier as 
time went by.  (At least, I think that's what they said.)





As if we needed more proof -- but the brown water seems pretty
iron-clad . . .


Literally. There was lots of rust in it.


:-)



- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Hey, speaking of dirty water, there was a really worthwhile observation 
on that thread:


"Could be anything. Rust, dirt, bacteria. If Rossi wouldn't just let 
it circulate with a mild 20 kW heating once per circle, *it'd all clog 
up in whatever part is supposed to turn that filth into steam.*"


!!! Yow !!!

You can't have dirty water running into a boiler, day in, day out, and 
dry steam coming out the other end -- it's just not gonna work for more 
than a very short period before the boiler clogs!


And more important, how could the dirt /circulate?/  It wouldn't make it 
past the boil/vaporize/recondense stage.  You've got /distilled water/ 
coming in from the condenser, so each pass through the device starts 
with squeaky clean water, so /how could it get dirtier over time?/  The 
water going round and round, getting redistilled over and over, should 
be pure enough to drink!


Yet the photos seem to show just that -- crud built up in the system.  
Therefore, /the water was not being boiled off -- it was traversing the 
loop as liquid/.


As if we needed more proof -- but the brown water seems pretty 
iron-clad, even if there were no other evidence that the system didn't work.



On 09/02/2016 11:56 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com 
<mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote:


And  obvious point ... if the water in the reservoir was
seriously dirty, as you mentioned in an earlier note, then it
wasn't pure water, which in turn implies it very probably had a
higher boiling point than pure water.


See the images in this post on LENR Forum:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3645-Analyzing-E-Cat-Plant-Pump-Photos-Indicate-COP-1-Engineer48/?postID=33411#post33411

The images show what appears to be clear plastic tubing leading from 
the individual pumps.  The fluid going through most of the tubing is 
dark brown, but the longer tubes running behind the first ones show a 
lighter color.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Investigation of Nano Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter, Final Report

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Jed, what is this?   I can't quite figure it out.  Is this a review of 
old work, or is some of the work in it new?


The most recent date I could find in the paper is 2012, on references in 
the bibliography which were most likely describing work done in 2011 (or 
earlier).  The text appeared to mostly be describing work done between 
2007 and 2010.


The most striking assertions in the paper about codeposition appeared to 
date from 2009.


On 09/02/2016 03:34 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

See:

Mosier-Boss, P.A., L. Forsley, and P. McDaniel, /Investigation of Nano 
Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter, Final Report/. 2016, Defense 
Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA).


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

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 09/02/2016 11:07 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:



Also, because an earlier version of the report supposedly had higher 
numbers, which were replaced with 0.0 bar in the later version.


Thanks for that nugget.  It made the time spent following this whole 
thread worthwhile.  :-)   (When people do that sort of thing in my 
business they can find themselves in jail -- but then our biggest 
customer is the government and they play hardball with fraud.)


And BTW if it's supposed to be barG, then quite aside from the issue of 
how the steam is forced through the pipe with zero applied pressure, we 
also have the problem of an unknown boiling point for pure water at the 
site, since we don't know the atmospheric pressure.


And  obvious point ... if the water in the reservoir was seriously 
dirty, as you mentioned in an earlier note, then it wasn't pure water, 
which in turn implies it very probably had a higher boiling point than 
pure water.


This all makes it very hard to assess the steam quality.

[Vo]:Truism regarding calorimetry

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Something we don't often consider:

*From an engineering perspective, if you need careful calorimetry to 
determine whether your generator works, then it really doesn't matter 
whether it works.  Its output is so small as to be irrelevant.*


A device producing a megawatt of heat energy should not require careful 
calorimetry to determine whether it works.

*
**The arguments over Rossi's 1 MW device center on the calorimetry.  
Therefore the device doesn't work -- if it did there would be no such 
arguments.*


I mean, seriously, how hard is it to convert 1 MW of heat output into a 
useful quantity of electricity?  Run it through a heat exchanger to boil 
freon or ammonia or alcohol, drive an engine with that (a bank of 
Stirling engines might be a good place to start). Even with 90% 
conversion loss you'd be producing 100KW which would be /really/ easy to 
measure!  (Volts times amps, you're done.)


(If it were ready for prime time, a Viking engine 
 might be a great choice, but I 
don't think they're shipping yet.)


The demo was not conclusive.  For a 1 MW heat generator, that's the same 
as saying it flat-out doesn't work.  Producing an inconclusive demo of 
such a device, /if it worked/, would require an impossible level of 
incompetence.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/26/2016 06:31 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I am referring to the famous HotCat test where the three scientists 
wrote a nice long report.  I believe it was the last demonstration 
before the year long test.  Perhaps someone can find the exact 
reference, but it has been a while now.  Jed, give me a hand here.



Thanks -- this actually sounds interesting.  I had long since stopped 
following Rossi at that point (after concluding that his tests four or 
five years back were clearly fraudulent) and so I missed it.


If you can find a report on it I'd appreciate it.  No rush, though! I 
have other stuff I'm supposed to be doing tonight, rather than 
dissecting one of Rossi's old tests.


Anyhow I'd actually find deconstructing that a lot more interesting than 
deconstructing the year-long test.  If you know of a paper on it, with 
things like graphs and tables and actual data, that would be great.


(For the record I do not doubt that the test took place!  I doubt the 
results were as they appeared, but that's something else again, and it's 
based on the Uri Geller effect -- once someone is proved a liar I doubt 
everything they say, so if Uri Geller claims something now, I doubt it's 
true.  If he does a demo for some scientists, and they believe it's all 
true, I doubt they're right.  But that doesn't mean it's not interesting 
to go over it and try to find the glitches.)


It was well publicized and included a several day period during which 
the output was set to a fixed power.  During the test the input power 
being supplied to the device was slowly dropping as presumably more 
excess power was being generated.  A temperature sensor was attached 
to one end of the device which fed back that information into his 
control box.  Does this ring any bells?


I suppose we can search further if you really doubt that the test took 
place.   I feel a bit lazy at the moment.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2016 5:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation



On 08/26/2016 05:40 PM, David Roberson wrote:

I recall Rossi discussing power control on numerous occasions. 
Why would he hire control experts if that were not the reason?



I don't know why he does anything.  I was asking for a specific 
assertion.  AFAIK he never made such an assertion.



Do you think that anyone would have taken him seriously for any
significant period of time had he not discussed that issue?


People who looked seriously at his output power curves stopped taking 
him seriously years ago.  So, this objection is not relevant.


It seems a bit unfair for anyone to state that Rossi runs his
systems open loop especially when you should recall the HotCat
test performed by respected scientists.  They took notes which
clearly showed the input power being throttled back in time as the
output power was maintained at a constant level.  This is the
obvious finger print of negative feedback.


No, I recall no such thing.  In fact Rossi did indeed supposedly run 
his demos open loop four or five years ago. He set the input power to 
a fixed value and then showed the output power ramping up to a value 
several times the input.


And this appears to be the same, exact system, just replicated many 
times.  So, the assumption that there's feedback in it now seems 
unsupported, just like the assertion that there's a recirc pump which 
is pulling the pressure below 1 atm at the other end of the steam pipe.


And no, I don't recall any clear report by independent parties that 
the input power was definitely throttled back while the output power 
remained fixed.  Please give a specific example -- I really recall no 
such thing.


There were a handful of more or less independent tests; presumably you 
have one in mind.  Which?




Dave



-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2016 4:17 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation



On 08/23/2016 12:27 AM, David Roberson wrote:
> Rossi is using a feedback system to control the heating of his
modules

Is this known to be a fact? Has Rossi actually described in some
reasonably clear way, rather than just giving a handwave to a leading
question about feedback?

Where does this information come from? What was the feedback
parameter
(i.e., what temperature probes were used) and what, exactly, did it
control, and how?

I know a lot of people have assumed this, but I have never seen it
stated as a fact, and I have never seen it claimed by Rossi.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/26/2016 05:55 PM, Craig Haynie wrote:




On 08/26/2016 05:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Actually, that is central to the legal questions. People on Planet 
Rossi have the peculiar notion that contracts are enforced based 
strictly on the words in them. If you can write a clever enough 
contract, you can force someone to pay you no matter what happens in 
the real world...


It all depends on the court and the jury; but certainly, if you can 
prove fraud, the case goes out the window. Otherwise, some courts 
respect strict interpretation, and don't draw assumptions about the 
intent of the contract. Many contracts are written for strict 
interpretation, and outside of fraud, there are good reasons to 
believe that this test was never intended by Rossi to 'prove' the 
thing worked.*It looks to me like he intended it to be a performance 
test, and nothing more. *


But a "performance test" would absolutely show whether it worked. That's 
/exactly/ what it would show, in fact.


How could it not be intended as a demonstration that it worked? Either 
it performs as asserted or it's broken, and this test should have shown 
that.


This is not like a "safety" test of a new drug, that doesn't check to 
see if it works -- in this case, "performance" was all there was to it.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/26/2016 05:40 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I recall Rossi discussing power control on numerous occasions.  Why 
would he hire control experts if that were not the reason?


I don't know why he does anything.  I was asking for a specific 
assertion.  AFAIK he never made such an assertion.



Do you think that anyone would have taken him seriously for any 
significant period of time had he not discussed that issue?


People who looked seriously at his output power curves stopped taking 
him seriously years ago.  So, this objection is not relevant.


It seems a bit unfair for anyone to state that Rossi runs his systems 
open loop especially when you should recall the HotCat test performed 
by respected scientists.  They took notes which clearly showed the 
input power being throttled back in time as the output power was 
maintained at a constant level.  This is the obvious finger print of 
negative feedback.


No, I recall no such thing.  In fact Rossi did indeed supposedly run his 
demos open loop four or five years ago.  He set the input power to a 
fixed value and then showed the output power ramping up to a value 
several times the input.


And this appears to be the same, exact system, just replicated many 
times.  So, the assumption that there's feedback in it now seems 
unsupported, just like the assertion that there's a recirc pump which is 
pulling the pressure below 1 atm at the other end of the steam pipe.


And no, I don't recall any clear report by independent parties that the 
input power was definitely throttled back while the output power 
remained fixed.  Please give a specific example -- I really recall no 
such thing.


There were a handful of more or less independent tests; presumably you 
have one in mind.  Which?





Dave



-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2016 4:17 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation



On 08/23/2016 12:27 AM, David Roberson wrote:
> Rossi is using a feedback system to control the heating of his modules

Is this known to be a fact? Has Rossi actually described in some
reasonably clear way, rather than just giving a handwave to a leading
question about feedback?

Where does this information come from? What was the feedback parameter
(i.e., what temperature probes were used) and what, exactly, did it
control, and how?

I know a lot of people have assumed this, but I have never seen it
stated as a fact, and I have never seen it claimed by Rossi.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/26/2016 05:28 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I am trying to figure out how Rossi could have faked it just as you 
mention.   We should be able to achieve that goal by using scientific 
logic, at least that is my assumption.


Perhaps the fact that I leave open the possibility that he may be 
telling the truth is where we differ.


Yes.  And you're so reasonable in general I don't understand how you can 
still think Rossi might have been telling the truth.


It's like the WTC collapse -- after watching videos of it a disgusting 
number of times, and after watching an absurd number of videos of 
demolitions to really learn what they looked like, and after doing some 
back of the envelope calculations on momentum and expected collapse 
speeds, and after considering the difficulties in setting up a 
demolition to behave as the actual collapse did, and observing things 
like the puff of smoke from the bottom of the building which should have 
been followed by a bottom-up collapse (if it were really a demolition 
and that really was the bottom being blown out as claimed by the 
hoaxers) rather than a top-down collapse (as actually happened on the 
videos I watched so many times), I was no longer able to entertain the 
idea that explosives had anything to do with the collapse.  Not because 
FEMA said so, but because it was just about impossible to imagine how 
that could have worked.  (And I still don't understand Steven Jones, who 
is a physicist and should have known better.)


By the same token, after going over Rossi's figures and graphs with a 
fine tooth comb four or five years back, and after considering the 
absurdity of tuning the system to produce low-grade steam rather than 
something more useful and clear-cut, with the assertion that it's /dry 
dry dry/ and never any solid proof to back that up, and after observing 
that the ecat power curve /could not possibly be what he claimed/, I no 
longer consider the possibility that he's telling the truth to be a 
believable option.  The only question I might have regards some of the 
details of how he faked it.


As far as I can tell, this is the same, exact demo system he exhibited 
four or five years ago, just with a lot more units, and with the water 
being recirculated.  The setup is the same -- heaters bringing the water 
up to boiling, steam is produced /just above boiling/, and the claim is 
made that the steam is dry.  And everything hinges on the steam being 
/dry/, which would be obvious and inarguable if only the temp were 10 or 
20 degrees higher -- but it isn't.  And the only demos done with liquid 
output water below 100C, which should have been rock solid proof, were 
done without flow meters in the circuit during the actual run.





At this point all I can say is that we need more data before
we can prove that Rossi is not being truthfully. 



Bosh.  Go back to the discussion of where the 1 megawatt of heat
was dumped. *There was no megawatt of heat dumped on the "customer
site".  Rossi claimed there was.**What more proof do you need? *
The rest is just details.  The details may be interesting, but
they follow the proof in this case, they don't provide the proof.



How can you believe he might be truthful?  I don't get it.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/23/2016 12:27 AM, David Roberson wrote:

 Rossi is using a feedback system to control the heating of his modules


Is this known to be a fact?  Has Rossi actually described in some 
reasonably clear way, rather than just giving a handwave to a leading 
question about feedback?


Where does this information come from?  What was the feedback parameter 
(i.e., what temperature probes were used) and what, exactly, did it 
control, and how?


I know a lot of people have assumed this, but I have never seen it 
stated as a fact, and I have never seen it claimed by Rossi.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

David, you are doing the equivalent of using a physics model to predict 
whether airplanes should have knocked down the WTC.


Back in the day, a lot of people slammed FEMA for not doing exactly 
that, and for, instead, using a parametrized model to figure out /how/ 
the WTC collapsed.


In the case of 9/11 they used the parametrized approach because it was 
already screamingly in-your-face obvious that airplanes hit the 
buildings and then they fell down and they were trying to figure out 
/how/, not /whether/, they collapsed.


The same goes here.  From the lack of gigantic heat sinks sticking out 
of the roof of the "customer site", we know beyond a reasonable doubt 
that /there was no 1 MW of heat/.  So a detailed analysis of the data 
should be directed toward determining /how/ the heat was faked, not 
/whether/ the heat was faked.


Your approach is to analyse the details in an attempt at determining 
/whether/ the heat was faked.  But we already know that.


It's like you've watched a magician make a woman turn into a tiger, and 
you're trying to analyze everything you saw him do while he was on stage 
in an effort to determine /whether she really turned into a tiger/.  
Seriously, that's not going to lead to anything of much value.  Trying 
to figure out /how he faked it/ would be a lot more useful.




