Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response - radioactive scare
My prediction: So many oil dollars will jump on this possibility of unleashed radioactive doom that they will squash any progress in cold fusion. That aspect is not a particularly a good thing. But it will happen. Abetting this will be the horde of semi-literate tea party types, ready to fear whatever the Koch brothers tell them to fear. We will (after too long) be buying our heat gadgets from the Chinese, maybe on the black market. Ol' Bab, who sometimes gets a bit pessimistic. On 5/20/2013 7:27 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: My prediction: So many people will get enamored with this idea of cheap nuclear energy that they will squash any investigation into this danger. That aspect is not a particularly a good thing. But it will happen.
[Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
It is great news that Rossi has found positive results according to the third party testers. I have been following his work for a couple of years and put together a model that I have discussed on this list on many occasions. I was very pleased at the appearance of the time domain temperature plots that were shown plotted along with the drive waveform. These plots strongly resembled the ones that my model produced and I have long contended that his limitation of 6 for COP is based upon stable operation of the system. This limit occurs as a result of the observation that a device such as his has the ability to internally generate all of the heat required to run away unless it can be carefully manipulated. The SSM period and level are key to getting the desired performance. Rossi will find that the extraction of heat energy from his device will further complicate the issue when a real world system is utilized. The thermal run away process that he modifies must be compensated to account for the energy loss that the coolant extracts, but I suspect that this will be possible with careful design. Dave
RE: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
Rossi has recently stated in JONP that local hot spots in its reactor were the main issue. If a spot come to a certain upper threshold, the reactor goes out of control. The keys are uniformity of heat production inside the eCat and equal density of energy extraction along the entire surface. The only way to control the eCat, as far as we know now, is through the inside temperature of the reactor. If Rossi want to improve the COP, the way to do it is to find another variable to control (as done by Defkalion with spark plug). Nevertheless, your time domain work might help a lot. _ From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: lundi 20 mai 2013 21:17 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response I was very pleased at the appearance of the time domain temperature plots that were shown plotted along with the drive waveform. These plots strongly resembled the ones that my model produced and I have long contended that his limitation of 6 for COP is based upon stable operation of the system. This limit occurs as a result of the observation that a device such as his has the ability to internally generate all of the heat required to run away unless it can be carefully manipulated. The SSM period and level are key to getting the desired performance.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
If I had Rossi’s ear, I would tell him to install a lithium based heat pipe to distribute the heat produced by the nickel powder in a isothermal mode as those types of pipes are disposed to do. Furthermore, the heat pipe can vary heat dissipation under thermostatic control to keep the thermal stimulation of the reaction under regulated control. When heat production from the nickel powder gets too high, the heat pipe can cold it to a degree so that the powder maintains a constant temperature profile. Rossi needs to get temperature control close to the nickel powder if he wants to get the most out of his reactor. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.bewrote: ** Rossi has recently stated in JONP that local hot spots in its reactor were the main issue. If a spot come to a certain upper threshold, the reactor goes out of control. The keys are uniformity of heat production inside the eCat and equal density of energy extraction along the entire surface. The only way to control the eCat, as far as we know now, is through the inside temperature of the reactor. If Rossi want to improve the COP, the way to do it is to find another variable to control (as done by Defkalion with spark plug). Nevertheless, your time domain work might help a lot. ** ** -- *From:* David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] *Sent:* lundi 20 mai 2013 21:17 *To:* **vortex-l@eskimo.com** *Subject:* [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response I was very pleased at the appearance of the time domain temperature plots that were shown plotted along with the drive waveform. These plots strongly resembled the ones that my model produced and I have long contended that his limitation of 6 for COP is based upon stable operation of the system. This limit occurs as a result of the observation that a device such as his has the ability to internally generate all of the heat required to run away unless it can be carefully manipulated. The SSM period and level are key to getting the desired performance.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
