Re: [Vo]:The melting miracle
Bob, I don't know if anyone responded to this. I have been busy and I am not going back through emails to catch up. One thing to notice is that stainless steel, particularly thin stainless steel should not be used above 800C with pressurized hydrogen. At 400C, stainless is OK, but by 800C the hydrogen permeation of stainless goes up by many orders of magnitude and it keeps going up exponentially at temperatures above this. So at the high temperature of that ad hoc dogbone experiment, I believe the hydrogen just leaked out through the stainless. The alumina tube inside was not sealed and so the full pressure generated from the thermal decomposition of the LiAlH4 was applied to the stainless tube. Bob Higgins On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: I for one did not understand that the center tube was made from stainless steel. Apparently it was not sealed very well. The access port for the pressure transducer to allow it to sense pressure, but remain at below 85 degrees, probably leaked. That design and the welding or bonding of the access tube at the port should be reviewed as the most likely problem area for the leak that occurred. At least the temperature measuring equipment seemed to work and act to confirm the thermal characteristics of the alumina. The bonding of the Stainless steel inner tube to the alumina outer vessel should be described and checked for gaps that may have caused higher local internal temperatures. I would guess that the stainless steel tube was grounded? You would not want it to act as an electrical conductor? I hope someone familiar with the dog bone test design can answer some of these questions. Bob - Original Message - *From:* ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, January 02, 2015 9:09 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The melting miracle I think a grounded metal pail might act like a faraday cage and absorb EMF, but if it was open at the top microwaves not absorbed by the water should leak out On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:40 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I had that weird thought too that the reactor might be generating microwave radiation and heating the water... Would the microwaves make it through the metal pail? Eric
Re: [Vo]:The melting miracle
I had that weird thought too that the reactor might be generating microwave radiation and heating the water... Tin foil hat time again On Friday, January 2, 2015, Ken Deboer barlaz...@gmail.com wrote: Regarding the 'shell' of various LENR reactors, I wonder if someone could recap or comment on what the history has been and what some of the considerations and rational were behind them. Most reactors have been built around steel if I'm not mistaken, and some of glass. The new Rossi model is of alumina and I wonder what led him to that? Also, someone a good while back, Jones I think, mentioned about maybe silicon carbide having some beneficial features (electrical or electromagnetic?). People have mused about what kinds of physical or geometric, micro or macro, configurations might help, and all this seems to me to be of value. I also had another wild (dangerous!) thought- heating by microwave? cheers, ken On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','frobertc...@hotmail.com'); wrote: I think the size of the nano Ni is important in creating resonant conditions to support LENR reactions in a magnetic field. This may include cavity sizes. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Nick javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nix...@ameritech.net'); *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','vortex-l@eskimo.com'); *Sent:* Thursday, January 01, 2015 6:06 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The melting miracle I’m way out of my zone of expertise here, as a speaker builder/designer, I am familiar with resonant frequencies of boxes, cavities, or spaces. Has the possibility that Rossi is optimizing the reactor design so the reactor cavity resonates at specific frequencies? Has this been considered? We’ve all seen the YouTube videos that show how powdered materials dance and move in patterns when subjected to strong fields of acoustic energy at varying frequencies. Acoustic waves can levitate heavy objects, is it not possible that such an effect could keep the powder mix in a turbulent and evenly distributed state even when at high temperatures? The sintering seen afterward could be taking place when the device is powered down and the fuel mix settles to the bottom, no longer being agitated. I realize I don’t have the background to tell you much of anything that you do not already know in this discussion, but I have not seen the subject addressed, at least not that I can recall. The differing pressures and temperatures inside the active vessel would alter these figures significantly I'm sure, but these such factors could be addressed and managed. A link about this here, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/cavity.html#c1 Resonance of a Coke Bottle, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/coke.html#c1 Nixter On Thursday, January 1, 2015 4:08 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','janap...@gmail.com'); wrote: As I have stated in another thread: Doing science inside the dog bone can be like doing science inside another universe. There is no certainty that physics or chemistry works that same inside the a functioning dog bone as it does in the real world. Maybe different physical rules apply. On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','eric.wal...@gmail.com'); wrote: On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','janap...@gmail.com'); wrote: I am interested in what keeps the Rossi micro powder from sintering/melting at high surface temperatures when the reactor is in operation. We call this weird behavior the melting miracle. This is an interesting question. If the same internal/external temperature gradient was in effect in the Lugano test as seen in the MFMP dogbone calibrations (at the higher temperatures, a delta T of 330 C [1]), we're left with some weird possibilities to sort through: - the temperature calculated for the outside of the Lugano E-Cat was significantly lower than 1400. - the nickel in the volume of the core of the Lugano reactor was not subject to the same amount of heat across the length of the core, and the nickel extracted for the isotope assays was from an area that maintained a temperature below the point of the complete melting point of nickel. - the outside temperature of the Lugano reactor was as reported, and the nickel in the core vaporized and then recrystallized when the temperature was still high towards the end of the test, resulting in a partially sintered appearance, while somehow maintaining an isotope gradient. - other possibilities? I do not know what unsintered nickel looks like, so it is hard for me to get a sense of where along the spectrum the nickel in the images taken from the Lugano assays was. Eric [1] http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content