On 08/26/2016 03:24 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:



On 08/26/2016 02:04 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I have been pursuing my model as to how Rossi might be able to show 
gauge readings that imply that 1 MW of steam is being delivered while 
not being an accurate assessment of the real power.


I assumed that the information published by Engineer48 in 
E-CATWORLD.com is accurate.


Why?

The readings which were recorded are /extremely/ implausible, to the 
point of being impossible.  So why would you assume they're correct?


It's a very reasonable guess is that the readings, as recorded, were 
entirely bogus -- the actual values were not what was written down.  
And once you've admitted that detail, the rest of it falls immediately 
-- a tiny inaccuracy in recording the pressure, plus another 
inaccuracy in recording the flow rate, and you're done.


Who are the hoard of witnesses that attested that the data as recorded 
was exactly as the gauges read?





At this point all I can say is that we need more data before we can 
prove that Rossi is not being truthfully. 


Bosh.  Go back to the discussion of /where the 1 megawatt of heat was 
dumped//./  There was no megawatt of heat dumped on the "customer 
site".  Rossi claimed there was.  What more proof do you need?  The 
rest is just details.  The details may be interesting, but they 
/follow/ the proof in this case, they don't provide the proof.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/26/2016 02:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

If IH and Rossi signed an agreement before the trial that no one
would be allowed in the customers plant, *why should Murray be
allowed to visit* it?


Rossi did not allow Murray to visit the reactor, not the customer 
site. He allowed no one to visit the customer site.


Murray was an I.H. employee, so Rossi was obligated to allow him in.


The reason is /$100 million dollars/.  For a contract that size, IH's 
man should have been allowed to visit anything he bloody well wanted to 
visit, including following Rossi when he goes to the bathroom just to be 
sure it's all on the level.  If Rossi were honest then his behavior 
would be inexplicable.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/26/2016 02:04 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I have been pursuing my model as to how Rossi might be able to show 
gauge readings that imply that 1 MW of steam is being delivered while 
not being an accurate assessment of the real power.


I assumed that the information published by Engineer48 in 
E-CATWORLD.com is accurate.


Why?

The readings which were recorded are /extremely/ implausible, to the 
point of being impossible.  So why would you assume they're correct?


It's a very reasonable guess is that the readings, as recorded, were 
entirely bogus -- the actual values were not what was written down. And 
once you've admitted that detail, the rest of it falls immediately -- a 
tiny inaccuracy in recording the pressure, plus another inaccuracy in 
recording the flow rate, and you're done.


Who are the hoard of witnesses that attested that the data as recorded 
was exactly as the gauges read?





At this point all I can say is that we need more data before we can 
prove that Rossi is not being truthfully. 


Bosh.  Go back to the discussion of /where the 1 megawatt of heat was 
dumped//./  There was no megawatt of heat dumped on the "customer 
site".  Rossi claimed there was.  What more proof do you need?  The rest 
is just details.  The details may be interesting, but they /follow/ the 
proof in this case, they don't provide the proof.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/26/2016 09:40 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Alain Sepeda > wrote:


Being a bit naive I would say it is not smart to clean evidences
when you want to convince someone it works, and it is indeed working.


Whether or not this happened, there's a more general point that should 
be apparent to anyone who has had a chance to read all of the 
documents filed so far. Leonardo made zero effort to involve IH in the 
planning and execution of the alleged GPT, and at no point was there 
an effort to persuade them of its validity.  We are even given to 
understand that IH had objected to the Doral business being construed 
as the GPT.  This should put anyone on notice that *the territory 
we're in here is not normal territory but instead **Alice in 
Wonderland territory*.


That says it well.  I've been involved in a lot of contract R over the 
last few decades, and that's basically what this is, so I have some idea 
of what kind of behavior one might expect to see from both sides of the 
table.  On the other hand, I've /never/ worked on a deal for $100 
million -- it was always much smaller amounts.  The idea that someone 
could behave the way Rossi did, on a deal this size, and still have any 
chance of satisfying the customer and collecting on the contract is 
beyond bizarre; it's totally hallucinogenic.


It's no surprise at all that it ended with a lawsuit.  The only 
surprise, really, is that IH waited until the end of the "test" and 
didn't initiate a suit a whole lot sooner than they did, since they 
already had $11 million in the kitty, dumped down a hole for nothing in 
return.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Wondering about some things while I'm making dinner.

How accurate is the "0 bar" number believed to be?   (I should probably 
know this already from earlier discussion, but I don't; sorry.)


"0" by itself carries no precision information; it's got no significant 
digits.


If I'm not mistaken, if it's actually 0 +/- 0.1, as would be implied by 
the statement "0.0 bar", then a pressure at the high end of that would 
push the boiling point up by enough so that 102.8 would no longer be 
assuredly dry.  (But that's based on a quick Google search for water 
vapor pressure tables, and could be wrong.)


The other interesting question here is, 0 bar above /what?/ What was 
atmospheric pressure on site -- was that measured?  The temperature is 
absolute but the pressure isn't (unless this was done on the surface of 
the Moon and 0 bar really meant, /zero bar/), and the baseline 
atmospheric pressure may have a significant impact.




On 08/24/2016 08:45 PM, David Roberson wrote:
You couldhave a pressure reading of below atmospheric at the output of 
Rossi's system if you were to place a pump in the return line carrying 
the hot liquid back to his device.  Some claim that this is the actual 
configuration.  I am assuming that that is true for my calculations 
since otherwise what you state must be correct and the output would 
have to reside at a pressure higher than 0 bar.


I do not think that Rossi would be that careless in reporting his 
results.  Of course it is extremely unlikely that the pressure would 
be exactly 0.0 bar.  That must be a case of his rounding of the 
numbers to emphasize the dryness of the steam.  When this case goes to 
trial his actual numbers might still suggest dry steam without a 
Bernoulli trick or two.


Dave



-----Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 8:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation



On 08/24/2016 08:14 PM, David Roberson wrote:


Just consider what you would believe if shown that the steam
readings 102.8 C, and 0 bar were accurate?


But, as pointed out in one of the exhibits, that /can't/ be accurate.  
The volume of steam was quite large; consequently, the flow rate in 
the /steam /pipe must have been very fast, and to drive that flow 
requires a pressure differential.  Unless the pressure on the 
"customer site" was below atmospheric, the pressure at the point where 
the steam entered the line /must/have been above atmospheric 
pressure.  So, the 0 bar number must be wrong.


How far wrong it must be, I can't say (I'm totally out of my field 
when it comes to friction in a pipe carrying steam) but it doesn't 
take a huge overpressure to raise the boiling point by a couple 
degrees.  Throughout I've been tacitly assuming that the pressure is 
slightly over atmospheric, matter what was claimed.  As I said 
earlier, this has been the issue since the beginning, four or five 
years ago:  The steam temperature is always kept low enough so that, 
with very slightly elevated pressure in the line, the claim that it's 
"totally dry" may be false.


Of course, if the pressure reading is wrong (as it apparently must 
have been, else the system would not have worked at all, as the steam 
would not flow without a differential), then there must be an 
explanation for the error.  Your Bernoulli effect idea sounds good.





-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 7:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

I'm having trouble understanding the problem you're having seeing
how he could fake it.

The power calculations depend on the steam being dry, and there's
no evidence it was.

They also depend on the flow meter reading accurately, and there's
no evidence that it did.

If the flow was lower than claimed, and the steam was wet, the
power could have been just about anything.  No matter how many
people looked at how many gauges, the conclusion is going to be
the same.  Run some numbers assuming wet steam -- it doesn't have
to be very wet to be carrying most of the mass as liquid rather
than gas, since the liquid phase is so compact, and that makes an
enormous difference to the output power.

What more do you need?

BTW note that there was no flow meter in the *steam line*.  That
would have been diagnostic (had it been chosen to work correctly
with either steam or water, of course).

On 08/24/2016 06:45 PM, David Roberson wrote:

You haveput together a good arguement. His refusal to allow
access to the customer site being one that bothers me the
most.  Why not go to that little effort in order to receive
$89 million?  I can not understand that type of logic.

Anot

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/24/2016 08:14 PM, David Roberson wrote:


Just consider what you would believe if shown that the steam readings 
102.8 C, and 0 bar were accurate?


But, as pointed out in one of the exhibits, that /can't/ be accurate.  
The volume of steam was quite large; consequently, the flow rate in the 
/steam /pipe must have been very fast, and to drive that flow requires a 
pressure differential.  Unless the pressure on the "customer site" was 
below atmospheric, the pressure at the point where the steam entered the 
line /must/have been above atmospheric pressure.  So, the 0 bar number 
must be wrong.


How far wrong it must be, I can't say (I'm totally out of my field when 
it comes to friction in a pipe carrying steam) but it doesn't take a 
huge overpressure to raise the boiling point by a couple degrees.  
Throughout I've been tacitly assuming that the pressure is slightly over 
atmospheric, matter what was claimed.  As I said earlier, this has been 
the issue since the beginning, four or five years ago:  The steam 
temperature is always kept low enough so that, with very slightly 
elevated pressure in the line, the claim that it's "totally dry" may be 
false.


Of course, if the pressure reading is wrong (as it apparently must have 
been, else the system would not have worked at all, as the steam would 
not flow without a differential), then there must be an explanation for 
the error.  Your Bernoulli effect idea sounds good.






-Original Message-----
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 7:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

I'm having trouble understanding the problem you're having seeing how 
he could fake it.


The power calculations depend on the steam being dry, and there's no 
evidence it was.


They also depend on the flow meter reading accurately, and there's no 
evidence that it did.


If the flow was lower than claimed, and the steam was wet, the power 
could have been just about anything.  No matter how many people looked 
at how many gauges, the conclusion is going to be the same.  Run some 
numbers assuming wet steam -- it doesn't have to be very wet to be 
carrying most of the mass as liquid rather than gas, since the liquid 
phase is so compact, and that makes an enormous difference to the 
output power.


What more do you need?

BTW note that there was no flow meter in the *steam line*.  That would 
have been diagnostic (had it been chosen to work correctly with either 
steam or water, of course).


On 08/24/2016 06:45 PM, David Roberson wrote:

You haveput together a good arguement.  His refusal to allow
access to the customer site being one that bothers me the most.
Why not go to that little effort in order to receive $89 million? 
I can not understand that type of logic.


Another issue that keeps me awake is the fact that so many people
were viewing the gauges during the period and not finding a
problem.  That is what I am attempting to understand and to find
an explanation as to how this can happen right under their noses.

I think I am close to finding a way.  Maybe I can pull off a
similar scam and get $100 million!! ;-)  Naw, that is not
something that I would ever consider seriously.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 6:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com <mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote:

If half the reactors are taken out the power would definitely
fall in half without the external loop.  Even with it, there
is only a certain amount of correction that is possible which
would be seen with all of the individual devices running at
full drive input power.  It is not likely that there is enough
reserve to fill in that large of a gap.


Ah, but Rossi claims the gap is filled. He claims that on some
days, half the reactors produced more power than all of them did
on other days. See Exhibit 5. I agree this seems impossible. I
suppose you are saying we should ignore that part of his data. We
should assume he was lying about that, but the rest might be true.

I think it is more likely the entire data set is fiction. As I
said, there is not much point to you or I spending a lot of time
trying to make sense of fiction. It is like trying to parse the
logic in a Harry Potter book.

Many other aspects of the data, the warehouse ventilation, the
customer, Rossi's refusal to let anyone into the customer site,
and so on, all seem fictional to me. The totality of the evidence
strongly indicates that none of it is true.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

I'm having trouble understanding the problem you're having seeing how he 
could fake it.


The power calculations depend on the steam being dry, and there's no 
evidence it was.


They also depend on the flow meter reading accurately, and there's no 
evidence that it did.


If the flow was lower than claimed, and the steam was wet, the power 
could have been just about anything.  No matter how many people looked 
at how many gauges, the conclusion is going to be the same. Run some 
numbers assuming wet steam -- it doesn't have to be very wet to be 
carrying most of the mass as liquid rather than gas, since the liquid 
phase is so compact, and that makes an enormous difference to the output 
power.


What more do you need?

BTW note that there was no flow meter in the *steam line*. That would 
have been diagnostic (had it been chosen to work correctly with either 
steam or water, of course).


On 08/24/2016 06:45 PM, David Roberson wrote:
You haveput together a good arguement.  His refusal to allow access to 
the customer site being one that bothers me the most.  Why not go to 
that little effort in order to receive $89 million?  I can not 
understand that type of logic.


Another issue that keeps me awake is the fact that so many people were 
viewing the gauges during the period and not finding a problem.  That 
is what I am attempting to understand and to find an explanation as to 
how this can happen right under their noses.


I think I am close to finding a way.  Maybe I can pull off a similar 
scam and get $100 million!! ;-)  Naw, that is not something that I 
would ever consider seriously.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 6:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

David Roberson > wrote:

If half the reactors are taken out the power would definitely fall
in half without the external loop.  Even with it, there is only a
certain amount of correction that is possible which would be seen
with all of the individual devices running at full drive input
power.  It is not likely that there is enough reserve to fill in
that large of a gap.


Ah, but Rossi claims the gap is filled. He claims that on some days, 
half the reactors produced more power than all of them did on other 
days. See Exhibit 5. I agree this seems impossible. I suppose you are 
saying we should ignore that part of his data. We should assume he was 
lying about that, but the rest might be true.


I think it is more likely the entire data set is fiction. As I said, 
there is not much point to you or I spending a lot of time trying to 
make sense of fiction. It is like trying to parse the logic in a Harry 
Potter book.


Many other aspects of the data, the warehouse ventilation, the 
customer, Rossi's refusal to let anyone into the customer site, and so 
on, all seem fictional to me. The totality of the evidence strongly 
indicates that none of it is true.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/24/2016 03:31 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Actually that is not a problem when you use feedback. The feedback 
will even compensate for natural variation in heat generation quite 
well.  If some internal heat is being generated by Rossi's device that 
varies with time, the feedback can be designed to keep the net thermal 
output constant.


I do not understand why you guys are concerned about the use of 
feedback.  A well designed system is generally more stable than an 
uncontrolled one.


For the last five years Rossi has been doing similar demos, and he has 
never, ever mentioned the use of feedback to control the power in order 
to match the water flow rate.


He also never, ever explained exactly how the heater power is supposed 
to control the reaction.


He also never, ever explained how it can be "dangerous" to run an ecat 
with the heater shut off.  He just said it was, and that /that/ is why 
he must always have an electric heater going inside the things when 
they're running.   The only way it could be "dangerous" to operate them 
without a heater is if /cranking up the heat would somehow shut down the 
reaction/ -- otherwise, just exactly what do you do if it starts to run 
away?  Turning off the heater isn't going to help at that point -- among 
other things, the thermal energy produced by the reaction is supposedly 
far, far larger than the electrical energy of the heater!  The electric 
heater just makes it hot, which the reaction itself is already doing; to 
kill the reaction you need a way to make it /cold/.  Turning up the 
cooling water flow rate would make a whole lot more sense as a way to 
SCRAM the reaction, if it's ever needed -- but that, of course, wouldn't 
provide an excuse to keep the electric heater going throughout the 
entire test.