A good solution to the thermal run away problem will be difficult to achieve. It is imperative that the heat source material reach an unstable mode if controllable high gain is required. The direction of the temperature response must be reversed at the proper time in order to prevent total meltdown. You propose a tighter connection between the heat generation mechanism and the heat extraction process which would be an excellent idea. It would not surprise me to find that Rossi eventually adjusts the coolant flow rate as part of his overall technique. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 20, 2013 4:04 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response If I had Rossi’s ear, I would tell him to install a lithium based heat pipe to distribute the heat produced by the nickel powder in a isothermal mode as those types of pipes are disposed to do. Furthermore, the heat pipe can vary heat dissipation under thermostatic control to keep the thermal stimulation of the reaction under regulated control. When heat production from the nickel powder gets too high, the heat pipe can cold it to a degree so that the powder maintains a constant temperature profile. Rossi needs to get temperature control close to the nickel powder if he wants to get the most out of his reactor. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be wrote: Rossi has recently statedin JONP that local hot spots in its reactor were the main issue. If a spot cometo a certain upper threshold, the reactor goes out of control. The keys are uniformityof heat production inside the eCat and equal density of energy extraction alongthe entire surface. The only way to control the eCat, as far as we know now, isthrough the inside temperature of the reactor. If Rossi want to improve the COP,the way to do it is to find another variable to control (as done by Defkalionwith spark plug). Nevertheless, your time domain work might help a lot. From:David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: lundi 20 mai 2013 21:17 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: ECAT Time DomainResponse I was very pleased atthe appearance of the time domain temperature plots that were shown plottedalong with the drive waveform. Theseplots strongly resembled the ones that my model produced and I have longcontended that his limitation of 6 for COP is based upon stable operation ofthe system. This limit occurs as a result of the observation that adevice such as his has the ability to internally generate all of the heatrequired to run away unless it can be carefully manipulated. TheSSM period and level are key to getting the desired performance.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.bewrote: Rossi has recently stated in JONP that local hot spots in its reactor were the main issue. If a spot come to a certain upper threshold, the reactor goes out of control. Does anyone know what happens when Rossi's reactor goes out of control? Does it melt down or just stop working? [mg]
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
It just stops working. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.bewrote: Rossi has recently stated in JONP that local hot spots in its reactor were the main issue. If a spot come to a certain upper threshold, the reactor goes out of control. Does anyone know what happens when Rossi's reactor goes out of control? Does it melt down or just stop working? [mg]
RE: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
From Rossi statements, the powder melts and the reactor stops working. _ From: mark.gi...@gmail.com [mailto:mark.gi...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mark Gibbs Sent: lundi 20 mai 2013 23:17 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response Does anyone know what happens when Rossi's reactor goes out of control? Does it melt down or just stop working?
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
The local wrinkle in spacetime and gravitational field also smooths back
out...:)
On Monday, May 20, 2013, Arnaud Kodeck wrote:
**
From Rossi statements, the powder melts and the reactor stops working.
** **
--
*From:* mark.gi...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'mark.gi...@gmail.com'); [mailto:mark.gi...@gmail.com javascript:_e({},
'cvml', 'mark.gi...@gmail.com');] *On Behalf Of *Mark Gibbs
*Sent:* lundi 20 mai 2013 23:17
*To:* **vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'vortex-l@eskimo.com');**
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
Does anyone know what happens when Rossi's reactor goes out of control? Does
it melt down or just stop working?
