Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 30 Dec 2014 09:15:45 -0500: Hi, [snip] We do not yet know what sort of ash Ni-H cold fusion reactions produce. If Storms is correct, the ash is deuterium which is impossible to detect with this configuration. ...just for the sake of comparison, the average reaction time for the p-p reaction in the core of the Sun is on the order of billions of years. I think it's highly unlikely that the formation of deuterium is the source of the energy. Reactions involving the D naturally present in Hydrogen, or H with something other than H are much more likely. However this is just my opinion, for what it's worth. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: And how do we even know this is cold fusion? There is no chemical fuel in the cell, so assuming the heat is real, cold fusion is the only likely source of heat. Also, it resembles many other cold fusion reactors. I think you are the one that is leaping to conclusions here. No, I am not. Anyone familiar with the cold fusion literature will see that I'm not. Evidently you have not read it and you know nothing about it, so you make simple mistake such as this one. Maybe wait for some kind of ash analysis first... We do not yet know what sort of ash Ni-H cold fusion reactions produce. If Storms is correct, the ash is deuterium which is impossible to detect with this configuration. I will say, though Jed, kudos for expressing such confidence in an experiment so easily replicated. You are completely wrong again. I have repeatedly said I'm only assuming that the measurements are correct and that this is cold fusion. Assuming in this context means the statement is conditional, or hypothetical; i.e. suppose to be the case, without proof. You really are putting your reputation and credibility on the line here in a way that is very impressive. I am not doing that at all. You claim near-ESP ability to understand and predict of other people's perceptions -- to within 1%! -- yet you do not even recognize that a clearly stated assumption means I put no credibility at stake. I am saying that *IF* X is true, Y and Z follow. IF the measurements are correct, it follows that this is probably cold fusion, and IF it is cold fusion, it will often continue indefinitely until you quench it. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
From: Blaze Spinnaker Ø And how do we even know this is cold fusion? I think you are the one that is leaping to conclusions here. Maybe wait for some kind of ash analysis first... Yes that is wise. Any and all pronouncements from the sidelines should await isotope analysis, since that is the way science works. In fact with no radioactivity, this looks as much like a version of a fractional hydrogen reaction - f/H – as nuclear. Isotope analysis could move it into the LENR camp - but as of now, no conclusion is justified. It will be noted by those who have shown a propensity to jump to conclusions, that the Rossi testing (Lugano) did reportedly turn up anomalous isotopes – and thus, the experiment is reputedly LENR. Since the Parkhomov experiment was based on Rossi, then the “expectation” is for the identical anomalous isotopes to turn up – pure Ni-62 and a warped lithium balance. But that is only an expectation. FWIW - my expectation is different. IMHO - isotope testing will turn up no substantial level of isotope imbalance in either nickel or lithium, especially NOT the pure Ni-62 reportedly found in Lugano. But the bottom line is that without isotope data from Parkhomov, no one should jump to conclusions at this early stage. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
I am saying that *IF* X is true, Y and Z follow. IF the measurements are correct, it follows that this is probably cold fusion, and IF it is cold fusion, it will often continue indefinitely until you quench it. And this is how you think lenr science should be done?
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
Also, as I have explained many many times my one estimate is just one guess of the jelly beans in the jelkybeanjar. You need a lot of guessers to get something accurate. Preferably folks with a history of being able to guess accurately. I refuse to let the fact that no one else has the courage to guess to stop me from doing so. On Tuesday, December 30, 2014, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I am saying that *IF* X is true, Y and Z follow. IF the measurements are correct, it follows that this is probably cold fusion, and IF it is cold fusion, it will often continue indefinitely until you quench it. And this is how you think lenr science should be done?
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Also, as I have explained many many times my one estimate is just one guess of the jelly beans in the jelkybeanjar. You need a lot of guessers to get something accurate. Or, you need one person who makes the effort to understand the technical issues, works hard, and writes a coherent hypothesis that other knowledgeable people agree with. That's called science. It is not a guessing game. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
Well, your idea of science is to make speculative leaps / assumptions. On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Also, as I have explained many many times my one estimate is just one guess of the jelly beans in the jelkybeanjar. You need a lot of guessers to get something accurate. Or, you need one person who makes the effort to understand the technical issues, works hard, and writes a coherent hypothesis that other knowledgeable people agree with. That's called science. It is not a guessing game. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: In fact with no radioactivity, this looks as much like a version of a fractional hydrogen reaction - f/H – as nuclear. Isotope analysis could move it into the LENR camp - but as of now, no conclusion is justified. There is never much radioactivity from these systems. You cannot draw conclusions from that, other than the fact that it ain't plasma fusion. Based on McKubre's Law of the Conservation of Miracles I assume that all of these systems operate by the same physical principles. If this works by the Mills effect, they all do. I do not think it is likely there are two totally unrelated heretofore undiscovered methods of getting massive amounts of anomalous heat from hydrides. It will be noted by those who have shown a propensity to jump to conclusions, that the Rossi testing (Lugano) did reportedly turn up anomalous isotopes – and thus, the experiment is reputedly LENR. Even if he did not turn up anomalous isotopes, or if the isotopes turn out to be a mistake, I am confident that every expert in LENR would agree that if the results are real, they are LENR. But the bottom line is that without isotope data from Parkhomov, no one should jump to conclusions at this early stage. That's silly. The system looks like several other nanoparticle cold fusion systems such as Mizuno's and Arata's. It is not jumping to conclusions to assume that it is the same phenomenon. Nature often produces phenomena that look different on the surface but are fundamentally the same thing. - Jed
[Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
I'm assuming this is just nonsense but some of the patho-skeptics are claiming that the russian report would have to produce dry steam in order to reach the energy levels he's claiming. While I'm still very skeptical, and his COP numbers have already been proven to be nonsense, I would assume such a simple issues as this would have been pointed out already by the serious minds on this list.