"Feedback" is something his supporters have frequently _assumed_, in 
order to explain the unexplainable.  Rossi doesn't even hand-wave it 
away, AFAIK.  He just ignores the fact that he's claiming something 
ridiculous when he produces "dry steam" at the boiling point with a 
fixed input flow rate and no feedback mechanism.


This year-long test was apparently roughly the same as his earliest 
tests, which were done entirely without any automatic feedback 
mechanism, and a fixed (manually set) power level applied to the 
heaters.  (Except that he was caught apparently cranking up the power to 
the electric heater at one point during one test, but that was something 
he denied, not something he said was necessary to match flow rate to 
output power.)


And that is why I, at least, am concerned about "feedback".



And BTW who the heck wants 1 atmosphere of steam /at boiling/? 
Superheating it at least a few tens of degrees would make it a whole lot 
more useful for just about any application you care to name.  It seems 
like he must have gone to an awful lot of trouble to tune the power 
level of the system to match the water flow rate in order to guarantee 
the steam is "low grade", which seems entirely pointless ... except that 
it makes it possible to pass off hot water as steam.






For example, if the AC line voltage varies, the feedback can 
compensate for it.  Do not let the use of negative feedback concern 
you.  That is a non issue.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 3:16 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com <mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote:

It appears that Rossi could have regulated the output power by
sensing the un boiled water temperature within each ECAT component
and adjusting the individual heating drive elements.


As Stephen Lawrence pointed out, the output power is stable and 
unvarying. That seems to rule out adjusting the heating drive elements.


The power is not perfectly stable.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

And BTW if the beast put out a continuous 1 MW, then /it was impossible 
to control the power level via feedback from the output temperature/.  
Any such feedback control would have caused the power output to vary 
down from the nominal 1 MW.


So, there was no feedback control of the power level, _/by definition of 
the terms of the test.


/_And there was no feedback control of the flow rate, _/by testimony of 
Rossi's figures, which show constant flow rate/.


_In short, /there was no possible active matching of power level to flow 
rate.


/The fact that the power produced was exactly sufficient to exactly 
vaporize 100% of the input water was, therefore, coincidence.  (Either 
that, or the steam was /not dry/.)


Am I missing something?  When stated this way, this sounds like a 
no-brainer, even without reference to any of the details of the setup.  
If this thing was supposed to produce dry steam, and its output temp was 
always within a few degrees of boiling, then it had to be a fake.



On 08/24/2016 01:08 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:



On 08/24/2016 12:29 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Stephen you are assuming a design that is far different than Rossi's 
previous devices.  For most of the recent demonstrations Rossi had 
his thermal generation components contained within a large thinned 
mass.  The incoming water essentially fell into a big boxy outer 
structure and came into contact with the inner section at a multitude 
of locations where it extracted heat through the fins.


But the shape really doesn't matter.  It's just thermodynamics. As 
long as it's a flow-through boiler the same conclusions must apply -- 
the water comes in , flows along , turns to 
steam at , flows along  as steam, 
and exits the reactor.  Whether it's a big box, a tea-kettle shaped 
vessel, or a collection of pipes or a thin, wide sheet, there still 
must be a continuous flow from the input to the output.


And there will be a line of demarcation between water and steam, with, 
one may expect, higher temperatures on the steam side.


If (flow_rate * heat-of-vaporization  +  flow_rate * 
heat-to-raise-to-boiling) is not /exactly/ matched to the power 
generated, either the effluent will be water (or water mixed with 
steam), or it will be superheated steam, but in either case, as long 
as the power level and flow rate are constant, the output temperature 
would be expected to be fixed, and the "boiler" will contain at least 
some liquid water.




You misunderstood my point about immediate boiling.


Sorry!  I see that now, I think.

I just wanted to express the thought that only a small volume of 
water would remain in liquid form within the unit.  Since it is 
assumed that more heat is generated than needed to boil all of the 
water entering, it becomes apparent that the temperature of the ECAT 
must rise and not remain at the boiling point.  This increase in 
temperature can be detected and _*therefore a thermal loop can 
control it*_.


Yes.  But no such loop has ever been described.  From the beginning 
there has been talk of how that could be done  but it didn't come 
from Rossi, only from those trying to explain the amazing coincidence 
of the "dry steam" effluent never rising much above boiling.


And AFAIK _*no*_ reason has ever been put forward to explain /why/ 
you'd want to keep the "dry steam" at the boiling point, rather than 
letting it go up to, say, 120 C, which would totally eliminate any 
question of whether it was "really steam" or just slightly pressurized 
water.  If the temp had been 120C back in 2011 we wouldn't be having 
this discussion today. (But to push the temperature that high, the 
Rossi reactors would have had to actually work as claimed.)




Also, the vapor can be super heated by the additional hot surface on 
its way to the outside port.  And, indeed this is exactly the 
scenario that could be used to generate dry steam if properly employed.


Yes.  Exactly.  But it would be very unlikely for it to stay within a 
few degrees of boiling, which is the whole point.


Not once has Rossi demonstrated "dry steam" production with the steam 
temperature sufficiently hotter than boiling to rule out the 
possibility that the "steam" was mostly (by mass) liquid water.




So, in my attempt to understand how the gauges might be reading in 
error I must assume that the liquid is not being boiled off within 
each of the 24 or ? devices, but instead leaves in the liquid form 
which flashes into a liquid, vapor combination.  If the complete 
filling of the ECAT portions by water does not take place then Jed's 
position is undermined pretty much as you are describing.


Sorry, I didn't follow the bit about Jed's position being undermined 
if the devices are not full of water.


To produce wet steam you need droplets of water exiting the device, 
but that doesn't really require that the device be entirely filled 
with water.  Tea kettles a

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

above boiling to 
obfuscate the question of whether it's actually dry steam or not/".  IOW 
it's kept at boiling to make it easy to fake the results.






Dave



-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 11:58 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation



On 08/24/2016 11:19 AM, David Roberson wrote:

That is not entirely true because it requires a perfect balance of
heat generation and water input flow.  For example, if 1% extra
liquid water is continually added to the ECAT heating chamber it
will  eventually overflow and begin to flow out of the port as a
combination of vapor and liquid water leading to wet steam.  This
would take place at a constant temperature which would make
thermal control difficult.

On the other hand, if 1% less liquid water flows into the chamber
then eventually all of the coolant will become vaporized
immediately upon entry.


No, it will not vaporize "immediately upon entry". Assuming the design 
is anything like what I believe earlier ecats were set up with, you've 
got a reactor chamber and a water jacket, not unlike the arrangement 
on an internal combustion engine.  (Or it could be set up as an old 
fashioned steam locomotive boiler, with multiple pipes running 
_through_ the reactor chamber, but it's the same idea either way -- 
the water _flows_ through a heated aqueduct of some sort, from one end 
to the other, growing hotter as it travels; it does /not/ just sit in 
a "chamber" until it boils away.)


It will flow in as water, be heated to boiling as it traverses the 
water jacket (or pipe, if you prefer), vaporize at some point (and 
some /particular location/ in the duct work) so that it initially 
becomes a mixture of steam and water droplets, and then continue to be 
heated, as steam, as it traverses the remainder of the jacket.  The 
parts of the chamber being cooled by steam may be hotter than the 
parts where there's liquid water in the jacket but since the reactor 
chamber itself is above boiling anyway, the difference may not be all 
that significant.


*In fact, this is **/exactly/**the scenario which must be taking place 
**/if the effluent is dry steam, as claimed./*  After the water hits 
boiling, in order to be totally dry, the steam must be superheated to 
some extent as it continues to traverse the _heated_ conduit.


There's a fixed amount of power coming from the reactor chamber, so 
the effluent temperature should also be fixed -- it won't just rise 
arbitrarily.   It just shouldn't be /exactly at boiling/, which 
implies an exact match between power provided and power consumed by 
vaporizing the water, despite the lack of either active power level 
control or flow rate control.


It might be possible to adjust the power generation downwards
under this condition since the chamber would likely begin to rise
in temperature without adequate coolant.  Here, the temperature
feedback would be asked to take over control of the process.

Earlier you made a big point that feedback level control was
obvious due to having so many fine, controllable, accurate pumps
in the system.  Do you now believe that level control is not being
used in the system?  I am not totally convinced that feedback
water level control is not part of the main plan once everything
settles down in production.  That control technique would go a
long way toward ensuring dry steam is always generated.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 8:04 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

You don't need "active feedback."   The steam escapes the reactor
shortly after being formed


On 8/24/2016 12:33 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:



On 08/24/2016 12:03 AM, David Roberson wrote:

As I have stated, if the steam is truly dry then plenty of
power is being supplied to the customer.  If the ERV is
mistaken that the steam is dry then I.H. is likely correct.

If everyone accepts that the true pressure of the steam is
atmospheric while the temperature is 102.8 C then it is dry.


Unless there's some active feedback mechanism keeping the
temperature of the effluent between 100 and 103 C, it's hard
to believe the effluent is dry steam.  The heat capacity of
steam is so small compared with the latent heat of
vaporization one would expect the temperature of (dry) steam
in the closed system to be driven well above boiling -- not
just barely over it.

This has been the problem with Rossi's steam demos since the
beginning:  There is no feedback mechanism to keep the
temperature barely a

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/24/2016 11:19 AM, David Roberson wrote:
That is not entirely true because it requires a perfect balance of 
heat generation and water input flow.  For example, if 1% extra liquid 
water is continually added to the ECAT heating chamber it will  
eventually overflow and begin to flow out of the port as a combination 
of vapor and liquid water leading to wet steam.  This would take place 
at a constant temperature which would make thermal control difficult.


On the other hand, if 1% less liquid water flows into the chamber then 
eventually all of the coolant will become vaporized immediately upon 
entry.


No, it will not vaporize "immediately upon entry".  Assuming the design 
is anything like what I believe earlier ecats were set up with, you've 
got a reactor chamber and a water jacket, not unlike the arrangement on 
an internal combustion engine.  (Or it could be set up as an old 
fashioned steam locomotive boiler, with multiple pipes running _through_ 
the reactor chamber, but it's the same idea either way -- the water 
_flows_ through a heated aqueduct of some sort, from one end to the 
other, growing hotter as it travels; it does /not/ just sit in a 
"chamber" until it boils away.)


It will flow in as water, be heated to boiling as it traverses the water 
jacket (or pipe, if you prefer), vaporize at some point (and some 
/particular location/ in the duct work) so that it initially becomes a 
mixture of steam and water droplets, and then continue to be heated, as 
steam, as it traverses the remainder of the jacket.  The parts of the 
chamber being cooled by steam may be hotter than the parts where there's 
liquid water in the jacket but since the reactor chamber itself is above 
boiling anyway, the difference may not be all that significant.


*In fact, this is **/exactly/**the scenario which must be taking place 
**/if the effluent is dry steam, as claimed./*  After the water hits 
boiling, in order to be totally dry, the steam must be superheated to 
some extent as it continues to traverse the _heated_ conduit.


There's a fixed amount of power coming from the reactor chamber, so the 
effluent temperature should also be fixed -- it won't just rise 
arbitrarily.   It just shouldn't be /exactly at boiling/, which implies 
an exact match between power provided and power consumed by vaporizing 
the water, despite the lack of either active power level control or flow 
rate control.


It might be possible to adjust the power generation downwards under 
this condition since the chamber would likely begin to rise in 
temperature without adequate coolant.  Here, the temperature feedback 
would be asked to take over control of the process.


Earlier you made a big point that feedback level control was obvious 
due to having so many fine, controllable, accurate pumps in the 
system.  Do you now believe that level control is not being used in 
the system?  I am not totally convinced that feedback water level 
control is not part of the main plan once everything settles down in 
production.  That control technique would go a long way toward 
ensuring dry steam is always generated.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 8:04 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

You don't need "active feedback."   The steam escapes the reactor 
shortly after being formed



On 8/24/2016 12:33 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:



On 08/24/2016 12:03 AM, David Roberson wrote:

As I have stated, if the steam is truly dry then plenty of
power is being supplied to the customer.  If the ERV is
mistaken that the steam is dry then I.H. is likely correct.

If everyone accepts that the true pressure of the steam is
atmospheric while the temperature is 102.8 C then it is dry.


Unless there's some active feedback mechanism keeping the
temperature of the effluent between 100 and 103 C, it's hard to
believe the effluent is dry steam.  The heat capacity of steam is
so small compared with the latent heat of vaporization one would
expect the temperature of (dry) steam in the closed system to be
driven well above boiling -- not just barely over it.

This has been the problem with Rossi's steam demos since the
beginning:  There is no feedback mechanism to keep the temperature
barely above boiling, yet it never goes more than a couple degrees
above.  Either there's feedback nailing the power output to the
level needed to /just exactly/ vaporize the water (with
essentially no heat left over to superheat the steam), or there is
feedback nailing the water flow rate to the be just fast enough to
consume all the heat from the system in vaporizing the water, or
there is a miraculous coincidence between the heat produced and
the water flow rate.

We /know/ there's no feedback controllin

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/24/2016 12:03 AM, David Roberson wrote:
As I have stated, if the steam is truly dry then plenty of power is 
being supplied to the customer.  If the ERV is mistaken that the steam 
is dry then I.H. is likely correct.


If everyone accepts that the true pressure of the steam is atmospheric 
while the temperature is 102.8 C then it is dry.


Unless there's some active feedback mechanism keeping the temperature of 
the effluent between 100 and 103 C, it's hard to believe the effluent is 
dry steam.  The heat capacity of steam is so small compared with the 
latent heat of vaporization one would expect the temperature of (dry) 
steam in the closed system to be driven well above boiling -- not just 
barely over it.


This has been the problem with Rossi's steam demos since the beginning:  
There is no feedback mechanism to keep the temperature barely above 
boiling, yet it never goes more than a couple degrees above.  Either 
there's feedback nailing the power output to the level needed to /just 
exactly/ vaporize the water (with essentially no heat left over to 
superheat the steam), or there is feedback nailing the water flow rate 
to the be just fast enough to consume all the heat from the system in 
vaporizing the water, or there is a miraculous coincidence between the 
heat produced and the water flow rate.


We /know/ there's no feedback controlling the flow rate, because that 
was rock steady.


No mention has ever been made of any feedback mechanism fixing the 
reaction rate to the steam temperature, so short of fantasizing about 
something Rossi never said he did, we have no reason to believe such a 
thing exists.  In fact we don't even know that the reaction (if there is 
a reaction) can be controlled with the precision needed to keep the 
output temperature so close to boiling -- and we also have no reason to 
believe anyone would even /want/ to do that.


So, the only conclusion that makes sense in this situation is that the 
"feedback" keeping the temperature almost exactly at boiling is provided 
by water mixed with the steam, and that consequently the steam must be 
very wet.