** **
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
From the report, an interesting explanation : The tests held in December 2012 and March 2013 are in fact subsequent to a previous attempt in November 2012 to make accurate measurements on a similar model of the *E-Cat HT *on the same premises. In that experiment the device was destroyed in the course of the experimental run, when the steel cylinder containing the active charge overheated and melted. The partial data gathered before the failure, however, yielded interesting results which warranted further in-depth investigation in future tests. Although the run was not successful as far as obtaining complete data is concerned, it was fruitful in that it demonstrated a huge production of excess heat, which however could not be quantified.The device used had similar, but not identical, features to those of the *E-Cat HT *used in the December and March runs. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.bewrote: Rossi has recently stated in JONP that local hot spots in its reactor were the main issue. If a spot come to a certain upper threshold, the reactor goes out of control. Does anyone know what happens when Rossi's reactor goes out of control? Does it melt down or just stop working? [mg]
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Does anyone know what happens when Rossi's reactor goes out of control? Does it melt down or just stop working? It melts. Rossi says it is perfectly safe, but this report says: The tests held in December 2012 and March 2013 are in fact subsequent to a previous attempt in November 2012 to make accurate measurements on a similar model of the E-Cat HT on the same premises. In that experiment the device was destroyed in the course of the experimental run, when the steel cylinder containing the active charge overheated and melted. Rossi claimed the early, water cooled version of his reactor was perfectly safe, but when it spiked to 100 kW briefly and seemed to be going out of control, he was reportedly worried. I would have been out the door, knowing me. He also says it produces no harmful radiation. Celani secretly brought two radiation meter to the test. When the reactor started up, both went off the scale. If that had lasted a second or two, all 50 observers would be dead. Rossi was very upset when he discovered that Celani had measured this. It is a trade secret, apparently. Rossi has a cavalier attitude toward safety. It is typical of a hands-on experimentalist. Ohomori was same way. His experiments were so dangerous, they scared Mizuno, who does not scare easily. I believe Ohmori has cancer. His daughter told me that. He might have died. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
Gibbs asked about melt down which has a particular meaning in the context of nuclear reactors. Clearly, the E-Cat does not, in this meaning, melt down. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Does anyone know what happens when Rossi's reactor goes out of control? Does it melt down or just stop working? It melts. Rossi says it is perfectly safe, but this report says: The tests held in December 2012 and March 2013 are in fact subsequent to a previous attempt in November 2012 to make accurate measurements on a similar model of the E-Cat HT on the same premises. In that experiment the device was destroyed in the course of the experimental run, when the steel cylinder containing the active charge overheated and melted. Rossi claimed the early, water cooled version of his reactor was perfectly safe, but when it spiked to 100 kW briefly and seemed to be going out of control, he was reportedly worried. I would have been out the door, knowing me. He also says it produces no harmful radiation. Celani secretly brought two radiation meter to the test. When the reactor started up, both went off the scale. If that had lasted a second or two, all 50 observers would be dead. Rossi was very upset when he discovered that Celani had measured this. It is a trade secret, apparently. Rossi has a cavalier attitude toward safety. It is typical of a hands-on experimentalist. Ohomori was same way. His experiments were so dangerous, they scared Mizuno, who does not scare easily. I believe Ohmori has cancer. His daughter told me that. He might have died. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Gibbs asked about melt down which has a particular meaning in the context of nuclear reactors. Clearly, the E-Cat does not, in this meaning, melt down. Oh Yes It Does. Quite remarkable considering there is only 283 W of input power. Anyone who has heated a stainless steel object of this size with that much power, such an electric frying pan, will know that you cannot possibly melt it with 283 W. You cannot even fry an egg. It does does not become incandescent. Assuming the power measurements are right to within an order of magnitude, there is no way this thing could be incandescent. That should give Mary Yugo nightmares, if she pauses to think about it, which she will not. Several cold fusion devices have melted, vaporized or exploded. I know of 6. Informed sources tell several others in China did that, but the Chinese do not wish to discuss the matter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