Re: [Vo]:The melting miracle
Regarding the 'shell' of various LENR reactors, I wonder if someone could recap or comment on what the history has been and what some of the considerations and rational were behind them. Most reactors have been built around steel if I'm not mistaken, and some of glass. The new Rossi model is of alumina and I wonder what led him to that? Also, someone a good while back, Jones I think, mentioned about maybe silicon carbide having some beneficial features (electrical or electromagnetic?). People have mused about what kinds of physical or geometric, micro or macro, configurations might help, and all this seems to me to be of value. I also had another wild (dangerous!) thought- heating by microwave? cheers, ken On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: I think the size of the nano Ni is important in creating resonant conditions to support LENR reactions in a magnetic field. This may include cavity sizes. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Nick nix...@ameritech.net *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, January 01, 2015 6:06 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The melting miracle I’m way out of my zone of expertise here, as a speaker builder/designer, I am familiar with resonant frequencies of boxes, cavities, or spaces. Has the possibility that Rossi is optimizing the reactor design so the reactor cavity resonates at specific frequencies? Has this been considered? We’ve all seen the YouTube videos that show how powdered materials dance and move in patterns when subjected to strong fields of acoustic energy at varying frequencies. Acoustic waves can levitate heavy objects, is it not possible that such an effect could keep the powder mix in a turbulent and evenly distributed state even when at high temperatures? The sintering seen afterward could be taking place when the device is powered down and the fuel mix settles to the bottom, no longer being agitated. I realize I don’t have the background to tell you much of anything that you do not already know in this discussion, but I have not seen the subject addressed, at least not that I can recall. The differing pressures and temperatures inside the active vessel would alter these figures significantly I'm sure, but these such factors could be addressed and managed. A link about this here, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/cavity.html#c1 Resonance of a Coke Bottle, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/coke.html#c1 Nixter On Thursday, January 1, 2015 4:08 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: As I have stated in another thread: Doing science inside the dog bone can be like doing science inside another universe. There is no certainty that physics or chemistry works that same inside the a functioning dog bone as it does in the real world. Maybe different physical rules apply. On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I am interested in what keeps the Rossi micro powder from sintering/melting at high surface temperatures when the reactor is in operation. We call this weird behavior the melting miracle. This is an interesting question. If the same internal/external temperature gradient was in effect in the Lugano test as seen in the MFMP dogbone calibrations (at the higher temperatures, a delta T of 330 C [1]), we're left with some weird possibilities to sort through: - the temperature calculated for the outside of the Lugano E-Cat was significantly lower than 1400. - the nickel in the volume of the core of the Lugano reactor was not subject to the same amount of heat across the length of the core, and the nickel extracted for the isotope assays was from an area that maintained a temperature below the point of the complete melting point of nickel. - the outside temperature of the Lugano reactor was as reported, and the nickel in the core vaporized and then recrystallized when the temperature was still high towards the end of the test, resulting in a partially sintered appearance, while somehow maintaining an isotope gradient. - other possibilities? I do not know what unsintered nickel looks like, so it is hard for me to get a sense of where along the spectrum the nickel in the images taken from the Lugano assays was. Eric [1] http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/DogboneDec30.jpg
RE: [Vo]:The melting miracle
From: Ken Deboer Ø Regarding the 'shell' of various LENR reactors, I wonder if someone could recap or comment on what the history has been and what some of the considerations and rational were behind them. Most reactors have been built around steel if I'm not mistaken, and some of glass. The new Rossi model is of alumina and I wonder what led him to that? In his eulogy to Focardi, Rossi mentioned the “eureka” moment where the two of them the discovered the hot-cat principle. This happened when they were using the nearly abandoned ENEA nuclear lab at Brasimone, Italy. This would be the rough equivalent of Oak Ridge in the USA on a much smaller scale. They tried several types of ceramic tubes at the Lab for purposes of high temperature experiment. The tubes had been used for plumbing in the Italian liquid fuel fission reactor RD. That program had been abandoned by this time, and they essentially borrowed the Lab and the tubes. Previously, I had thought that the SiC tubes were more important for the success of the hot cat