But that is the root of the problem; both parties do not agree that 
this is true.  Only one can be right in this case.  Also, there is no 
law of nature that ensures that what the ERV states is true. He may be 
confused by the location of gauges, etc.


AA, Engineer48 claims that the pumps are all manually set and not 
under automatic control according to his picture.  If true, that would 
eliminate the feedback level control that was discussed earlier.  It 
is my opinion that some form of automatic level control is required in 
order to produce a stable system that prevents liquid filling or dying 
out of the CATS.  This is an important factor that both of the parties 
should address.


Dave

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2016 10:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Apparently the ERV measured 102.8 C @ atmospheric pressure.  That is 
dry steam.

That implies the customer used steam at a negative pressure.

On 8/23/2016 8:50 PM, Bob Cook wrote:


Dave--

The steam table indicates a condition of equilibrium between the
liquid phase and the gaseous phase of water.  If the conditions
are  1 bar at a temperature above the 99.9743 there is no liquid
phase in equilibrium with the steam (gas) phase.  The gas is phase
is at 102 degrees and is said to be super heated.

The steam tables tell you nothing about liquid phase carry-over in
a dynamic flowing system. Normally there would be a moisture
separator in the system to assure no carry-over.

Bob

*From:* David Roberson 
*Sent:* Monday, August 22, 2016 9:27:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation
Dave--

Where did the pressure of 15.75 psi abs come from?  I  thought the
pressure of the 102C dry steam (assumed) was 1 atmos.--not 15.75 abs.

I  think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos. were never measured.

Bob Cook

Bob, I used a steam table calculator located at
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html
to obtain my data points.

According to that source, 14.6954 psi abs is 0 bar at a
temperature of 99.9743 C degrees.
At 102 C degrees the pressure is shown as 15.7902 psi absolute.
Also, at 15.75 psi abs you should be at 101.928 C.  I must have
accidentally written the last digit in error for some reason.

Does this answer your first question?

You are correct about the assumed pressures above 1 atmosphere not
being measured directly.  I admit that I rounded off the readings
a bit, but the amount of error resulting from the values I chose
did not appear to impact the 

Re: [Vo]:JM Products misleading business card.

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

/Seriously??

/I knew people in college who would pull stunts like that, along with 
writing a bunch of made-up stuff on their resumes, but calling it 
"normal" and treating it as honest business-as-usual is just bizarre.


The policy of "We must excuse Rossi at any cost, with any fairy tale we 
can think of" has gone through the looking glass.


I have no idea what's wrong with the Rossi-is-God holdouts on Vortex but 
it sure seems like something is.


On 08/16/2016 05:05 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Yeah, I think it's normal. Chemical plants are pretty much generic. 
It's like using  stock photos on ads.


2016-08-16 18:03 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell >:



 Do you think it is normal to give someone a business card
with a stock photo of a chemical plant in another country; a
plant you have nothing to do with?

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/20/2016 11:04 PM, Che wrote:



This whole Rossi saga has hijacked most-all fruitful Cold Fusion 
discussion.


Um, yeah.  Here's a quote from a Vortex message posted in December 2011 
(emphasis added):


Horace, and some other skeptics, have a much more obvious mission:  
Try to "talk down" the LENR advocates who are totally hooked on Rossi 
at this point, before the whole field gets dug even deeper into a 
hole.  If Rossi has somehow fabricated the whole thing (and has thus 
totally fooled everyone who had a basic understanding of physics and 
thermo) then *there's a really big black eye waiting around the corner 
and it's going to be plastered clear across the field of cold fusion*.


And so it was.

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

My two cents  I would suspect Penon knew it was all fraudulent, and 
in fact was hired by Rossi preciesely to produce fake data to sustain 
the fraud.  But Penon wasn't getting anything out of it except what 
Rossi was paying him, and seriously didn't give a damn about Rossi 
beyond his pay.  And he knew the whole thing was bogus anyway, so he 
just totally slobbed the numbers, and did the minimum he could get away 
with.


When you put someone in a position where they can have zero pride in 
their work they're likely to produce work that nobody could take pride in.


Penon wasn't in line to receive the 89 mil, nor any significant fraction 
of it, so why would he care?



On 08/12/2016 05:03 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I agree that it would be better to improve the fraud. You have to 
wonder why he did not at least go to that level of expertise by using 
fractional data?


It would be far more believable to suspect that he used the average 
instead of making an effort to track the true data if he did not think 
anyone would care.  Could Penon be so convinced of the 1 MW and 
extreme COP calculations that he did not believe that anyone would 
become too demanding?  I do not know.


Of course, I probably would assume that now it is too late to retract 
the data as reported since it will do great harm to the court case to 
do so.  How could you explain to the judge that your data was known by 
you to be inaccurate?


Penon is acting in a strange manner, the only way it makes sense is to 
think that he did not expect a problem to develop with IH.  Perhaps he 
really believes that the COP was great and the power met the requirements.


I am still attempting to understand how the flow meter may have been 
faked out by being less than full of water.  The manual describing how 
to use this device does mention that it needs to be kept free of 
negative pressure and cavitation conditions.  My current theory is 
that a restriction of some type is located ahead of the meter which 
limits the amount of liquid that can be pumped through the meter.  
This problem is common in hydraulic systems where a clogged filter 
starves the hydraulic pump.


When starved, the pump lowers the input port pressure which might 
cause the incoming liquid to vaporize.  The life expectancy of a 
hydraulic pump is greatly reduced when cavitation of this type exists.


So, I am suspecting that the return water is vaporized to some degree 
by this process thus leading to a large meter error. To be sure, we 
need a diagram of the compete system which includes the location of 
all the pumps, meters, and holding tanks, etc.  We also need to know 
the power being drawn be these pumps and tables of their operational 
parameters as a function of power input.


Dave




-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Aug 12, 2016 4:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

David Roberson > wrote:

So, it would not surprise me too greatly to find that Penon became
extremely bored making the same readings day in and out until he
placed data into the log that assumed everything continued as it
had for many long previous periods of time.


That might be true of the temperatures, which vary, then start 
repeating, and then vary again. But the flow rate and pressure was the 
same for every single day of the test, as noted by Murray. Penon did 
not start off off recording actual values with variations, and then 
later repeating values. He stuffed 36,000 kg into every day, for the 
entire test.


By the way, as Rossi noted in the Lewan interview, Penon arbitrarily 
reduced the flow by 10% down to 32,400 kg. Both numbers are shown. I 
think 32,400 kg is used to compute heat. If a 10% reduction is valid, 
why not 20% or 90%?


It was sloppy of Penon to record positive flow rates, elevated 
temperatures and 1 MW heat production on days when Rossi in his blog 
said the reactor was turned off. Eyewitnesses confirm that it was 
actually off. If you are going to commit fraud, you should at least 
try to make it look convincing. These people were just phoning it in!


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Reality check of the day

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/10/2016 02:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Rossi is unfathomable. I guess the simplest explanation would be that 
he has nothing. In that scenario, I cannot imagine why he filed a 
lawsuit. He should have taken the $11 million and run.


Why did Hitler open a second front in WWII?  It doomed him to inevitable 
loss.  He did it anyway.


Why were the defecting soldiers, fleeing the Russian army, treated so 
badly by the Germans?  They threw away a possible chance a inducing mass 
mutiny in Stalin's troops, for essentially no gain. Yet they did it anyway.


Over-the-top overconfidence?  Blind inability to see the possibility of 
failure?  I can't understand such behavior, but then I can't understand 
the behavior that got either one of them to those positions to start with.


It's also possible that people like Rossi are typically far less 
intelligent than we give them credit for (bluster can look like brains 
-- when someone says "My IQ is 150!" it's easy to forget that they may 
just be lying).  He may simply not have reasoned through the likely 
consequences, just because he's /stupid/.

Re: [Vo]:Reality check of the day

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Nope, I don't buy the "He saw a little something positive and convinced 
himself" argument.  Rossi's history of apparently fraudulent behavior 
goes back well before the ecat debacle.  Dig into old Vort email; it's 
referenced in some detail there, in the vitriolic discussions about 4 or 
5 years back.



On 08/10/2016 12:51 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

RE: [Vo]:Reality check of the day

*From:*Eric Walker

…What led people to accept such a low bar for evidence?  Why are a few 
holdouts still so enamored of Rossi?  This stuff may be old hat to 
people who have been watching this field for years, but it's still 
interesting to me.  And also, when you've invested a lot of time in 
following a story, it's still nice to know what actually happened.


Eric,

Thereis a good WikiarticleexplainingRossi’s conduct…

_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_lying_

Where itis reported that apercentage of this type 
ofafflictedindividualfullybelievesthattheirfalsepronouncements are 
literally true.The epidemiology indicates that there is an association 
withhigh-functionalADHD, whichseems to fitARs obsessivenessand skill 
level.He has charisma, energy, solid skills andextremeself-confidence 
– such thatthe combination of all of this isvery convincing to his 
apostles.


Plus, inLENRwe havea fieldwhere there have been successes in prior 
experimentsgoing back 27 years, usingsimilarparametersin metal 
hydrides,andit is very likely that from time to time, Rossi actually 
sawtrue energygain but could not reproducethis gainon demand.


He probably believed, and there is adequate basis forit in other 
fields, that he could overcome thepastreliabilityproblem by going to a 
largerform factor. Hewill probablygo to his grave believing that he 
solved the problemsof LENRand that his workwas honest, 
misunderstood,andscientificallyimportant.

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

:-)  OK.  I actually meant exactly what I said, and nothing more -- "Not 
convinced they were /totally/ faked" ... maybe they were approximately 
what was claimed (most of the time, obviously not all the time) and 
maybe the meter didn't go totally into lala land when it hit the bottom 
end of its scale.


"Not _/necessarily/_ faked at all" -- I don't believe it's necessary to 
assume the meter readings where grossly incorrect on a continuous basis 
in order to conclude that the overall demonstration was bogus; the lack 
of 1 MW of effluent heat already proves that.  Everything else is 
details.   The claimed excess heat could have been faked by another 
means, and in particular the claim of high velocity low pressure steam 
in one of the lines looks very dubious.


And if you write again and say "That's stupid!" I'll say "Oh well, 
perhaps you're right" and concede your point.  I confess I haven't 
studied the setup the way I should.


On 08/09/2016 09:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com <mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote:

I'm not convinced the meter readings were totally faked, or even
necessarily faked at all.


Then explain how they could be exactly 36,000 per day for weeks. As I 
pointed out, the flow rate would have to be exactly the same to 1 
second per day for this to happen.


This is simply _not possible_.

If Penon had said "these are approximate values" in response to 
Exhibit 5, that would be reasonable. Sloppy, but reasonable. No 
response at all is tantamount to admitting it is fake data.


- Jed

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

I'm not convinced the meter readings were totally faked, or even 
necessarily faked at all.


All I'm truly convinced of is that the *demo* was faked, one way or 
another.  First, there's the missing heat; second, there's the angry IH, 
which would no doubt be tickled pink to buy the process for 89M$ if it 
actually worked; and third, there's the fact that I've followed Rossi 
off and on for six years and for the last four or five years (not sure 
the exact date without digging in old email -- it was an AHA moment) 
I've been convinced he's a fraud.


But none of this militates against either the assertion that he probably 
was getting *some* excess heat, at least some of the time, since he's 
using a legit combination of reactants, nor does it militate against the 
notion that you might have to pre-heat a gas phase reaction to make it work.


And your attempt to determine exactly where this demo jumped the tracks, 
and what exactly was *really* going on, does indeed seem reasonable to 
me now.


Unfortunately I've totally got to sign off.  Up late running tests and I 
ran into a bug and it's all gotta get fixed tonight and I'm on EDT so 
it's almost 3 AM here.  Oy.



On 08/09/2016 02:27 AM, David Roberson wrote:
I understand your reasoning now.   You thought I assumed 1 MW which is 
obviously not the case.


But, are you convinced that the meter readings were totally faked?  
According to most of the information I have seen that may not be the 
case.  Rossi and IH have both implied that they had their own agents 
on site during much of the testing.  It seems unlikely that the IH 
guys would just stand by and fail to verify that the meter readings 
were correct while they were present.


It seems much more likely to me that everyone present would take notes 
of the water flow rate readings, any temperature measurements or other 
indications that were available.   If true then I suggest that some 
process must be taking place to modify the readings and void their 
accuracies.  Temperature measurements are difficult to fake in most 
cases without detection.  The water flow rate would appear to be the 
most likely measurement to be in error.


Jed has suggested that the input flow rate appears to be off by a 
factor of 3 or so and that is an excellent assumption to begin with.  
The true rate may be more or less, but I have a suspicion that the 
meter actually reads in line with what has been reported by Rossi.  
So, the goal is to figure out a scientific reason why the reading does 
not match the actual flow rate.  That is where this discussion began.


Bob Higgins has found information concerning the water flow rate meter 
which suggests that it remains reasonably accurate when not completely 
full of fluid.  This is also true with respect to accuracy when 
reading less than the minimum flow rate specification.  I would like 
to determine how a meter of this type can be so fooled.  That is my quest.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 1:22 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court 
document


In your discussion with Daniel, the exchange went something like this:


*You said:*

OK, interesting concept.  I was thinking along the lines of how a heat 
pump operates.  It consists of a closed system with a pump(compressor) 
and a strong restriction to the flowing fluid as well as heat 
exchangers.  A low pressure return pipe carries the active fluid in 
vapor form to the pump.  If sufficient heat is not absorbed by the 
expanding mixture then some of it remains in the liquid form


*after Daniel said:
*
I was thinking more of the cooling mechanism, *which had to cool 1MW*.



From this, I (naturally?) concluded that you guys were /assuming/ 
there was 1 MW of heat involved, and all else followed from that.


Aside from that, frankly, I don't care how the meter numbers were 
bolixed -- if the values which were hand-recorded were clearly not 
real (as they were!) then I don't see how the meter's actual 
performance matters in the least.  The performance of the human in the 
system has been proved unreliable and no additional failure modes are 
needed.


Furthermore, the meter itself may be a red herring. There was /steam/ 
in the system which was supposedly carrying massive amounts of heat -- 
but we don't have proof that the steam was actually steam and not 
liquid water, and if it wasn't actually vaporized, then the massive 
amounts of heat simply weren't there, no matter what the flow rate.


In short, there were multiple points where the system breaks down once 
you have acknowledged that the humans setting it up and recording its 
performance were lying. And sorting out the exact details of what the 
system was really doing just doesn't seem all that interesting -- it's 
not going to lead to new science, new physics, or new energy sources.  
In fact, it's

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

:-)OK.  I'll stop bugging you about it.


On 08/09/2016 01:32 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
I think that's interesting. It may even help future scammers and I am 
not ashamed of this possibility.


2016-08-09 2:22 GMT-03:00 Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com 
<mailto:sa...@pobox.com>>:


t it will lead to a better understanding of how one scammer operated.