Let's be clear then: The important consideration is the business risk of the event and melt down has a business risk characterized by the destruction not only of the capital investment but substantial externalities such as radioactive environmental pollution damages in the billions of dollars. On that basis alone it is reasonable to disqualify the term melt down in this context. In terms of the capital equipment damage, the E-Cat HT is analogous to the fuel element in a nuclear power plant. Yes, the fuel element is a write-off but the damage to the rest of the capital equipment would be minimal if experience with other steam powered generation systems is instructive. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Gibbs asked about melt down which has a particular meaning in the context of nuclear reactors. Clearly, the E-Cat does not, in this meaning, melt down. Oh Yes It Does. Quite remarkable considering there is only 283 W of input power. Anyone who has heated a stainless steel object of this size with that much power, such an electric frying pan, will know that you cannot possibly melt it with 283 W. You cannot even fry an egg. It does does not become incandescent. Assuming the power measurements are right to within an order of magnitude, there is no way this thing could be incandescent. That should give Mary Yugo nightmares, if she pauses to think about it, which she will not. Several cold fusion devices have melted, vaporized or exploded. I know of 6. Informed sources tell several others in China did that, but the Chinese do not wish to discuss the matter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The important consideration is the business risk of the event and melt down has a business risk characterized by the destruction not only of the capital investment but substantial externalities such as radioactive environmental pollution damages in the billions of dollars. I see what you mean. There is no radioactive debris that can be released. As far as we know there isn't. The Three Mile Island meltdown did not cause radioactive debris to go everywhere because the reactor and the containment vessel both held, even though a third of the core melted. They got lucky. The Fukushima reactor rods and other core material spewed everywhere, covering a tremendous area with fine particles. There was a pathetic report on NHK the other night about this. There was an old guy living in a house in the contaminated area, outside the no-go border. The government spent a ton of money washing and scrubbing down roads, and the roof of the house, and hauling away contaminated dirt from the lawn. Like everyone else in the area, the guy carries a radiation meter around with him. When the workmen left, lo and behold the readings are below the danger level. A week later they are 3 times above it. What happened? he asks. What happened, echoes the nitwit NHK reporter voiceover. Yo, say I. Look around people! This is the countryside. There is a forested hill right behind you, not 50 meters away. There are hundreds of acres of abandoned fields and forest. Do you think the debris fell only on the road and roof? Do you think it stays there? Hold that meter over any culvert or pool in the woods, and it will go off the scale. That land will be uninhabitable for generations to come, and no technology on earth can remedy the problem. The government officials and TEPCO people who authorize families and children to live there should be arrested and charged with reckless endangerment and attempted homicide. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
The important consideration is the business risk of the event and melt down has a business risk characterized by the destruction not only of the capital investment but substantial externalities such as radioactive environmental pollution damages in the billions of dollars. ***Based upon what I have read here on Vortex, that risk is minimal yet it still does exist. Rossi got all upset at Celani for carrying a Geiger counter and reporting that, during startup, it went off the scale. If the device melts down at that particular point (minimal chance, but still does exist) then there is a large release of radioactive material. My prediction: So many people will get enamored with this idea of cheap nuclear energy that they will squash any investigation into this danger. That aspect is not a particularly a good thing. But it will happen. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:09 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Let's be clear then: The important consideration is the business risk of the event and melt down has a business risk characterized by the destruction not only of the capital investment but substantial externalities such as radioactive environmental pollution damages in the billions of dollars. On that basis alone it is reasonable to disqualify the term melt down in this context. In terms of the capital equipment damage, the E-Cat HT is analogous to the fuel element in a nuclear power plant. Yes, the fuel element is a write-off but the damage to the rest of the capital equipment would be minimal if experience with other steam powered generation systems is instructive. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Gibbs asked about melt down which has a particular meaning in the context of nuclear reactors. Clearly, the E-Cat does not, in this meaning, melt down. Oh Yes It Does. Quite remarkable considering there is only 283 W of input power. Anyone who has heated a stainless steel object of this size with that much power, such an electric frying pan, will know that you cannot possibly melt it with 283 W. You cannot even fry an egg. It does does not become incandescent. Assuming the power measurements are right to within an order of magnitude, there is no way this thing could be incandescent. That should give Mary Yugo nightmares, if she pauses to think about it, which she will not. Several cold fusion devices have melted, vaporized or exploded. I know of 6. Informed sources tell several others in China did that, but the Chinese do not wish to discuss the matter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