than the alumina tubes, and that is because of the monochromatic IR spectrum of SiC - but now it appears to be that alumina is more important - and this could related to porosity…. Some of the story is here: http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/06/22/sergio-focardi-dies/ BTW - Rossi was not relating this as an idle story. It was part of his tribute to Focardi, and AR was intending to show by anecdote the high level connections of Focardi within ENEA, where he was greatly respected. They had free reign to the lab. Rossi removed this story from his own site, apparently - maybe it gave away too much information… or maybe he thought he would face a problem with the Italian justice system or WIPO - if it became known how they had made the discovery, using a restricted National Lab for personal purposes. By the way, since the original hot-cat has both SiC and alumina tubes, and since its performance was actually better than what was seen at Lugano --- if Rossi can be believed --- then it is possibly that the best tactic for improving on the dogbone would be to go back to the earlier work and combine the best features of both. HOWEVER, that should not happen until one of two further replications of the dogbone have happened. There are some who do not trust the Russians, and particularly the University of Parkhomov (which was formerly a propaganda tool). Jones
Re: [Vo]:The melting miracle
I for one did not understand that the center tube was made from stainless steel. Apparently it was not sealed very well. The access port for the pressure transducer to allow it to sense pressure, but remain at below 85 degrees, probably leaked. That design and the welding or bonding of the access tube at the port should be reviewed as the most likely problem area for the leak that occurred. At least the temperature measuring equipment seemed to work and act to confirm the thermal characteristics of the alumina. The bonding of the Stainless steel inner tube to the alumina outer vessel should be described and checked for gaps that may have caused higher local internal temperatures. I would guess that the stainless steel tube was grounded? You would not want it to act as an electrical conductor? I hope someone familiar with the dog bone test design can answer some of these questions. Bob - Original Message - From: ChemE Stewart To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 9:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The melting miracle I think a grounded metal pail might act like a faraday cage and absorb EMF, but if it was open at the top microwaves not absorbed by the water should leak out On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:40 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I had that weird thought too that the reactor might be generating microwave radiation and heating the water... Would the microwaves make it through the metal pail? Eric
Re: [Vo]:The melting miracle
I think a grounded metal pail might act like a faraday cage and absorb EMF, but if it was open at the top microwaves not absorbed by the water should leak out On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:40 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I had that weird thought too that the reactor might be generating microwave radiation and heating the water... Would the microwaves make it through the metal pail? Eric
Re: [Vo]:The melting miracle
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:40 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I had that weird thought too that the reactor might be generating microwave radiation and heating the water... Would the microwaves make it through the metal pail? Eric
Re: [Vo]:The melting miracle
I’m way out of my zone of expertise here, as a speaker builder/designer, I am familiar with resonant frequencies of boxes, cavities, or spaces. Has the possibility that Rossi is optimizing the reactor design so the reactor cavity resonates at specific frequencies? Has this been considered? We’ve all seen the YouTube videos that show how powdered materials dance and move in patterns when subjected to strong fields of acoustic energy at varying frequencies. Acoustic waves can levitate heavy objects, is it not possible that such an effect could keep the powder mix in a turbulent and evenly distributed state even when at high temperatures? The sintering seen afterward could be taking place when the device is powered down and the fuel mix settles to the bottom, no longer being agitated. I realize I don’t have the background to tell you much of anything that you do not already know in this discussion, but I have not seen the subject addressed, at least not that I can recall. The differing pressures and temperatures inside the active vessel would alter these figures significantly I'm sure, but these such factors could be addressed and managed. A link about this here, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/cavity.html#c1 Resonance of a Coke Bottle, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/coke.html#c1 Nixter On Thursday, January 1, 2015 4:08 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: As I have stated in another thread: Doing science inside the dog bone can be like doing science inside another universe. There is no certainty that physics or chemistry works that same inside the a functioning dog bone as it does in the real world. Maybe different physical rules apply. On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I am interested in what keeps the Rossi micro powder from sintering/melting at high surface temperatures when the reactor is in operation. We call this weird behavior the melting miracle. This is an interesting question. If the same internal/external temperature gradient was in effect in the Lugano test as seen in the MFMP dogbone calibrations (at the higher temperatures, a delta T of 330 C [1]), we're left with some weird possibilities to sort through: * the temperature calculated for the outside of the Lugano E-Cat was significantly lower than 1400. * the nickel in the volume of the core of the Lugano reactor was not subject to the same amount of heat across the length of the core, and the nickel extracted for the isotope assays was from an area that maintained a temperature below the point of the complete melting point of nickel. * the outside temperature of the Lugano reactor was as reported, and the nickel in the core vaporized and then recrystallized when the temperature was still high towards the end of the test, resulting in a partially sintered appearance, while somehow maintaining an isotope gradient. * other possibilities? I do not know what unsintered nickel looks like, so it is hard for me to get a sense of where along the spectrum the nickel in the images taken from the Lugano assays was. Eric [1] http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/DogboneDec30.jpg