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

In your discussion with Daniel, the exchange went something like this:


*You said:*

OK, interesting concept.  I was thinking along the lines of how a heat 
pump operates.  It consists of a closed system with a pump(compressor) 
and a strong restriction to the flowing fluid as well as heat 
exchangers.  A low pressure return pipe carries the active fluid in 
vapor form to the pump.  If sufficient heat is not absorbed by the 
expanding mixture then some of it remains in the liquid form


*after Daniel said:
*
I was thinking more of the cooling mechanism, *which had to cool 1MW*.



From this, I (naturally?) concluded that you guys were /assuming/ there 
was 1 MW of heat involved, and all else followed from that.


Aside from that, frankly, I don't care how the meter numbers were 
bolixed -- if the values which were hand-recorded were clearly not real 
(as they were!) then I don't see how the meter's actual performance 
matters in the least.  The performance of the human in the system has 
been proved unreliable and no additional failure modes are needed.


Furthermore, the meter itself may be a red herring.  There was /steam/ 
in the system which was supposedly carrying massive amounts of heat -- 
but we don't have proof that the steam was actually steam and not liquid 
water, and if it wasn't actually vaporized, then the massive amounts of 
heat simply weren't there, no matter what the flow rate.


In short, there were multiple points where the system breaks down once 
you have acknowledged that the humans setting it up and recording its 
performance were lying.  And sorting out the exact details of what the 
system was really doing just doesn't seem all that interesting -- it's 
not going to lead to new science, new physics, or new energy sources.  
In fact, it's most likely not even going to lead to a provably correct 
model, just one you think /might/ be correct, because you'll never get 
the physical proof you need to from the one who could provide it, which 
is Rossi.


At best it will lead to a better understanding of how one scammer operated.


On 08/09/2016 01:00 AM, David Roberson wrote:
You fail to understand.  I am seeking a reasonable explanation for the 
error in the flow rate that Jed is assuming.  That is the scientific 
way to explain his belief without just plain guessing.  For some 
reason you think that I believe that Rossi is actually generating the 
1 MW of heat without any reservations.


Could this be the reason why you seem so negative about my attempts to 
uncover the truth?  Perhaps you can explain to us how the flow rate is 
reading much greater than it should, especially taking into 
consideration the recent excellent posts by Mr. Higgins, and others?  
If you are a scientist or engineer then you should want an honest 
explanation for the errors in flow rate readings.  Otherwise it would 
be better for you to leave that determination to those of us that have 
the proper training.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 11:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court 
document


If I understand this discussion, you appear to be engaging in massive 
doublethink here.


You're trying to explain a bogus reading of the meter while /assuming/ 
that the system was actually producing 1 MW of heat.


If it was generating 1 MW then the meter reading was presumably 
/correct/, and in that case there's nothing funky about the meter that 
needs to be explained, save for the constant flow rate and other 
anomalies Jed has mentioned.


It's only if the system /wasn't/ generating a megawatt that there's an 
anomalously high flow reading to explain, and in that case you can't 
very well assume that much heat is being dissipated.


So, either the meter reading was anomalously high and the heat was 
much lower than a megawatt, /or/ the meter reading was more or less 
bang-on, and there was a megawatt of heat being dissipated somewhere.  
But not both.


On 08/08/2016 11:52 PM, David Roberson wrote:

OK, interesting concept. I was thinking along the lines of how a
heat pump operates.  It consists of a closed system with a
pump(compressor) and a strong restriction to the flowing fluid as
well as heat exchangers.  A low pressure return pipe carries the
active fluid in vapor form to the pump.  If sufficient heat is not
absorbed by the expanding mixture then some of it remains in the
liquid form.   I wonder if a significant portion of that mixture
in Rossi's case might be vapor, leading to false reading within
the gauge ahead of the pump?

This is merely a conceptual idea to digest.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>
To: John Milstone <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 9:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow mete

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

You don't seem to get it.

Rossi has been shown to be lying and fabricating results.

ROSSI.

ROSSI is not to be believed.  His "experiments" are consequently 
worthless, because the basic assumption of good faith, on which all 
conventional analysis of experiments ultimately rests, is gone.


This has nothing to do with gas-phase LENR, which has looked promising 
ever since it was first tried, in Italy, IIRC, a few decades ago.  
Unfortunately Rossi has totally muddied the water with his Rube Goldberg 
machine which apparently has as its single purpose to provide a (bogus) 
justification for including a heater within the reactor, which makes all 
of his results a little harder to believe right from the get-go.  Wet 
LENR requires a power source to drive the electrolysis, which hairs up 
the analysis, but it's unavoidable.  Gas-phase LENR, OTOH, doesn't 
naturally require a power source; Rossi's claims that his machine was 
"too dangerous" to operate WITHOUT a heater inside rang false to start 
with and nothing's made it sound any better since.


People lie, scammers exist.  Once you've figured out that's what you're 
dealing with, you should understand that you have *no* good information 
on anything about his "experiments" and any analysis is unlikely to get 
you anything useful.



On 08/09/2016 12:43 AM, David Roberson wrote:
As I stated, I have many concerns about his system. On the other hand, 
I have a much more positive belief that some form of nickel, hydrogen, 
lithium gas system might generate additional heat.  As long as that 
possibility exists within my mind I fail to see how Rossi's experiment 
would be completely invalid.


Are you convinced that LENR is not a real phenomena?  If so, I will 
understand why you are taking the position that Rossi absolutely can 
not be believed.  That is OK, everyone is entitled to their beliefs.


If it becomes clear to me that my attempts to uncover a scientific 
explanation of how someone might be scamming an experiment


I don't understand what you mean by that.

He lies about meter readings, about power input, about flow rate, about 
the phase (gas or liquid) of the water in his system.


What's to "learn" or "uncover" here?  How to be a world-class liar? 
Humans have evolved that ability over millions of years; we're mostly 
pretty good at it.


The "physics" of his experiments, if any, is utterly uninteresting 
because it is entirely lost in the smoke he blows in order to conceal 
what he's actually doing.  And it's vanishingly unlikely that the 
"physics" involves anything deeper than V=IR plus a bit of misdirection 
while he switches samples in order to fool the rubes.


Gas-phase LENR is worthwhile and deserves to be explore further. Rossi's 
so-called ECAT, on the other hand, isn't, and *any* attempt at guiding 
exploration of gas-phase LENR using Rossi's "results" is wasted effort.




is wasting time for 'everyone' on this list, I will refrain from that 
effort.


You may not remember that I have contributed to the resolution of many 
important issues in the past.  Also, I have constructed thermal system 
models that yield quite interesting results that you can find in the 
list archives if interested.


YOUR VALUE is _not_ in question.  The value of doing anything more with 
ROSSI (and, indeed, Rossi's value) most certainly IS in question.


There is no need to "resolve" this issue.  It's already resolved. The 
only thing to be "resolved" is the deep denial in which a number of 
members of Vortex are still residing.

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

If I understand this discussion, you appear to be engaging in massive 
doublethink here.


You're trying to explain a bogus reading of the meter while /assuming/ 
that the system was actually producing 1 MW of heat.


If it was generating 1 MW then the meter reading was presumably 
/correct/, and in that case there's nothing funky about the meter that 
needs to be explained, save for the constant flow rate and other 
anomalies Jed has mentioned.


It's only if the system /wasn't/ generating a megawatt that there's an 
anomalously high flow reading to explain, and in that case you can't 
very well assume that much heat is being dissipated.


So, either the meter reading was anomalously high and the heat was much 
lower than a megawatt, /or/ the meter reading was more or less bang-on, 
and there was a megawatt of heat being dissipated somewhere.  But not both.


On 08/08/2016 11:52 PM, David Roberson wrote:
OK, interesting concept.  I was thinking along the lines of how a heat 
pump operates.  It consists of a closed system with a pump(compressor) 
and a strong restriction to the flowing fluid as well as heat 
exchangers.  A low pressure return pipe carries the active fluid in 
vapor form to the pump.  If sufficient heat is not absorbed by the 
expanding mixture then some of it remains in the liquid form.   I 
wonder if a significant portion of that mixture in Rossi's case might 
be vapor, leading to false reading within the gauge ahead of the pump?


This is merely a conceptual idea to digest.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha 
To: John Milstone 
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 9:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court 
document


I was thinking more of the cooling mechanism, which had to cool 1MW. 
The surface area is very large. In less then 3D (scale of the tubes in 
1D in comparison to other), turbulence can go from small vortices to 
high, and when it exits to large tubes it goes from high vortices to 
low. Depending on the design, a lot of cavitation may form and 
accumulate in the flow meter, if no system to elimate bubles is developed.


2016-08-08 21:32 GMT-03:00 David Roberson >:


I agree, the pump might actually lower the pressure at its input
enough to allow the water to vaporize if the flow is restricted
ahead of the gauge.

Dave

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/08/2016 11:39 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I would hope that you could be convinced that Rossi is telling the 
truth if he were to present a solid scientific proof to that fact.  Is 
that not giving him the benefit of the doubt?  Can anyone be 100% 
confident that he is completely lying?


As long as there is any question about the facts,


No.  Wrong criterion.  There will /always/ be some questions about the 
facts.


The courts do not require guilt to be proved "beyond a shadow of a 
doubt" or "beyond any question" or "beyond any possibility of error" 
because it is almost never possible to prove /anything/ that definitely.


On the other hand, Rossi /has/ been proved to be a liar and a scammer 
/beyond a _reasonable_ doubt/ which is the criterion jurors are 
generally asked to apply.  The number of unlikely assumptions which must 
hold in order for him to be an honest researcher is vastly larger than 
the number of assumptions which must hold if he is what he appears to 
be, which is a greedy sleazebucket who's stealing money and wasting 
everybody's time. Concluding in the face of the evidence that you /must 
give him another chance/ is flat-out irrational -- i.e.,  it's an 
emotional decision, not a reasoned one, because there is no reasonable 
ground for concluding that.


If you want to waste time giving him endless chances to try yet again 
and maybe this time produce an honest result that shows his equipment 
really does work, feel free, but you are seriously wasting everybody 
else's time by doing it here.  At this time it appears that there's a 
larger chance that you'll hit Megabucks than that you'll wake up and 
find out Rossi was vindicated.  (And that goes double if you actually 
buy a lottery ticket.)

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/08/2016 08:27 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I suppose that Rossi may not be telling the truth as you have 
concluded, but I am attempting to give him _*the benefit of the doubt*_. 


You have got to be kidding.

We have been discussing Rossi in this group for the last /_six years_./

The first Vortex email I have regarding Rossi is from March, 2010. It's 
from Jed, and it's quite positive.


The road from initial elation with Rossi's fabulous results to the 
conclusion that it's all just a fable with nothing to back it up was 
long, contentious, and littered with a lot of dubious claims (from 
Rossi) and difficult to unearth facts (about what he was really doing).

/
/The "benefit of the doubt" ran out long ago for this guy.

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/08/2016 06:25 PM, Che wrote:



On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com 
<mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote:




The group got Rossi'd a couple years back and we're still
gradually digging out from under.

Ditto the entire LENR world, I'm afraid.


I think the issue still remains: *did* Rossi turn Nickel into copper 
-- and produce excess energy -- *at all*. Or not.


The 'con' part is the _least_ part, AFAIC. Maybe his ambition made him 
stoopid. What is the REAL physics going on here, regardless..??


There almost certainly isn't any interesting physics here.  He's been 
proved to lie about his experiments and falsify his data. Consequently 
the only reason to believe there is anything interesting going on inside 
the ecat is blind faith, which has no place here.


IOW, the only reason for thinking there might be something magical going 
on here is "Rossi said so" and that's worthless.


If you want to spend time digging into all his reported results, and try 
to figure out exactly how each one was faked, and who must have colluded 
with him and who was just a patsy and what bits of misleading data he 
had to provide to fool various people, you can certainly do so, but the 
world is so chock-full of frauds that it hardly seems worth the effort.


I'm not sympathetic to people who commit fraud.  I've had far too much 
experience with the "alternative medicine" field, which is very similar 
to the "free energy" field, and it has used up my patience for such slime.

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/08/2016 04:52 PM, Che wrote:



On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com 
<mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote:



On 08/08/2016 07:43 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:

...

Missed this the first time around.

Peter, you've been spouting boring, sanctimonious, barely coherent
nonsense for weeks now, and you've descended to the point to
accusing Jed of lying, all to preserve your twisted fantasy that
Rossi is the Next Big Thing and not just a worthless con man.

You're going in the bozo bin.


If Vortex-L is simply turning into the Andrea Rossi Show,


The group got Rossi'd a couple years back and we're still gradually 
digging out from under.


Ditto the entire LENR world, I'm afraid.

I hope many people here will spend more time following the boring MFMP 
instead.


So check into it and post something.  Lots of us (who spend our time 
working for the man every night and day) don't have time to keep up with 
much stuff, and that includes the MFMP.


I'd also like to find out what the novel features actually were in the 
flywheel storage device which was mentioned here recently, but haven't 
had time to dig into it.


I'd love to hear if Ed Storms' gas phase experiments of a couple years 
back were replicated -- I dug around a bit on LENR-CANR and on Ed's web 
site and didn't find anything new on it, but it was a very cursory 
once-over.


In short, I'd love to see more about alternative energy /other than/ 
news of the continuing Rossi meltdown but somebody needs to ferret it 
out.  I just don't have time to contribute much beyond some very casual 
analysis at this point.

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/08/2016 12:20 PM, Russ George wrote:

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

This acrimonious discussion of Rossi with the posturing pretentious 
claims of ‘insider knowledge’ by one disgruntled camp follower, 
utterly unsubstantiated and without any verifiable facts/data to say 
nothing of the clearly biased bile accompanying it all, is an all-time 
perfect example of the worst of troll behavior.




Russ, you're occasionally frequently pretty seriously sanctimonious, all 
the while spouting opinions without apparent factual basis, and accusing 
unspecified others (who generally do have a factual basis for what they 
say) of being trolls or other unsavoury types who just like to tear down 
honest researchers. Reminds me a lot of Rossi and his "snakes", come to 
think of it.


Some consider you a leading light in Lenr.  Other consider you a bull in 
a china shop.  I suspect the latter may be more accurate.


Into the bozo bin with you.

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/08/2016 09:30 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
If you assume there was actually some pressure, then there was only 
hot water, not steam, where the temperature went from 60°C to 100°C.


I feel like this is where I came in.

Years ago, in early ecat tests, Rossi had a *fixed* flow rate of water 
going in, and claimed 100% dry steam coming out, but the temperature of 
the effluent was nailed hard to boiling: 100C (or perhaps a degree or 
two higher, presumably due to some overpressure in the system).  This, 
despite the fact that the temperature rose with a fairly steep slope 
until it hit 100C, and despite the fact that claimed power output went 
from just enough to heat the input flow to 100C to enough to entirely 
vaporize it in essentially zero time (which entailed a rather large 
power jump), and despite the fact that there was /no/ feedback mechanism 
in place to assure that the power produced was /exactly/ enough to 
vaporize the *fixed* flow rate of water he was pumping into the system 
-- with nothing left over.