So, in run away mode the reactor can do/always does emit radiation (of what type? X-rays and/or gamma?) is it possible that the casing of the reactor and the other components would not become radioactive? Is there any information as to what type of detector Celani used? If the spectators at the demo were unharmed yet radiation was detected, what does that tell us about the type and intensity of the radiation? [mg] On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Gibbs asked about melt down which has a particular meaning in the context of nuclear reactors. Clearly, the E-Cat does not, in this meaning, melt down. Oh Yes It Does. Quite remarkable considering there is only 283 W of input power. Anyone who has heated a stainless steel object of this size with that much power, such an electric frying pan, will know that you cannot possibly melt it with 283 W. You cannot even fry an egg. It does does not become incandescent. Assuming the power measurements are right to within an order of magnitude, there is no way this thing could be incandescent. That should give Mary Yugo nightmares, if she pauses to think about it, which she will not. Several cold fusion devices have melted, vaporized or exploded. I know of 6. Informed sources tell several others in China did that, but the Chinese do not wish to discuss the matter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
No one knows, because the only guy with the data (Rossi) is so secretive. And all of us can understand why. The best available evidence suggests that there is a danger of radioactive release. But that will be stepped over like the local republican Roman children who complained when Julius Caesar cross the Rubicon river. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: So, in run away mode the reactor can do/always does emit radiation (of what type? X-rays and/or gamma?) is it possible that the casing of the reactor and the other components would not become radioactive? Is there any information as to what type of detector Celani used? If the spectators at the demo were unharmed yet radiation was detected, what does that tell us about the type and intensity of the radiation? [mg] On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Gibbs asked about melt down which has a particular meaning in the context of nuclear reactors. Clearly, the E-Cat does not, in this meaning, melt down. Oh Yes It Does. Quite remarkable considering there is only 283 W of input power. Anyone who has heated a stainless steel object of this size with that much power, such an electric frying pan, will know that you cannot possibly melt it with 283 W. You cannot even fry an egg. It does does not become incandescent. Assuming the power measurements are right to within an order of magnitude, there is no way this thing could be incandescent. That should give Mary Yugo nightmares, if she pauses to think about it, which she will not. Several cold fusion devices have melted, vaporized or exploded. I know of 6. Informed sources tell several others in China did that, but the Chinese do not wish to discuss the matter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
This is a non issue. Rossi has been known to make statements that are designed to confuse competitors and I suspect that the radiation was one of those. I am not aware of anyone measuring levels of radiation that are dangerous during nickel-hydrogen reactions. It will be wise to take time to determine whether or not radiation will ever become important in this technology. Any reference to meltdown is referring to just failure of the materials. Dave -Original Message- From: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 20, 2013 8:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response So, in run away mode the reactor can do/always does emit radiation (of what type? X-rays and/or gamma?) is it possible that the casing of the reactor and the other components would not become radioactive? Is there any information as to what type of detector Celani used? If the spectators at the demo were unharmed yet radiation was detected, what does that tell us about the type and intensity of the radiation? [mg] On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Gibbs asked about melt down which has a particular meaning in the context of nuclear reactors. Clearly, the E-Cat does not, in this meaning, melt down. Oh Yes It Does. Quite remarkable considering there is only 283 W of input power. Anyone who has heated a stainless steel object of this size with that much power, such an electric frying pan, will know that you cannot possibly melt it with 283 W. You cannot even fry an egg. It does does not become incandescent. Assuming the power measurements are right to within an order of magnitude, there is no way this thing could be incandescent. That should give Mary Yugo nightmares, if she pauses to think about it, which she will not. Several cold fusion devices have melted, vaporized or exploded. I know of 6. Informed sources tell several others in China did that, but the Chinese do not wish to discuss the matter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
Not necessarily during runaway mode, but startup mode. I predict that as COP increases, this effect will increase. It is a double-edged sword. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: So, in run away mode the reactor can do/always does emit radiation (of what type? X-rays and/or gamma?) is it possible that the casing of the reactor and the other components would not become radioactive? Is there any information as to what type of detector Celani used? If the spectators at the demo were unharmed yet radiation was detected, what does that tell us about the type and intensity of the radiation? [mg] On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Gibbs asked about melt down which has a particular meaning in the context of nuclear reactors. Clearly, the E-Cat does not, in this meaning, melt down. Oh Yes It Does. Quite remarkable considering there is only 283 W of input power. Anyone who has heated a stainless steel object of this size with that much power, such an electric frying pan, will know that you cannot possibly melt it with 283 W. You cannot even fry an egg. It does does not become incandescent. Assuming the power measurements are right to within an order of magnitude, there is no way this thing could be incandescent. That should give Mary Yugo nightmares, if she pauses to think about it, which she will not. Several cold fusion devices have melted, vaporized or exploded. I know of 6. Informed sources tell several others in China did that, but the Chinese do not wish to discuss the matter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