Re: [Vo]:The melting miracle
As I have stated in another thread: Doing science inside the dog bone can be like doing science inside another universe. There is no certainty that physics or chemistry works that same inside the a functioning dog bone as it does in the real world. Maybe different physical rules apply. On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I am interested in what keeps the Rossi micro powder from sintering/melting at high surface temperatures when the reactor is in operation. We call this weird behavior the melting miracle. This is an interesting question. If the same internal/external temperature gradient was in effect in the Lugano test as seen in the MFMP dogbone calibrations (at the higher temperatures, a delta T of 330 C [1]), we're left with some weird possibilities to sort through: - the temperature calculated for the outside of the Lugano E-Cat was significantly lower than 1400. - the nickel in the volume of the core of the Lugano reactor was not subject to the same amount of heat across the length of the core, and the nickel extracted for the isotope assays was from an area that maintained a temperature below the point of the complete melting point of nickel. - the outside temperature of the Lugano reactor was as reported, and the nickel in the core vaporized and then recrystallized when the temperature was still high towards the end of the test, resulting in a partially sintered appearance, while somehow maintaining an isotope gradient. - other possibilities? I do not know what unsintered nickel looks like, so it is hard for me to get a sense of where along the spectrum the nickel in the images taken from the Lugano assays was. Eric [1] http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/DogboneDec30.jpg
Re: [Vo]:The melting miracle
On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I am interested in what keeps the Rossi micro powder from sintering/melting at high surface temperatures when the reactor is in operation. We call this weird behavior the melting miracle. This is an interesting question. If the same internal/external temperature gradient was in effect in the Lugano test as seen in the MFMP dogbone calibrations (at the higher temperatures, a delta T of 330 C [1]), we're left with some weird possibilities to sort through: - the temperature calculated for the outside of the Lugano E-Cat was significantly lower than 1400. - the nickel in the volume of the core of the Lugano reactor was not subject to the same amount of heat across the length of the core, and the nickel extracted for the isotope assays was from an area that maintained a temperature below the point of the complete melting point of nickel. - the outside temperature of the Lugano reactor was as reported, and the nickel in the core vaporized and then recrystallized when the temperature was still high towards the end of the test, resulting in a partially sintered appearance, while somehow maintaining an isotope gradient. - other possibilities? I do not know what unsintered nickel looks like, so it is hard for me to get a sense of where along the spectrum the nickel in the images taken from the Lugano assays was. Eric [1] http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/DogboneDec30.jpg
[Vo]:The melting miracle
The dry run MFMP dogbone test has indicated the existence of some very weird behavior in the Rossi dog bone experiment. The MFMP dog-bone reactor places a theromcoupe both at the core and on the outside of the reactor. These thermocouples in the MFMP test shows us that the core of the dog bone is about 400C hotter than the outside surface. In the Rossi dog bone test, we are very fortunate that the temperature of the outside of the reactor got to 1400C. This implies that the core of the Rossi reactor should have reached 1800C if the two dog bone reactors had the same physical behavior pattern. Of coarse, these two reactors do not act the same. We know that there is a major difference in reactor behavior because there were a few nickel micro particles that came out of the Rossi reactor with there surface morphology in tact even though their isotope makeup was altered. A Sintering/melting test should be conducted to find out what temperature it takes to sinter or melt and destroy the surface structure on micron sized nickel particles in a hydrogen atmosphere. My guess is that that structural transition temperature would be just under 1000C. I am interested in what keeps the Rossi micro powder from sintering/melting at high surface temperatures when the reactor is in operation. We call this weird behavior the melting miracle.
Re: [Vo]:The melting miracle
I think the size of the nano Ni is important in creating resonant conditions to support LENR reactions in a magnetic field. This may include cavity sizes. Bob - Original Message - From: Nick To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2015 6:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The melting miracle I’m way out of my zone of expertise here, as a speaker builder/designer, I am familiar with resonant frequencies of boxes, cavities, or spaces. Has the possibility that Rossi is optimizing the reactor design so the reactor cavity resonates at specific frequencies? Has this been considered? We’ve all seen the YouTube videos that show how powdered materials dance and move in patterns when subjected to strong fields of acoustic energy at varying frequencies. Acoustic waves can levitate heavy objects, is it not possible that such an effect could keep the powder mix in a turbulent and evenly distributed state even when at high temperatures? The sintering seen afterward could be