The arbitrary, fixed input flow rate meant that the power needed to do 
this was also a fixed amount, determined by the flow rate.  Steam has a 
low enough specific heat that any _excess_ of energy would have shown up 
as superheated steam; that (clearly) never happened.  And any _deficit_ 
would have meant it couldn't vaporize all the input water, but that 
(supposedly) never happened either -- despite the apparent lack of 
feedback in the system.


The only sensible explanation was that there /was/ a feedback mechanism 
present, and unless Rossi was riding the gain on the electrical input to 
provide enough energy to the heater to exactly vaporize the water, the 
only mechanism in place to keep the effluent temperature at boiling and 
no higher was if the effluent was actually a mixture of steam and water, 
and in that case the power produced was certainly lower than claimed.


As I recall the mechanism used to prove the steam was dry was hotly 
contested, claimed by some to be completely invalid for that 
application.  And no explanation was provided at all for how the power 
could have been /exactly/ sufficient to evaporate all the input water 
exactly as fast as it came in; that issue wasn't even hand-waved.  The 
problem of explaining the amazing coincidence between power produced and 
power needed to vaporize the input flow was simply ignored.

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/08/2016 07:43 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:

Jed, how much of Rossi's data do you have?
Days; weeks? How do you got them?
*How would you convince us that you have them indeed*?


That's obnoxious.  You're outright accusing Jed of lying here.  I've 
been hanging around here for a long time, I've had my run-ins with Jed, 
I've seen him be wrong, but I've /never/ seen him lie about anything.

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/08/2016 07:43 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:

Jed, how much of Rossi's data do you have?
Days; weeks? How do you got them?
How would you convince us that you have them indeed?
I confess that after what you have told about knowledgeable people being
those who know to cheat with an instrument I cannot belive anything 
you say without proofs. *Your statement was structurally dishonest.*


Missed this the first time around.

Peter, you've been spouting boring, sanctimonious, barely coherent 
nonsense for weeks now, and you've descended to the point to accusing 
Jed of lying, all to preserve your twisted fantasy that Rossi is the 
Next Big Thing and not just a worthless con man.


You're going in the bozo bin.

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/07/2016 01:31 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:



On 08/07/2016 01:06 PM, Che wrote:



On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 12:42 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


What will you say if Rossi has a commercial 1 MW plant up and
running before the trial?



Good joke.  Hah hah!

What will you sat if the the sky is suddenly full of ships, and it 
turns out it's an alien invasion, and the only one they'll negotiate 
with is Rossi?  You'll *all* be talking out of the other sides of your 
mouths, when that happens!




How many years go by with a lack of even definitive 
'proof-of-concept' -- let alone the World being presented with a 
'wiz-bang' working prototype -- from these social sorts? I truly want 
to believe in Rossi & Co... but we keep being systematically 
disappointed. Year after year after year. After decade.


How much of this pathology could be FUD and sabotage, really..?

We're STILL waiting for Orbo to prove itself in some spectacular, 
definitive way, for that matter. So they have a cellphone charger... 
now. Finally. But what is that. Really. What _is_ it..?


Orbo?  You mean, from Steorn?  The dude with the battery powered 
perpetual motion machines?


That one works really well, in fact -- it has generated investment 
dollars for Steorn, fleeced from people who don't know any better, and 
that's its entire purpose in life.  And Steorn has managed to avoid 
the kind of massive, public debacle that Rossi's gotten himself into 
with the 1 MW unit, which suggests he's a more skilful conman than Rossi.


'Scuse me, I meant Shawn is a better conman than Rossi, not "Steorn"; 
Steorn is just the company name.  It's been rather a while since this 
guy was last in the news and I'm bad with names.

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/07/2016 01:06 PM, Che wrote:



On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 12:42 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


What will you say if Rossi has a commercial 1 MW plant up and
running before the trial?



Good joke.  Hah hah!

What will you sat if the the sky is suddenly full of ships, and it turns 
out it's an alien invasion, and the only one they'll negotiate with is 
Rossi?  You'll *all* be talking out of the other sides of your mouths, 
when that happens!




How many years go by with a lack of even definitive 'proof-of-concept' 
-- let alone the World being presented with a 'wiz-bang' working 
prototype -- from these social sorts? I truly want to believe in Rossi 
& Co... but we keep being systematically disappointed. Year after year 
after year. After decade.


How much of this pathology could be FUD and sabotage, really..?

We're STILL waiting for Orbo to prove itself in some spectacular, 
definitive way, for that matter. So they have a cellphone charger... 
now. Finally. But what is that. Really. What _is_ it..?


Orbo?  You mean, from Steorn?  The dude with the battery powered 
perpetual motion machines?


That one works really well, in fact -- it has generated investment 
dollars for Steorn, fleeced from people who don't know any better, and 
that's its entire purpose in life.  And Steorn has managed to avoid the 
kind of massive, public debacle that Rossi's gotten himself into with 
the 1 MW unit, which suggests he's a more skilful conman than Rossi.

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/07/2016 12:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


 I suspect Rossi is hoping to pin the blame on Penon and send him to 
jail, instead of going himself.


Not sure I can agree with that.

I've long since stopped believing people like Rossi (or Trump) have a 
coherent exit strategy -- their slogan seems to be "if you're 
challenged, double down; brazen it out.  Apologies are for wimps." Or, 
as Tom Petty put it, "I Won't Back Down!"





 - Jed

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Thanks.  Interesting read.


On 08/06/2016 07:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com <mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote:

Your link is apparently only useful to members of the NewVortex
group on Yahoo.


Okay. I uploaded the document here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6qvuFUMAp9HMEQyeHZlX256U1E

- Jed

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Your link is apparently only useful to members of the NewVortex group on 
Yahoo.


It calls itself a "public" group but I couldn't get it to show me the 
file, none the less, and didn't immediately see a way to join it (yet 
another social networking site, just what everybody needs).


I found a number of bits and pieces on the same topic, uploaded by Abd, 
but I couldn't get Yahoo to show them to me, either.


In any case, if this (which you've mentioned before) is true,

*"As you see in this exhibit, Penon recorded this flow rate of 36,000 kg 
for every day in the ERV, _including days when the reactor was not 
operating_."*


then it's totally Game Over and anyone who still thinks there's 
something here should be counting angels dancing on the head of a pin.  
Only totally blind unreasoning faith could account for believing Rossi 
had anything at all at this point.




On 08/06/2016 04:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

This is Exhibit 5, Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 29-5.

groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/files/Rossi_v_Darden/ 

Re: [Vo]:Facebook solar airplane

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/05/2016 05:21 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
No more stationary than a satellite.  As far as I know, fixed-position 
satellite dishes work just fine.  Get the altitude about right, get 
the azimuth sort of in the right direction, and the reflector produces 
some gain, which is what you need.


The signal's strong enough that you don't need a super high gain 
antenna, so it doesn't have to be aimed directly at the satellite -- 
or airplane, in this case.  A small dish isn't all that directional, 
anyway; its diffraction spread is pretty substantial.


If you're using a 6 meter dish, on the other hand, it's something else 
again.  It's got a much tighter pattern, and you'd better be aiming it 
carefully.


FWIW the Satnet dishes were about 6 meters, as I recall.  That was a 
project at BBN 'way back when, for providing a packet switched network 
in the sky back in the 80's and 90's.   The satellite was in 
geosynchronous orbit, so it was easy to track, which was a good thing; 
with a dish that big and very high frequency signals, over a few tens of 
thousands of miles it's almost as tight as a laser.  (Or ... maybe they 
were 9 meters.  Not sure.  It was a long time ago.)





At least that's how I understand it.


On 08/05/2016 05:15 PM, MJ wrote:


"small towers and dishes" ?  Will the plane be stationary?

Mark Jordan


On 05-Aug-16 17:28, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

Thanks -- that makes sense.

On 08/05/2016 02:26 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Ah, here we are:

"With Aquila, we've designed a new aircraft architecture, one that 
can support staying in the air for months at a time. Aquila is 
solar powered, and when launched, it will create a 50-km 
communications radius for up to 90 days, beaming a signal down to 
the people in that area. This signal will be received by small 
towers and dishes that will then convert it into a Wi-Fi or LTE 
network that people can connect to with their cellphones and 
smartphones."


https://code.facebook.com/posts/993520160679028/building-communications-networks-in-the-stratosphere/ 



In other words, the airplane replaces the infrastructure between 
towers, and it also allows for smaller towers. Probably cheaper 
ones too.


It says they want to reduce communication costs by an order of 
magnitude.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Facebook solar airplane

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

No more stationary than a satellite.  As far as I know, fixed-position 
satellite dishes work just fine.  Get the altitude about right, get the 
azimuth sort of in the right direction, and the reflector produces some 
gain, which is what you need.


The signal's strong enough that you don't need a super high gain 
antenna, so it doesn't have to be aimed directly at the satellite -- or 
airplane, in this case.  A small dish isn't all that directional, 
anyway; its diffraction spread is pretty substantial.


If you're using a 6 meter dish, on the other hand, it's something else 
again.  It's got a much tighter pattern, and you'd better be aiming it 
carefully.


At least that's how I understand it.


On 08/05/2016 05:15 PM, MJ wrote:


"small towers and dishes" ?  Will the plane be stationary?

Mark Jordan


On 05-Aug-16 17:28, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

Thanks -- that makes sense.

On 08/05/2016 02:26 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Ah, here we are:

"With Aquila, we've designed a new aircraft architecture, one that 
can support staying in the air for months at a time. Aquila is solar 
powered, and when launched, it will create a 50-km communications 
radius for up to 90 days, beaming a signal down to the people in 
that area. This signal will be received by small towers and dishes 
that will then convert it into a Wi-Fi or LTE network that people 
can connect to with their cellphones and smartphones."


https://code.facebook.com/posts/993520160679028/building-communications-networks-in-the-stratosphere/ 



In other words, the airplane replaces the infrastructure between 
towers, and it also allows for smaller towers. Probably cheaper ones 
too.


It says they want to reduce communication costs by an order of 
magnitude.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Facebook solar airplane

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Thanks -- that makes sense.

On 08/05/2016 02:26 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Ah, here we are:

"With Aquila, we've designed a new aircraft architecture, one that can 
support staying in the air for months at a time. Aquila is solar 
powered, and when launched, it will create a 50-km communications 
radius for up to 90 days, beaming a signal down to the people in that 
area. This signal will be received by small towers and dishes that 
will then convert it into a Wi-Fi or LTE network that people can 
connect to with their cellphones and smartphones."


https://code.facebook.com/posts/993520160679028/building-communications-networks-in-the-stratosphere/

In other words, the airplane replaces the infrastructure between 
towers, and it also allows for smaller towers. Probably cheaper ones too.


It says they want to reduce communication costs by an order of magnitude.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Facebook solar airplane

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

What's your point, Russ?

Stringing fibre costs a bunch.  This is supposed to reach areas where 
that hasn't been done and where the funds to do it don't exist.  As 
such, it solves a real problem which really exists; it's not just some 
conspiracy dreamed up by the capitalists.


The alternative is satellite networks.  Planes like this may not be 
cheap to develop and deploy but satellites are even more not cheap.


On 08/05/2016 04:21 PM, Russ George wrote:


Communications costs are already an order of magnitude lower than 
those in the USA in many countries of the world, without any strange 
new technology. The cost of modern cellular communications in high 
priced nations is proven to be purely a factor of capitalist greed, it 
has nothing to do with the cost to provide the service.


*From:*Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Friday, August 5, 2016 11:26 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Facebook solar airplane

Ah, here we are:

"With Aquila, we've designed a new aircraft architecture, one that can 
support staying in the air for months at a time. Aquila is solar 
powered, and when launched, it will create a 50-km communications 
radius for up to 90 days, beaming a signal down to the people in that 
area. This signal will be received by small towers and dishes that 
will then convert it into a Wi-Fi or LTE network that people can 
connect to with their cellphones and smartphones."


https://code.facebook.com/posts/993520160679028/building-communications-networks-in-the-stratosphere/

In other words, the airplane replaces the infrastructure between 
towers, and it also allows for smaller towers. Probably cheaper ones too.


It says they want to reduce communication costs by an order of magnitude.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Facebook solar airplane

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

I read the text but I didn't watch the video (hate videos for 
information transfer), so maybe this is answered there -- but are we 
really sure this is supposed to communicate with /endpoints/ (cell 
phones, desktops, whatever)?  Technologically, it would be far easier -- 
and still useful -- if it were set up like the InternetAnywhere solution 
they've been pushing in Canada (which is satellite based).  You need a 
fixed downlink but you don't need 500 miles of cable to be strung from 
the nearest city before you can hook up.  That's important in Canada, 
where the northern population is very sparse.


The downlinks could be pretty cheap -- 15 miles is a lot closer than a 
typical satellite distance.  Set up the downlinks with free hotspots and 
you can get a great deal of coverage with a lot less technical 
difficulty than you'd have trying to fly a full-blown cell phone tower.  
And the planes, incidentally, may be out of range of most cell phones.  
I'd think 15 miles would be really pushing it for receiving a signals 
from hand held devices, unless the plane has humongous high-gain 
antennas on it.


Also note that cell phone /tower /antennas can be optimized for planar 
broadcast, which means all their energy is going into a minimal area, 
and best case, falloff could be roughly 1/r rather than 1/r^2.  These 
planes will be broadcasting into a cone, which isn't so nice, and 
they're going to be dealing with 1/r^2 signal falloff for sure.  (That's 
the downbound link, of course -- the geometry presumably doesn't affect 
the difficulty of receiving signals from users nearly as much.)


On 08/05/2016 11:15 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com <mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote:

I suppose it's not actually WIFI . . .


I think it is cell phone technology, not WiFi. Cell phone towers use a 
lot of power, so I do not know how this will work. The aircraft will 
communicate with one-another and with ground stations using lasers.



If they really draw 5 kw (as per the last paragraph), well, that's
impressive on the one hand (7 horsepower or thereabouts is not
much for keeping a plane up) but on the other hand, the solar
panels need to put out more than twice that much if it's going to
stay up 24 hours . . .


The panels + batteries on this machine produce and store enough 
electricity to keep it going 24 hours a day. Output is 5 kW but the 
panels produce more than that.


The plan is to slowly fly up much higher than commercial aircraft, and 
then loiter over one spot of 3 months or so. Then another aircraft 
will take up station while this one is brought down for maintenance.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Facebook solar airplane

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

There are some parts I really don't understand.  From the text article,

" the plan is to create a drone system that acts as /*floating wifi 
routers*/ to bridge the internet gaps on the ground"


Wifi routers, 15 /miles/ up in the sky?  What kind of wifi card do you 
need in your system to throw your signal that far? (Water cooled cell 
phones, maybe?)


I suppose it's not actually WIFI, and they're using an analogy on the 
assumption that the reader wouldn't understand what's actually being 
done, but none the less I found that pretty seriously unclear.