I am not aware of anyone measuring levels of radiation that are dangerous during nickel-hydrogen reactions. ***According to Jed Rothwell, Celani did exactly that kind of measurement during startup. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This is a non issue. Rossi has been known to make statements that are designed to confuse competitors and I suspect that the radiation was one of those. I am not aware of anyone measuring levels of radiation that are dangerous during nickel-hydrogen reactions. It will be wise to take time to determine whether or not radiation will ever become important in this technology. Any reference to meltdown is referring to just failure of the materials. Dave -Original Message- From: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 20, 2013 8:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response So, in run away mode the reactor can do/always does emit radiation (of what type? X-rays and/or gamma?) is it possible that the casing of the reactor and the other components would not become radioactive? Is there any information as to what type of detector Celani used? If the spectators at the demo were unharmed yet radiation was detected, what does that tell us about the type and intensity of the radiation? [mg] On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Gibbs asked about melt down which has a particular meaning in the context of nuclear reactors. Clearly, the E-Cat does not, in this meaning, melt down. Oh Yes It Does. Quite remarkable considering there is only 283 W of input power. Anyone who has heated a stainless steel object of this size with that much power, such an electric frying pan, will know that you cannot possibly melt it with 283 W. You cannot even fry an egg. It does does not become incandescent. Assuming the power measurements are right to within an order of magnitude, there is no way this thing could be incandescent. That should give Mary Yugo nightmares, if she pauses to think about it, which she will not. Several cold fusion devices have melted, vaporized or exploded. I know of 6. Informed sources tell several others in China did that, but the Chinese do not wish to discuss the matter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I am not aware of anyone measuring levels of radiation that are dangerous during nickel-hydrogen reactions. ***According to Jed Rothwell, Celani did exactly that kind of measurement during startup. According to Celani he did, in 2011, when that large group of 50 scientists observed a test. He circulated a letter describing the event. I published it here and in various other places. I can dig up a copy tomorrow if anyone is interested. He had two meters. Both went off the scale. Rossi was upset with him! That was then. In these latest studies by Levi et al., Bianchini set up radiation safety meters and other detectors in all three tests. He found nothing above background. The notes in the paper say he will provide details on request. So maybe the problem is fixed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
When the Rossi reactor was first developed, radiation was detected when the reactor was cold. This happened at startup and shutdown. Rossi fixed the problem by heating the reactor at startup above the radiation temperature. He installed a secondary pre-heater if you remember. He keeps the reactor hot during shutdown to avoid the production of radiation. During a meltdown, the reactor does not produce radiation because it is very hot. If you require the theory behind this overview, just ask. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: So, in run away mode the reactor can do/always does emit radiation (of what type? X-rays and/or gamma?) is it possible that the casing of the reactor and the other components would not become radioactive? Is there any information as to what type of detector Celani used? If the spectators at the demo were unharmed yet radiation was detected, what does that tell us about the type and intensity of the radiation? [mg] On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Gibbs asked about melt down which has a particular meaning in the context of nuclear reactors. Clearly, the E-Cat does not, in this meaning, melt down. Oh Yes It Does. Quite remarkable considering there is only 283 W of input power. Anyone who has heated a stainless steel object of this size with that much power, such an electric frying pan, will know that you cannot possibly melt it with 283 W. You cannot even fry an egg. It does does not become incandescent. Assuming the power measurements are right to within an order of magnitude, there is no way this thing could be incandescent. That should give Mary Yugo nightmares, if she pauses to think about it, which she will not. Several cold fusion devices have melted, vaporized or exploded. I know of 6. Informed sources tell several others in China did that, but the Chinese do not wish to discuss the matter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
Consider yourself asked ... oh, and what type of radiation was/would be involved? [mg] On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If you require the theory behind this overview, just ask.