taking place when the device is powered down and the fuel mix settles to the bottom, no longer being agitated. I realize I don’t have the background to tell you much of anything that you do not already know in this discussion, but I have not seen the subject addressed, at least not that I can recall. The differing pressures and temperatures inside the active vessel would alter these figures significantly I'm sure, but these such factors could be addressed and managed. A link about this here, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/cavity.html#c1 Resonance of a Coke Bottle, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/coke.html#c1 Nixter On Thursday, January 1, 2015 4:08 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: As I have stated in another thread: Doing science inside the dog bone can be like doing science inside another universe. There is no certainty that physics or chemistry works that same inside the a functioning dog bone as it does in the real world. Maybe different physical rules apply. On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I am interested in what keeps the Rossi micro powder from sintering/melting at high surface temperatures when the reactor is in operation. We call this weird behavior the melting miracle. This is an interesting question. If the same internal/external temperature gradient was in effect in the Lugano test as seen in the MFMP dogbone calibrations (at the higher temperatures, a delta T of 330 C [1]), we're left with some weird possibilities to sort through: a.. the temperature calculated for the outside of the Lugano E-Cat was significantly lower than 1400. b.. the nickel in the volume of the core of the Lugano reactor was not subject to the same amount of heat across the length of the core, and the nickel extracted for the isotope assays was from an area that maintained a temperature below the point of the complete melting point of nickel. c.. the outside temperature of the Lugano reactor was as reported, and the nickel in the core vaporized and then recrystallized when the temperature was still high towards the end of the test, resulting in a partially sintered appearance, while somehow maintaining an isotope gradient. d.. other possibilities? I do not know what unsintered nickel looks like, so it is hard for me to get a sense of where along the spectrum the nickel in the images taken from the Lugano assays was. Eric [1] http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/DogboneDec30.jpg
[Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
Taking the report at face value, the hotcat displays several of the standard LENR miracles .. Some evidence of nuclear reactions (though incomplete and a tiny sample: Li, Ni -- but no H, He ... examined) No radiation outside an alumina cylinder (though there may be a steel tube inside) No radiation from the ash All happening well below hot fusion levels (coulomb barrier etc) With a surface temperature of 1420C the inside MUST be hotter. But let's stick with 1420. (Non) melting miracle : ALL of the components are likely to melt (or at last malfunction) at this temperature The nickel powder The heating wires The control thermocouple itself! A reader who didn't post it himself, and may wish to remain anonymous, commented in a direct email: Something that no one seems to have mentioned is that the control thermocouple in the reactor is type K (figures 2 and 4 of the Lugano report). This type has a calibrated upper temperature limit of ~1250 C (though wikipedia says probes are available to 1350 C). Chromel melts at around 1420 C. This seems to make type K a poor choice if you expect to operate at temperatures around 1400 C and particularly if the reactor may melt down if not properly controlled. So either the temperature measurement is wrong, or we have another miracle, that seems to take place within the entire interior of the hotcat.
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
Meltdown might not be such a major concern with the latest design. If Rossi and allies have optimized the geometry in such a manner as to extract heat energy from the device faster than the core can produce it then thermal run away should not occur. That suggests that some finite operating temperature will always exist even if the control system ceases to operate properly. It does seem possible to reach a temperature that causes permanent damage to the fuel due to melting of the fuel, but we do not know enough about the heat generation process to understand this type of problem. Perhaps the damaged fuel, which has cooled into a different form than ideal, will take much more external heating to bring it back up to operation after a restart of the reactor. There are several miracles that need to be properly researched. But, miracles do happen. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 1:36 pm Subject: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle Taking the report at face value, the hotcat displays several of the standard LENR miracles .. Some evidence of nuclear reactions (though incomplete and a tiny sample: Li, Ni -- but no H, He ... examined) No radiation outside an alumina cylinder (though there may be a steel tube inside) No radiation from the ash All happening well below hot fusion levels (coulomb barrier etc) With a surface temperature of 1420C the inside MUST be hotter. But let's stick with 1420. (Non) melting miracle : ALL of the components are likely to melt (or at last malfunction) at this temperature The nickel powder The heating wires The control thermocouple itself! A reader who didn't post it himself, and may wish to remain anonymous, commented in a direct email: Something that no one seems to have mentioned is that the control thermocouple in the reactor is type K (figures 2 and 4 of the Lugano report). This type has a calibrated upper temperature limit of ~1250 C (though wikipedia says probes are available to 1350 C). Chromel melts at around 1420 C. This seems to make type K a poor choice if you expect to operate at temperatures around 1400 C and particularly if the reactor may melt down if not properly controlled. So either the temperature measurement is wrong, or we have another miracle, that seems to take place within the entire interior of the hotcat.