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
Steam Quality1000.950.90.850.8Deg C1,2901,290 1,2901,2901,290min4040404040W498498498498498J (Elec) 1,195,200 1,195,200 1,195,200 1,195,200 1,195,200kg Water (Evap) 1.21.141.0260.87210.69768J (Evap) 2,712,000 2,576,400 2,318,760 1,970,946 1,576,757Heat Loss (W) 155 155 155 155 155Heat Loss (J) 372,000372,000372,000372,000372,000Total J Produced 3,084,000 2,948,400 2,690,760 2,342,946 1,948,757COP2.582.472.251.961.63 Unless a visble amount of carryover, steam in contact with water should be = 95% quality On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I'm assuming this is just nonsense but some of the patho-skeptics are claiming that the russian report would have to produce dry steam in order to reach the energy levels he's claiming. While I'm still very skeptical, and his COP numbers have already been proven to be nonsense, I would assume such a simple issues as this would have been pointed out already by the serious minds on this list.
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I'm assuming this is just nonsense but some of the patho-skeptics are claiming that the russian report would have to produce dry steam in order to reach the energy levels he's claiming. If you assume the results are in error, they would have to be wet steam sometimes and dry steam at other times, because the apparent excess heat varies. That is highly unlikely. There is no reason to think this is anything but ordinary dry steam. The vent is well above the water level, at the top of the reactor. Drops of water will not escape. While I'm still very skeptical, and his COP numbers have already been proven to be nonsense . . . No, they have not. This is your imagination. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
No, they have not. This is your imagination. The COP numbers don't include the ramp up to 1000. Stoyan pointed this out as well. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I'm assuming this is just nonsense but some of the patho-skeptics are claiming that the russian report would have to produce dry steam in order to reach the energy levels he's claiming. If you assume the results are in error, they would have to be wet steam sometimes and dry steam at other times, because the apparent excess heat varies. That is highly unlikely. There is no reason to think this is anything but ordinary dry steam. The vent is well above the water level, at the top of the reactor. Drops of water will not escape. While I'm still very skeptical, and his COP numbers have already been proven to be nonsense . . . No, they have not. This is your imagination. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
Thanks chem e .. Very informative. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:58 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Steam Quality1000.950.90.850.8Deg C1,2901,290 1,2901,2901,290min4040404040W498498498498498J (Elec) 1,195,200 1,195,200 1,195,200 1,195,200 1,195,200kg Water (Evap) 1.21.141.0260.87210.69768J (Evap) 2,712,000 2,576,400 2,318,760 1,970,946 1,576,757Heat Loss (W) 155 155 155 155 155Heat Loss (J)372,000372,000372,000 372,000372,000Total J Produced 3,084,000 2,948,400 2,690,760 2,342,946 1,948,757COP2.582.472.251.961.63 Unless a visble amount of carryover, steam in contact with water should be = 95% quality On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I'm assuming this is just nonsense but some of the patho-skeptics are claiming that the russian report would have to produce dry steam in order to reach the energy levels he's claiming. While I'm still very skeptical, and his COP numbers have already been proven to be nonsense, I would assume such a simple issues as this would have been pointed out already by the serious minds on this list.
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
Don't get me wrong, the results are interesting for sure. The COP is making huge assumptions that the excess energy would continue. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: No, they have not. This is your imagination. The COP numbers don't include the ramp up to 1000. Stoyan pointed this out as well.