I'm also pretty amazed at the concept of solar powering the things. If 
they really draw 5 kw (as per the last paragraph), well, that's 
impressive on the one hand (7 horsepower or thereabouts is not much for 
keeping a plane up) but on the other hand, the solar panels need to put 
out more than twice that much if it's going to stay up 24 hours, which 
means they're looking at a minimum of something like 15 square meters of 
solar panels, assuming something like 50% efficiency (and assuming it's 
high noon for 12 hours every day). That sounds like a lot.




On 08/05/2016 09:59 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Solar airplanes have been a useless tour de force up until now. This 
one is intended to provide internet service to parts of the world that 
do not have it, such as Africa. This airplane will fly for months.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOez_Hk80TI

http://www.realclearlife.com/2016/08/05/facebooks-dream-of-internet-everywhere-gains-momentum/

Needless to say, this would be far easier and cheaper with cold fusion.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Improved flywheel

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Kewl -- I would not have expected a major step forward in flywheels; 
they seem so basic.


Something I don't understand, though.  "The rotor ... is permanently 
levitated as opposed to electromagnetically..."


How do you levitate something "permanently"?  Jed, do you have any idea 
what this means?   (I didn't see a link to her thesis, which might have 
answered the question.)


On 08/04/2016 10:54 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

See:

http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/news/articles/2016/lancaster-engineering-student-designs-revolutionary-energy-storage-solution/

Re: [Vo]:Dehumidifiers and temperature

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

I'd have to guess you live in an area that isn't very humid. Otherwise 
you wouldn't have to ask. :-)


First, the books on the bookcases in the livingroom stop growing mold on 
their spines if you drop the humidity.  (Otherwise, here in the Ottawa 
River Valley, they sure do, just sitting there during the summer.)


Second, you stop feeling constantly sticky.

Third, if you're hot (like, you exercise or something) instead of just 
getting soaked with sweat which refuses to evaporate, you actually cool 
off a bit.


An aside:  Many years ago, back in college, I repainted apartments as a 
summer job.  With the air conditioner running, the paint wouldn't dry 
(or wouldn't dry before we left, anyway).  To get it to dry fast enough 
to allow us to do touchups and whatnot before we left, we consistently 
had to shut the AC off.  (So much for an AC drying things out.)  Which 
leads to our next point:


Used in conjunction with a conventional airconditioner a dehumidifier 
can make things "feel" much more pleasant.  Make no mistake -- 
conventional air conditioners reduce the *absolute* humidity 
substantially but their impact on the *relative* humidity (which is what 
makes everything feel sticky) is considerably smaller, as they reduce 
the temperature of the air at the same time they remove moisture from 
it.  Their impact on the *relative* humidity is only as large as the 
difference between the internal temperature of the air (as it comes off 
the evaporator coils) and the final temperature of the air in the room 
(after it mixes with uncooled air).


Some air conditioners may not cool the air significantly below the 
target temperature, in which case the relative humidity may actually be 
raised as a result of their operation.


Dehumidifiers, OTOH, are designed to have a large temperature drop at 
the evaporator before the air is warmed again by the condenser, and they 
always reduce the relative humidity.



On 07/24/2016 01:59 PM, David Jonsson wrote:

Hi

How does dehumidifiers like this one work?
http://www.conrad.com/ce/en/product/1377991/Dehumidifier-20-m-0011-lh-White-Blue-renkforce-HD-68W

I assume that my personal experience of room temperature will decrease 
if I run one (provided I have sufficiently high humidity). But I also 
realize that the temperature of the air rises after being 
dehumidified. What is the net subjective human effect?


David

Re: [Vo]: The life and death of Eugene Mallove

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Thanks for the link.

On 07/17/2016 06:00 PM, a.ashfield wrote:

A feature article in foreign policy.com (!)
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/07/the-coldest-case-cold-fusion-eugene-mallove-mit-infinite-energy/ 



Jed Rothwell gets a mention

.

Re: [Vo]:Gain from wires and magnets?

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 07/17/2016 12:00 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
In such cases, it is really useful to simulate the system with a model 
that is entirely without unknown physics and see how the model 
compares with observation.  If it predicts the same phenomena, you can 
be pretty sure that the outcome was simply outside your expectation.  
SPICE is a wonderful first-principles tool for a lot of this with 
wires and magnets.


Indeed.  Seriously excellent advice.

Surprisingly, we've actually had people in the past attempting to find 
ways to make OU magmos and related gadgets /by using SPICE simulations/, 
which is kind of unreasonable given that conservation of energy is built 
into the physics models used by SPICE.




On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Jones Beene > wrote:



You may remember the story of the overunity LED,



The OU LED must be /*heated*/ to operate at OU and then it converts some 
thermal energy to electrical energy.  In short, it's no more exotic than 
a thermocouple, which is doing exactly the same thing.


Both obey the laws of thermodynamics, which is to say you can't just 
suck power out of it and have it get cold (and then use it as a "cold 
sink" to make even more energy).


On the other hand, if you're thinking of Stiffler's supposedly OU LEDs 
about which huge amounts of ink was wasted in this forum a few years 
back, he was just a scammer.  He had a signal generator running, which 
was capacitively coupled to the circuit providing the power.  It was an 
amusing demonstration of high frequency parasitics, nothing more.

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:[Vo]: Dallas Police’s ‘Bomb Robot’

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Don't think serial numbers will be of much use in this area.

They're valuable in tracing guns and cars because the sale of both those 
items is pretty heavily controlled, and so there's an actual record of 
what happened to, say, item number 2398623.  But toys aren't tracked at 
all, and are unlikely to start getting tracked any time soon (unless the 
folks in the FBI /really/ have too much time on their hands), and that 
means that even if you discover the drone had motor number 9868096754 in 
it, that still won't enable you to tell who had it previously, nor what 
path it followed before it exploded during the President's speech on the 
White House lawn.


On 07/08/2016 06:18 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 6:10 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


What parts?  small electric motors and batteries?  RC is a do it
yourself operation now, or just take parts from toys.


Good question. Not sure. Perhaps serial numbers on the types of RC 
parts that go into toys.  Clearly having traceable serial numbers will 
only be useful in finding the perpetrators if the drone goes down and 
is recovered.


It's an interesting thought experiment -- what will governments do in 
a pinch if the number of assassinations goes up?


Eric

Re: [Vo]:mini-interview with Andrea Rossi re a mouse, dispute, some info

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

What's with all the cross-posts?  I thought it was considered poor form 
to cross-post to a huge list -- makes it too easy for people on Vortex 
to accidentally respond to people they've never heard of before.


As to the "interview", Rossi should be posting in the forums over on 
4chan.  He'd fit right in there.



On 07/07/2016 02:50 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/07/jul-07-2016-mini-interview-with-andrea.html 



my best wishes, inclusive for my attackers- I do not envy them, not a bit!

peter

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

Re: [Vo]:ICCF19 Proceedings uploaded

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

A4 output, with U.S. letter selected as the word processor's page 
format?  (Sorry, Jed, it's a tiny nit. :-( )


On 07/06/2016 02:34 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

JOURNAL OF CONDENSED MATTER NUCLEAR SCIENCE
Experiments and Methods in Cold Fusion
Proceedings of the ICCF 19 Conference, April 13–17, 2015, Padua, Italy 
VOLUME 19, June 2016


http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedr.pdf

This was a lot of work.

I have not indexed this document or the papers in it yet.

This is letter R -- "jcondensedr". I am running out of letters.

- Jed

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 07/05/2016 04:06 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Jed, When you start with certainty that Rossi is a fraud all
becomes clear to you.


I did not start with that idea. On the contrary, as you see in the 
quote from me ending Lewan's book, I started with the assumption that 
his claims are real.


Anyone who's been on Vortex for longer a than a few months surely knows 
this is absolute fact.  Jed was more than willing to give Rossi the 
benefit of an awful lot of doubt before he came to the conclusion that 
the fix was in.





Craig is right.  Far better to leave the judgement to an unbiased
expert.



Jed */IS/* an "unbiased expert" in the area of cold fusion experiment 
analysis and calorimetry -- or, if anything, I'd have claimed he was 
biased in Rossi's favor; and if he's not an "expert" he'd make a pretty 
good stand-in for one.  The available data is more than adequate to draw 
conclusions -- arguing otherwise is like arguing that we "need more 
research" to determine if global warming is real.


And just to point out the obvious, IH was */not/* looking for a way to 
avoid paying Rossi anything and get out of the deal -- at least not to 
start with, they weren't. //They were more like, "Shut up and take my 
money!" and it's only the totally failed year long test that changed 
their minds. If -- */IF/* -- the Rossi process had been real, it would 
have been cheap at $89 million dollars (or even $890 million dollars), 
given that they were apparently expecting IP as well as a gadget.


It's absurd to act as though Rossi somehow strong-armed them into 
signing the contract, and all they wanted was a way out!

Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 06/25/2016 03:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
At the other extreme . . . I do not know whether radiation actually 
promotes health. I have heard it might, but I have not read the 
studies, so I cannot judge. But biology is full of surprises, so I 
would not discount the possibility.


Dunno if this'll upload -- I can't recall what the threshold is. Worth 
it if it does.

Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Well that sucks.  I can totally imagine the ending, tho -- the one thing 
Abd was really, really poor at was shutting up.


In any case, if a troll (Christian or not, sounds like that's what it 
was) provoked someone so badly that both the troll and the target were 
banned, that /certainly/ doesn't justify keeping /another/ troll on the 
rolls so they can try the same trick, this time in the political arena.


Anyhow that's my feeling about it, but I've gotten a lot less patient 
with such stuff over the years.


In any case this sub-discussion is totally unrelated to energy, free, 
possible, plausible, or otherwise, and so I will say nothing more about it.



On 06/25/2016 03:49 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

It's about keeping standards... not justifying 2 wrongs.

Abd was banned, I think, 3 years ago, when a Christian creationist was 
attacking Abd for being Muslim and Abd was defending his religion 
relentlessly, but providing historical facts and explaining things in 
context. The attack lasted for 2 or 3 weeks with a few hundreds of 
messages from both sides. In the end, both were banned. The attacker 
came back eventually, I don't remember what happened to him after, though.



2016-06-25 15:47 GMT-03:00 Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com 
<mailto:sa...@pobox.com>>:



And  */Abd was banned??/*  When was that?  And why?

Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

I dunno -- I looked back a ways and didn't see anything interesting from 
Che, and saw a bunch of trolling garbage.


And  */Abd was banned??/*  When was that?  And why? He was the most 
long winded poster I've encountered in a long time, and a bit 
tendentious, but his posts were generally on topic, carefully reasoned 
out, and, as far as I can recall, always respectful.


(And why would /unbanning/ Abd provide grounds to /ban/ Che?)

On 06/25/2016 02:29 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
I think he posted useful comments before and there was a trouble maker 
here before, way worse than this, bad mouthing Abd due his religion. 
So, unless _Abd is unbanned_, I cannot see fair grounds to ban Che.


2016-06-25 15:23 GMT-03:00 Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com 
<mailto:sa...@pobox.com>>:


Hallo, Bill!  Sorry to bother you about this

"Che" is a pseudonym with no information about the actual person
behind it.  That's not forbidden but it's not exactly smiled on
either.

"Che" mostly posts troll stuff and ad hominems.  No surprise,
given the choice of pseudonym, which is political rather than
scientific.

"Che" doesn't post physics, nor intelligent energy technology
commentary in general.  Again, no surprise, given the pseudonym.

*"Che" should be kicked out of the group IMHO.*

Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

How much difference does this make, in practical terms?  I'm not sure 
it's all that significant.


If it's linear, then it's a tradeoff, and there's still a threshold 
below which it's not worth reducing radiation exposure, even if there is 
no "medical threshold".


As an analogy which may help to clarify this, consider that /there is no 
threshold for automobile accidents/.  No matter how slowly everyone is 
forced to drive, there will /still/ be accidents.  Fatalities presumably 
have a direct relationship to the speed we allow people to travel at, 
and reducing that speed will /always/ save lives.  But that doesn't lead 
to the conclusion that we need to reduce the speed limit everywhere to 
zero and force everyone to walk, because /it is a tradeoff/. _Nothing_ 
in life is entirely safe, there are always fatalities, and all we need 
to do is reduce a particular risk factor enough so that it's small 
relative to other risks we face, and we can henceforth ignore it.


In other words, even if the dose relationship is linear, there's still 
an /economic/ threshold effect, even if the "OMG RADIATION time to 
PANIC!" crowd refuses to see it.



On 06/25/2016 10:39 AM, H LV wrote:

Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation


On Friday, Biological Theory published the equivalent of a “bunker 
buster” salvo in a decades-long war of words between scientists.


On one side are people who believe that there is no safe dose of 
radiation. They assert that radiation protection regulations should 
continue using a linear, no threshold model.


The other side includes those who say that sufficient evidence has 
been gathered to show there are dose levels below which there is no 
permanent damage. They say the evidence indicates the possibility of a 
modest health improvement over a range of low doses and dose rates. 
They believe that the LNT model is obsolete and does not do a good job 
of protecting people from harm.

​ ​


(​more at link)​

​ ​
​
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rodadams/2016/06/19/powerful-shot-against-believers-in-no-safe-dose-of-radiation

Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Hallo, Bill!  Sorry to bother you about this

"Che" is a pseudonym with no information about the actual person behind 
it.  That's not forbidden but it's not exactly smiled on either.


"Che" mostly posts troll stuff and ad hominems.  No surprise, given the 
choice of pseudonym, which is political rather than scientific.


"Che" doesn't post physics, nor intelligent energy technology commentary 
in general.  Again, no surprise, given the pseudonym.


*"Che" should be kicked out of the group IMHO.*


On 06/25/2016 09:41 AM, *Che wrote:*

*WTF do you know about anything, eh? Typical knee-jerk crap*...

Re: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Ah.  Thank you.  I didn't realize this is based on Rossi's work, though 
I certainly should have, given the way it's set up.


So, /if/ we assume all of Rossi's results were bogus (and I know of no 
reason not to assume that), /then/ it would be remarkable indeed if this 
actually was a real, robust, replicable result, as it would indicate 
that Rossi /accidentally/ made something up that was real, correct, and 
new while faking his experiments.  Somewhat as though the word salad 
generated by a spam bot accidentally contained some deep philosophical 
truth which nobody had thought of before.  Not impossible, but certainly 
surprising.


"Thermal runaway" might better be described as "Destructive overheating" 
as that describes what happened, without specifying a mechanism.  
"Runaway" implies we /know/ this is a non-standard exothermic reaction 
of some sort and that it can take place with great vigor if the 
temperature exceeds some threshold; but in fact we don't know that.


Similarly, the fact that attempts to goose the reactors harder destroyed 
them doesn't indicate runaway, it just indicates overheating, and it's 
anyone's guess how that happened.  When there's a joule heater running 
through the thing, and it's turned on during the experiment, and 
something overheats, the hot wire is an obvious candidate for the cause.