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: So either the temperature measurement is wrong, or we have another miracle, that seems to take place within the entire interior of the hotcat. I think part of our difficulty is that one hesitates to take the report at face value for several reasons. If we do not take the report at face value, the large number of degrees of freedom open the way for untethered speculation, possibly for years, given the proclivities of the people watching this field. That would be inconvenient for anyone trying to figure out what's going on, and convenient for anyone trying to keep it a secret. Among the reasons one doesn't want to take the report at face value are that there might be error in the heat calibration and power calculations. The isotopic analyses are a little amazing, and, as far as I can tell, do not give indications of a gradient effect in the 6Li and 62Ni species. And details pertaining to the Inconel cables and, as you now bring up, possibly the type K thermocouple, seem to be inconsistent with the reported temperature. I agree with what you said a few days ago, that the findings of the report are inconclusive. In one outcome, the authors could be spot-on, and this would imply some amazing things. In another outcome, there could be some critical inaccuracies as to the materials that were used that go back to a lack of fact-checking. In another outcome, there could be intentional misdirection on Rossi's and IH's part to conceal what is really going on, but LENR is still happening. And in another outcome, there might not be anything going on at all, as Pomp, Yugo and others would have it. Many of the details and objections that have been surfaced during the past few days were easy to spot and could have been resolved weeks prior to the first day of the testing if the authors had consulted a wide enough group. This leads me to one of two conclusions: - The authors did not do their homework and put together a test that would necessarily lead to inconclusive results and that could be questioned along a number of lines. - The authors did their homework but were hobbled by constraints placed by Rossi and IH that prevented them from conducting a more rigorous test. If the first is true, there might not be all that much that we can expect from this set of authors. If the second is true, I kind of wonder whether the report should have been released. I worry that the lack of clarity on many of the details could sidetrack discussion for a while as we pursue dead ends. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
The persistence of those tubercles which should have melted at 1000C is impossible to explain after days of 1400C reactor surface temperatures. Heat management including production and flow inside the Rossi reactor is not yet understandable, a mystery. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:06 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Meltdown might not be such a major concern with the latest design. If Rossi and allies have optimized the geometry in such a manner as to extract heat energy from the device faster than the core can produce it then thermal run away should not occur. That suggests that some finite operating temperature will always exist even if the control system ceases to operate properly. It does seem possible to reach a temperature that causes permanent damage to the fuel due to melting of the fuel, but we do not know enough about the heat generation process to understand this type of problem. Perhaps the damaged fuel, which has cooled into a different form than ideal, will take much more external heating to bring it back up to operation after a restart of the reactor. There are several miracles that need to be properly researched. But, miracles do happen. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 1:36 pm Subject: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle Taking the report at face value, the hotcat displays several of the standard LENR miracles .. Some evidence of nuclear reactions (though incomplete and a tiny sample: Li, Ni -- but no H, He ... examined) No radiation outside an alumina cylinder (though there may be a steel tube inside) No radiation from the ash All happening well below hot fusion levels (coulomb barrier etc) With a surface temperature of 1420C the inside MUST be hotter. But let's stick with 1420. (Non) melting miracle : ALL of the components are likely to melt (or at last malfunction) at this temperature The nickel powder The heating wires The control thermocouple itself! A reader who didn't post it himself, and may wish to remain anonymous, commented in a direct email: Something that no one seems to have mentioned is that the control thermocouple in the reactor is type K (figures 2 and 4 of the Lugano report). This type has a calibrated upper temperature limit of ~1250 C (though wikipedia says probes are available to 1350 C). Chromel melts at around 1420 C. This seems to make type K a poor choice if you expect to operate at temperatures around 1400 C and particularly if the reactor may melt down if not properly controlled. So either the temperature measurement is wrong, or we have another miracle, that seems to take place within the entire interior of the hotcat.
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
There was a directly observable miracle that showed unmelted nano structure on the surface of those nickel micro particles that should have melted at 1000C and yet where photographed after days of 1400C reactor operating temperatures. Those temperature differences are TOO LARGE to be due to poor experimental measurement or technique. If you through a block of ice in a blast furnace, you would expect that ice to melt. When it does not melt, you are shocked to say the least. Just imagine what an engineer can do with this miracle: space ship heat shields, firemen walking in their underwear though a burning building, making blast furnishes out of wood, taking a cruise on the surface of the sun. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: So either the temperature measurement is wrong, or we have another miracle, that seems to take place within the entire interior of the hotcat. I think part of our difficulty is that one hesitates to take the report at face value for several reasons. If we do not take the report at face value, the large number of degrees of freedom open the way for untethered speculation, possibly for years, given the proclivities of the people watching this field. That would be inconvenient for anyone trying to figure out what's going on, and convenient for anyone trying to keep it a secret. Among the reasons one doesn't want to take the report at face value are that there might be error in the heat calibration and power calculations. The isotopic analyses are a little amazing, and, as far as I can tell, do not give indications of a gradient effect in the 6Li and 62Ni species. And details pertaining to the Inconel cables and, as you now bring up, possibly the type K thermocouple, seem to be inconsistent with the reported temperature. I agree with what you said a few days ago, that the findings of the report are