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Don't get me wrong, the results are interesting for sure. The COP is making huge assumptions that the excess energy would continue. No, those are not huge assumptions. The excess heat in cold fusion has often continued, sometimes for weeks or months. With a reaction as large as this, they might have trouble quenching it, but I doubt they would have a problem maintaining it. The 8-minute burst of heat after death indicates that. (I am assuming it is a real effect and not an experimental error, and I am assuming it is cold fusion.) YOU are the one making huge assumptions, and ignorant statements about a subject you apparently never bother to study. You keep coming up with assertions that fly in the face of what we know about cold fusion. You think you have some kind of mystical power to predict whether cold fusion exists to with a percentage point, yet you don't bother learning anything about it. I find that arrogant. And annoying. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
Jed -- I'm simply taking Stoyan's comment, verified it to make sure I understood what he was saying, and repeated it. If you want to call Stoyan ignorant and arrogant, be my guest.. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Don't get me wrong, the results are interesting for sure. The COP is making huge assumptions that the excess energy would continue. No, those are not huge assumptions. The excess heat in cold fusion has often continued, sometimes for weeks or months. With a reaction as large as this, they might have trouble quenching it, but I doubt they would have a problem maintaining it. The 8-minute burst of heat after death indicates that. (I am assuming it is a real effect and not an experimental error, and I am assuming it is cold fusion.) YOU are the one making huge assumptions, and ignorant statements about a subject you apparently never bother to study. You keep coming up with assertions that fly in the face of what we know about cold fusion. You think you have some kind of mystical power to predict whether cold fusion exists to with a percentage point, yet you don't bother learning anything about it. I find that arrogant. And annoying. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y3Bxr_aE2iosEKpGFUZiQgAcuT8AFN78RFCAlR-JqNw/edit On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Blaze Spinnakerblazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Note by translator Stoyan Sarg: The initial heating power and temperature before reaching 1C is not shown in the plot of slide #16 (does he mean 17?). Is it taken into account for the accumulated energy? If not a much longer test is needed for estimation of the COP. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Jed -- I'm simply taking Stoyan's comment, verified it to make sure I understood what he was saying, and repeated it. If you want to call Stoyan ignorant and arrogant, be my guest.. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Don't get me wrong, the results are interesting for sure. The COP is making huge assumptions that the excess energy would continue. No, those are not huge assumptions. The excess heat in cold fusion has often continued, sometimes for weeks or months. With a reaction as large as this, they might have trouble quenching it, but I doubt they would have a problem maintaining it. The 8-minute burst of heat after death indicates that. (I am assuming it is a real effect and not an experimental error, and I am assuming it is cold fusion.) YOU are the one making huge assumptions, and ignorant statements about a subject you apparently never bother to study. You keep coming up with assertions that fly in the face of what we know about cold fusion. You think you have some kind of mystical power to predict whether cold fusion exists to with a percentage point, yet you don't bother learning anything about it. I find that arrogant. And annoying. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
And how do we even know this is cold fusion? I think you are the one that is leaping to conclusions here. Maybe wait for some kind of ash analysis first... On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y3Bxr_aE2iosEKpGFUZiQgAcuT8AFN78RFCAlR-JqNw/edit On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Blaze Spinnakerblazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Note by translator Stoyan Sarg: The initial heating power and temperature before reaching 1C is not shown in the plot of slide #16 (does he mean 17?). Is it taken into account for the accumulated energy? If not a much longer test is needed for estimation of the COP. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Jed -- I'm simply taking Stoyan's comment, verified it to make sure I understood what he was saying, and repeated it. If you want to call Stoyan ignorant and arrogant, be my guest.. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Don't get me wrong, the results are interesting for sure. The COP is making huge assumptions that the excess energy would continue. No, those are not huge assumptions. The excess heat in cold fusion has often continued, sometimes for weeks or months. With a reaction as large as this, they might have trouble quenching it, but I doubt they would have a problem maintaining it. The 8-minute burst of heat after death indicates that. (I am assuming it is a real effect and not an experimental error, and I am assuming it is cold fusion.) YOU are the one making huge assumptions, and ignorant statements about a subject you apparently never bother to study. You keep coming up with assertions that fly in the face of what we know about cold fusion. You think you have some kind of mystical power to predict whether cold fusion exists to with a percentage point, yet you don't bother learning anything about it. I find that arrogant. And annoying. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
I will say, though Jed, kudos for expressing such confidence in an experiment so easily replicated. You really are putting your reputation and credibility on the line here in a way that is very impressive. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: And how do we even know this is cold fusion? I think you are the one that is leaping to conclusions here. Maybe wait for some kind of ash analysis first... On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y3Bxr_aE2iosEKpGFUZiQgAcuT8AFN78RFCAlR-JqNw/edit On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Blaze Spinnakerblazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Note by translator Stoyan Sarg: The initial heating power and temperature before reaching 1C is not shown in the plot of slide #16 (does he mean 17?). Is it taken into account for the accumulated energy? If not a much longer test is needed for estimation of the COP. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Jed -- I'm simply taking Stoyan's comment, verified it to make sure I understood what he was saying, and repeated it. If you want to call Stoyan ignorant and arrogant, be my guest.. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Don't get me wrong, the results are interesting for sure. The COP is making huge assumptions that the excess energy would continue. No, those are not huge assumptions. The excess heat in cold fusion has often continued, sometimes for weeks or months. With a reaction as large as this, they might have trouble quenching it, but I doubt they would have a problem maintaining it. The 8-minute burst of heat after death indicates that. (I am assuming it is a real effect and not an experimental error, and I am assuming it is cold fusion.) YOU are the one making huge assumptions, and ignorant statements about a subject you apparently never bother to study. You keep coming up with assertions that fly in the face of what we know about cold fusion. You think you have some kind of mystical power to predict whether cold fusion exists to with a percentage point, yet you don't bother learning anything about it. I find that arrogant. And annoying. - Jed