On 06/24/2016 12:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
I will look for the older references.  Certainly Jed has most of them 
in the lenr-canr.org <http://lenr-canr.org> database. Parkhomov's work 
stemmed from the Lugano report on Rossi's hotCat - where Parkhomov, a 
retired Russian physicist, deduced the fuel as primarily Ni + LAH, and 
tried it.  He saw credible excess heat.  You should start by reading 
the Lugano report's analysis of the fuel and ash.


The LENR details of this system are unknown, but here is a guess in a 
nutshell.  The LiAlH4 breaks down to LiH and Al + nH2 as it is 
heated.  At about 680C, both the LiH and the Al are molten and they 
wet to the Ni, which is now reduced of oxides by the H2.  The liquid 
Al also partly acts as a getter for the the oxygen in the system - 
taking it out of chemical play.  LiH is an ionic hydride, consisting 
of Li+ and H- in the molten metal.  Wetted to the Ni, the Li-H-Al 
supplies H- (anions) directly to the surface of the Ni, wherein a LENR 
reaction of unknown detail happens.  The reaction between Ni and H- 
could well be as Piantelli describes in his patents.  There are 
unsubstantiated shifts in the 6Li/7Li isotopic ratio as well as 
unsubstantiated isotopic shifts in the Ni and transmutation in the Ni.


Excess heat seems to have an onset above 900C and Parkhomov's latest 
experiments were run at 1200C.  Experiments can exhibit thermal 
runaway and burn out the apparatus.


Chemical energy is typically calculated as though the reactants were 
supplied with an unknown and unlimited source of free O2 and burned.  
The primary energy is the burning of H2 with O2, then the burning of 
the Li, and almost negligible is the chemical energy from burning 
(oxidizing) the Ni.  For the 2g of Ni and 0.2g of LAH, I have seen 
that energy calculated in the range of 20kJ (but my memory could be 
off +100%/-50%). Parkhomov measured about 100MJ output, about 5000x 
the chemical energy.


On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com 
<mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote:


Can someone post a link to something in the way of earlier work,
which might give an overview of this experiment and this approach?

I came in late to the show, and I'm confused as to what the
reaction is even believed to be here.

It's also apparent that some major chemical stuff was going on
(from the state of the reactors at the end of the experiment) but,
while LiAlH4 is presumably pretty seriously reactive, I wouldn't
have expected it to do much with nothing but Ni as a partner,
since Li and Al are surely much happier to donate electrons than
Ni (didn't check the half reaction potentials, tho, maybe nickel's
more reactive than I think).


On 06/24/2016 10:19 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:

Good morning Vorts,

Here is a link to my Google drive folder having the English
translation of A. Parkhomov's latest (6/23) presentation.  The
link is to the folder containing the translation, and if updates
are needed, I will put them in this same folder.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2YnpFakRobUE1clE

Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Can someone post a link to something in the way of earlier work, which 
might give an overview of this experiment and this approach?


I came in late to the show, and I'm confused as to what the reaction is 
even believed to be here.


It's also apparent that some major chemical stuff was going on (from the 
state of the reactors at the end of the experiment) but, while LiAlH4 is 
presumably pretty seriously reactive, I wouldn't have expected it to do 
much with nothing but Ni as a partner, since Li and Al are surely much 
happier to donate electrons than Ni (didn't check the half reaction 
potentials, tho, maybe nickel's more reactive than I think).



On 06/24/2016 10:19 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:

Good morning Vorts,

Here is a link to my Google drive folder having the English 
translation of A. Parkhomov's latest (6/23) presentation.  The link is 
to the folder containing the translation, and if updates are needed, I 
will put them in this same folder.


https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2YnpFakRobUE1clE

Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

The assumption I have made here is that combustion happens with 10 deg. of TDC,
which I am unsure about. It may not actually be complete in that time.


I tried to track this down (with little actual success) and the few 
vague assertions I could find made it seem like combustion actually 
takes a lot longer than that.  Sites I found made it appear that it 
completes at least 10 degrees after TDC, which means it's taking more 
like 20 degrees than 10.


OTOH that's in the ideal case, and if the chamber has hotspots or it's 
running on gas that's too low test or any of a number of other things, 
combustion may run rather faster.  And the original assertion, IIRC, had 
to do with the /peak/ combustion rate in the engine (as an example of 
chemical energy production rates), so if it hits your numbers only when 
overheating while accelerating up a mountain pulling a trailer with a 
tank full of Gulftane, that's good enough.  :-)



On 06/17/2016 07:54 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 17 Jun 2016 18:00:10 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]

 wrote:

Rubbish. The ignition of the fuel in a normal car engine cylinder results

in a
power production on the order of half a megawatt for a couple of
milliseconds,
and that's just chemical energy (with maybe few hydrinos thrown in ;).


Really? Hmmm . . . How do you figure that?


At 60 mph a typical old car consumes ~20 mpg. 1 gallon is 3.8 L, so that's
0.19 L per mile (or per minute). 1 L of gasoline produces 34.2 MJ. Divide
by 20 to get 1.71 MJ per minute.

Using your figures of 34.2 MJ/L and 0.19 L/minute I get 6.5 MJ/min, however
that's for 6 cylinders, so for 1 cylinder that would be about
1 MJ/min = 18 kJ/sec.



A single piston stroke produces only a
small fraction of that. I don't know how long it takes the gasoline to
burn, but I doubt such a small amount would reach the half-megawatt level.

Here is a paper on the burn rate of gasoline, which you have to pay for:

http://papers.sae.org/2008-01-0469/

At 60 mph, I think engines run at about 2500 rpm. A single piston stroke
with a 6-cylinder engine running at 2500 rpm would consume . . . ummm . .
.1.71 MJ / 15,000 = 114 joules. Right? That takes only 0.0002 s to burn?

- Jed

A 4 stroke engine has one power stroke/cylinder every 2 cycles, so at 2500 rpm,
that's 1250 power strokes/cylinder/min = 21 power strokes/cylinder/sec. So each
power stroke/cylinder produces 18 kJ/21 or about 860 J.

At 2500 rpm, there is a revolution (360 deg) every 24 ms.
If combustion happens within 10 deg. of TDC, then combustion time is
24 ms*(10/360) = 0.67 of a ms.

860 J / 0.67 ms is about 1.3 MW.

The assumption I have made here is that combustion happens with 10 deg. of TDC,
which I am unsure about. It may not actually be complete in that time.

The figures I used initially were a little different to yours, hence my original
calculation was also somewhat different.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 06/17/2016 06:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


At 60 mph, I think engines run at about 2500 rpm. A single piston 
stroke with a 6-cylinder engine running at 2500 rpm would consume . . 
. ummm . . .1.71 MJ / 15,000 = 114 joules. Right? That takes only 
0.0002 s to burn?


For sure -- at least, in some cars.

Had an old Chevy Impala, many years ago, that didn't have any truck with 
this "fast burn" business -- it was "detonation or nothing!" It sounded 
like somebody was frying marbles in it if you hit the gas while it was 
going uphill.


:-)

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 06/17/2016 04:21 PM, Craig Haynie wrote:
I have to come back to this. This isn't looking good for Mills, and it 
couldn't have come at a worse time, too. For the past year or so, 
Mills has been approaching the end of his work, and hence, the end of 
his funding. These people, whoever they are, aren't keeping him funded 
for nothing. They expect him to deliver something tangible at some 
point, and that point was fast approaching, since there was nothing 
left for him to do with the SunCell. However, now if he's discovered 
an even GREATER source of energy, by orders of magnitude, then he can 
lobby for funding for another 20 years.


To me, this really makes him look bad. If he's legitimate, he needs to 
push this new discovery aside, and get something out as soon as 
possible to maintain any kind of credibility.



And if he's not legit, then he really, really needed some new song to 
sing to the "investors" who give him money.   And, as you say, it sounds 
like he found one.


Mills has exhibited a positively transmortal ability to get people to 
invest in something seemingly implausible with only the thinnest shreds 
of evidence to back it up, and to keep on investing for decades despite 
the complete lack of anything resembling a product.

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

The idea that it's leaking fits well with the observation that the 
thrust involved is "incredibly small".


When you're chasing effects at the margin of what you can detect, 
totally marginal errors can totally mess up the results.


On 06/16/2016 01:36 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
I don't quite understand why people think photons don't leak out of 
the Shawyer apparatus.  If you look at a Fabry-Perot resonator - two 
parallel mirrors (an etalon).  The reflectivity for each of the 
mirrors can be 99.999%, and the etalon Q will be quite high, but at 
the resonance, light will pass through the etalon with relatively 
little attenuation. This is because the energy inside the resonance is 
related to Q which is related to reflectivity.  When the reflectivity 
is high, the Q is high, so the field intensity inside the etalon is 
very high (multiplied by Q).  Then when you take that internal field 
intensity and multiply it by the reflectivity, most of the input comes 
out (at resonance).


Bob

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Russ George > wrote:


OK Dr. Photon just how do we like this news on the EM Drive and
the paired out of phase photons?

http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/06/new-paper-claims-that-em-drive-doesnt.html#.V2LfsvkrKVM

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

The author says:

   "photons must become paired up in order to discharge the fuel
   cavity, so that the two photons in those pairs are essentially out
   of phase, which means they entirely cancel each other out and have
   no net electromagnetic field"


If it shoots out a pair of /out of phase/ photons whose fields "entirely 
cancel", their energy cancels as well (energy density of EM radiation 
goes as the field strength), as does their momentum (proportional to 
energy for a photon, as I recall), and the result is nothing coming out.


Nope, nope, nope.  This goes nowhere in "explaining" the drive.

And, no, you can't say "It doesn't break Newton's third law, /because/ 
it produces thrust".  That's totally backwards reasoning.


[And no, by the way, peer review doesn't == solid. /Replication/, that's 
what it takes for a result to be "solid".  The peer reviewers can catch 
arithmetic mistakes and totally bogus theory but they can't spot every 
error in lab technique, and, of course, peer review can't generally 
catch fraud.]



On 06/16/2016 01:21 PM, Russ George wrote:


OK Dr. Photon just how do we like this news on the EM Drive and the 
paired out of phase photons? 
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/06/new-paper-claims-that-em-drive-doesnt.html#.V2LfsvkrKVM

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 06/06/2016 05:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Jed,
You are certain you know the answers.  I don't claim I do and
think there are still many unknowns.


For the last time:

I am pretty sure I know the answers BECAUSE I HAVE THE DATA.

You do not claim you know the answers BECAUSE YOU KNOW NOTHING. YOU 
HAVE NO DATA. You have no way to judge anything, and no way to judge 
how much is unknown, and how much is perfectly clear.


Actually it isn't correct that we in the peanut gallery have no way to 
judge anything.  Based solely on what we in this group know of you, Jed, 
and your reputation, and Rossi, and his reputation, and the milieu in 
which this all took place, it's not hard to compare the /assumptions/ 
which need to be made in order to conclude either that you are telling 
the truth and you are correct that Rossi's invention is a dead issue, or 
that Rossi is correct and you are mistaken and/or lying.


There would seem to be far fewer unlikely assumptions required in order 
to conclude that you're right and Rossi is wrong.


Consequently, using Occam's razor, it seems to me that the objectively 
correct statement, based solely on information known to Vortex members 
and general denizens of the Internet, is that Jed is /very probably/ 
correct in his assertions about Rossi, and Rossi's devices /very 
probably/ do not work.  (And a high probability of truth is the best we 
can hope for in any case.)


I said "do not work" rather than "failed in this instance" because to 
assume they failed in this instance BUT actually work in general 
requires another bunch of rather unlikely looking assumptions to explain 
the unexpected failure, versus the single, rather simpler assumption 
that Rossi cheats, and so all of his successful test results to date 
have been bogus.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 06/05/2016 08:43 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com 
<mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote:


If I had been in Rossi's position I would certainly have lined up
a lawyer and done some groundwork before everything hit the fan. 
Time can be of the essence when claims and counterclaims start

flying.  From the description of the situation, it seems like a
lawsuit was a very likely outcome, and assuming Rossi is rational
he might very well have expected it.


I agree that it's likely that Rossi had started preparing for a 
lawsuit well before March 11.  I would be surprised if it turned out 
to be otherwise.  One suspects Rossi had a lawsuit in the back of his 
mind from the start of the test.


"No divorce yet" doesn't in any way imply "I haven't hired a
lawyer".  Not in a marriage, and not in a situation of contractual
default.


If you read the quote from Rossi, it's natural interpretation would be 
that IH and Rossi are on good terms.  Do you disagree?


Nah, I haven't read the quote, I've only seen it paraphrased, so I can't 
reasonably disagree.  I was mouthing off; didn't mean I knew anything.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 06/05/2016 07:19 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 6:12 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


I assume Rossi started his lawsuit as soon as he knew IH were not
going to pay up.   Someone must have told him that before the ERV
gave them his report.  This strikes me as very strange unless IH
had planned on not paying all along.


Do you think Rossi found out IH weren't going to pay up before or 
after March 11, the date of his JONP comment?  If he found out after, 
he would have needed to prepare for the lawsuit, which was filed on 
April 5, within 25 days or less.  If he found out before, he would 
have been in the process of working with the lawyer to prepare the 
lawsuit for filing even as he said to a JONP reader that there was no 
"divorce" between him and IH, a comment whose reasonable 
interpretation was that everything was ok between them.


If I had been in Rossi's position I would certainly have lined up a 
lawyer and done some groundwork before everything hit the fan.  Time can 
be of the essence when claims and counterclaims start flying. From the 
description of the situation, it seems like a lawsuit was a very likely 
outcome, and assuming Rossi is rational he might very well have expected it.


"No divorce yet" doesn't in any way imply "I haven't hired a lawyer".  
Not in a marriage, and not in a situation of contractual default.


 -- SAL

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 06/03/2016 11:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
... his instruments produce magically round numbers. *His machine 
produces exactly 1 MW!*


Oh wow.  I missed that.  That's hilarious -- totally lightened up an 
otherwise dreary morning!

Re: [Vo]:Running on lava

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

I particularly like the bit toward the end, where he steps off the flow, 
and as he's taking the last step, he lifts up his foot, and the sole of 
his shoe is flaming.  (Easier to see in the slo-mo replay.)


On 06/01/2016 11:51 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bumUw0lNOz0

--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com 

Re: [Vo]:last news

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

SPAM SPAM SPAM

Another weightloss spammer -- should be kicked out (they're probably not 
even human, just a bot).



On 06/02/2016 09:20 PM, Peter F. Macaluso wrote:


Hi,

Here are some news since we've met last time, just read'em here 
http://quuquucugy.unshelvish.com/aeoadyb


Yours sincerely, Peter F. Macaluso

Re: [Vo]:good news

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

SPAM SPAM  SPAM

this "person" (who is most likely a spambot) should be kicked out of the 
group.


It's a weightloss trash site.

On 06/02/2016 09:19 PM, kowals...@mail.montclair.edu wrote:


Hey,

I've got some good news for you, read more about it here 
http://phuquanteha.failedfounder.com/aehqcp


Regards, kowals...@mail.montclair.edu