inconclusive. In one outcome, the authors could be spot-on, and this would imply some amazing things. In another outcome, there could be some critical inaccuracies as to the materials that were used that go back to a lack of fact-checking. In another outcome, there could be intentional misdirection on Rossi's and IH's part to conceal what is really going on, but LENR is still happening. And in another outcome, there might not be anything going on at all, as Pomp, Yugo and others would have it. Many of the details and objections that have been surfaced during the past few days were easy to spot and could have been resolved weeks prior to the first day of the testing if the authors had consulted a wide enough group. This leads me to one of two conclusions: - The authors did not do their homework and put together a test that would necessarily lead to inconclusive results and that could be questioned along a number of lines. - The authors did their homework but were hobbled by constraints placed by Rossi and IH that prevented them from conducting a more rigorous test. If the first is true, there might not be all that much that we can expect from this set of authors. If the second is true, I kind of wonder whether the report should have been released. I worry that the lack of clarity on many of the details could sidetrack discussion for a while as we pursue dead ends. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There was a directly observable miracle that showed unmelted nano structure on the surface of those nickel micro particles that should have melted at 1000C and yet where photographed after days of 1400C reactor operating temperatures. Those temperature differences are TOO LARGE to be due to poor experimental measurement or technique. Your imagery is vivid, but you've assumed that the experiment actually ran at 1400C. This is one of the questions that is up for debate. Misdirection is not yet established given what we know. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
I can't believe that the independent science team could ever make a mistake that bad: measuring a reactor temperature that as actually at 700C as being 1400C. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There was a directly observable miracle that showed unmelted nano structure on the surface of those nickel micro particles that should have melted at 1000C and yet where photographed after days of 1400C reactor operating temperatures. Those temperature differences are TOO LARGE to be due to poor experimental measurement or technique. Your imagery is vivid, but you've assumed that the experiment actually ran at 1400C. This is one of the questions that is up for debate. Misdirection is not yet established given what we know. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
The melting miracle may put into question some irrefutable logic about reactor melt down. It is assumed by all what are not judged to be nuts that when the reactor get up to 2000C during meltdown, the nickel particles are long since melted and something else is causing increasing temperature rise beyond the melting point of nickel. But could the “melting miracle” preserve these micro sized nickel particles from any deterioration even if the reactor temperature gets up to 2000C? On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I can't believe that the independent science team could ever make a mistake that bad: measuring a reactor temperature that as actually at 700C as being 1400C. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There was a directly observable miracle that showed unmelted nano structure on the surface of those nickel micro particles that should have melted at 1000C and yet where photographed after days of 1400C reactor operating temperatures. Those temperature differences are TOO LARGE to be due to poor experimental measurement or technique. Your imagery is vivid, but you've assumed that the experiment actually ran at 1400C. This is one of the questions that is up for debate. Misdirection is not yet established given what we know. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I can't believe that the independent science team could ever make a mistake that bad: measuring a reactor temperature that as actually at 700C as being 1400C. It is difficult to believe. And yet, people do make large mistakes at times. If the photos in Fig. 12 were taken when the instrument indicated a temperature of 1400 deg C then there is no doubt they made a giant mistake. The reactor surface could only be around 700 or 800 deg C with that color. If they think it was 1400 deg C they are incompetent. We need to see if they will address this and the other questions at lenr-forum.com: http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/722-Ask-questions-to-the-Working-Group-ECAT-long-term-test Assuming this is a problem: such a large discrepancy seems more like an error than an attempt to deceive, but it is hard to judge. Another reason this seems unlikely to me is that a gram of material producing 2 kW should surely have melted or vaporized. It is not the reactor as whole that would produce that heat; it is the Ni powder. I doubt it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
I wrote: I can't believe that the independent science team could ever make a mistake that bad: measuring a reactor temperature that as actually at 700C as being 1400C. It is difficult to believe. And yet, people do make large mistakes at times. See p. 11 here for examples of large mistakes made by scientists in this field: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf These were mistakes. Not efforts to deceive. People have made gigantic mistakes in other fields, such as the housing market in the run-up to the 2008 economic crisis, and World War I. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
There is an assumption that the Ni is pure Ni. This may not be the case. There may be a substrate of a high temperature ceramic--Ti-N or Ti-C or something else with the Ni bonded to the surface of the substrate. The thermocouple reading at operation is unknown to me. It may have indicated a lower temperature than the camera temperature and been more accurate. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle There was a directly observable miracle that showed unmelted nano structure on the surface of those nickel micro particles that should have melted at 1000C and yet where photographed after days of 1400C reactor operating temperatures. Those temperature differences are TOO LARGE to be due to poor experimental measurement or technique. If you through a block of ice in a blast furnace, you would expect that ice to melt. When it does not melt, you are shocked to say the least. Just imagine what an engineer can do with this miracle: space ship heat shields, firemen walking in their underwear though a burning building, making blast furnishes out of wood, taking a cruise on the surface of the sun. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: So either the temperature measurement is wrong, or we have another miracle, that seems to take place within the entire interior of the hotcat. I think part of our difficulty is that one hesitates to take the report at face value for several reasons. If we do not take the report at face value, the large number of degrees of freedom open the way for untethered speculation, possibly for years, given the proclivities of the people watching this field. That would be inconvenient for anyone trying to figure out what's going on, and convenient for anyone trying to keep it a secret. Among the reasons one doesn't want to take the report at face value are that there might be error in the heat calibration and power calculations. The isotopic analyses are a little amazing, and, as far as I can tell, do not give indications of a gradient effect in the 6Li and 62Ni species. And details pertaining to the Inconel cables and, as you now bring up, possibly the type K thermocouple, seem to be inconsistent with the reported temperature. I agree with what you said a few days ago, that the findings of the report are inconclusive. In one outcome, the authors could be spot-on, and this would imply some amazing things. In another outcome, there could be some critical inaccuracies as to the materials that were used that go back to a lack of fact-checking. In another outcome, there could be intentional misdirection on Rossi's and IH's part to conceal what is really going on, but LENR is still happening. And in another outcome, there might not be anything going on at all, as Pomp, Yugo and others would have it. Many of the details and objections that have been surfaced during the past few days were easy to spot and could have been resolved weeks prior to the first day of the testing if the authors had consulted a wide enough group. This leads me to one of two conclusions: a.. The authors did not do their homework and put together a test that would necessarily lead to inconclusive results and that could be questioned along a number of lines. b.. The authors did their homework but were hobbled by constraints placed by Rossi and IH that prevented them from conducting a more rigorous test. If the first is true, there might not be all that much that we can expect from this set of authors. If the second is true, I kind of wonder whether the report should have been released. I worry that the lack of clarity on many of the details could sidetrack discussion for a while as we pursue dead ends. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: The isotopic analyses are a little amazing, and, as far as I can tell, do not give indications of a gradient effect in the 6Li and 62Ni species. appendix 3 measured abundance in ash sample 6Li - 92.1% 7Li - 7.9% 62Ni - 98.7% appendix 4 measured abundance in ash sample 6Li - 57.5% 7Li - 42.5% 62Ni - 99.3% For me the lingo is hard to parse but if Robert Ellefson is correct then the numbers in appendix 3 are surface measurements and the numbers in appendix 4 are bulk measurements. Can you fake such a distribution by simply purchasing enriched samples? Harry Harry
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
This line of reasoning leads me to wonder if the mini explosions that some think are occurring are able to sputter the fuel. In this scenario, the molten mass is continually torn apart into small blobs that then cool into odd shapes and sizes. Is anything of this nature even remotely possible? This is just an strange thought that came into my visualization. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 5:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle The melting miracle may put into question some irrefutablelogic about reactor melt down. It is assumed by all what are not judged to be nuts thatwhen the reactor get up to 2000C during meltdown, the nickel particles are longsince melted and something else is causing increasing temperature rise beyondthe melting point of nickel. But could the “melting miracle” preserve thesemicro sized nickel particles from any deterioration even if the reactor temperaturegets up to 2000C? On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I can't believe that the independent science team could ever make a mistake that bad: measuring a reactor temperature that as actually at 700C as being 1400C. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There was a directly observable miracle that showed unmelted nano structure on the surface of those nickel micro particles that should have melted at 1000C and yet where photographed after days of 1400C reactor operating temperatures. Those temperature differences are TOO LARGE to be due to poor experimental measurement or technique. Your imagery is vivid, but you've assumed that the experiment actually ran at 1400C. This is one of the questions that is up for debate. Misdirection is not yet established given what we know. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
The nickel particle cannot be rebuilt. But there is a good chance that he lithium can form nanoparticles aggregations that do the same SPP creation function as the nickel particles. I call this clumping dynamic NAE production because these clumps of nanoparticles are continuously made and destroyed by the LENR reaction. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 8:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This line of reasoning leads me to wonder if the mini explosions that some think are occurring are able to sputter the fuel. In this scenario, the molten mass is continually torn apart into small blobs that then cool into odd shapes and sizes. Is anything of this nature even remotely possible? This is just an strange thought that came into my visualization. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 5:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle The melting miracle may put into question some irrefutable logic about reactor melt down. It is assumed by all what are not judged to be nuts that when the reactor get up to 2000C during meltdown, the nickel particles are long since melted and something else is causing increasing temperature rise beyond the melting point of nickel. But could the “melting miracle” preserve these micro sized nickel particles from any deterioration even if the reactor temperature gets up to 2000C? On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I can't believe that the independent science team could ever make a mistake that bad: measuring a reactor temperature that as actually at 700C as being 1400C. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There was a directly observable miracle that showed unmelted nano structure on the surface of those nickel micro particles that should have melted at 1000C and yet where photographed after days of 1400C reactor operating temperatures. Those temperature differences are TOO LARGE to be due to poor experimental measurement or technique. Your imagery is vivid, but you've assumed that the experiment actually ran at 1400C. This is one of the questions that is up for debate. Misdirection is not yet established given what we know. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
Dave and Axil, On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I can't believe that the independent science team could ever make a mistake that bad: measuring a reactor temperature that as actually at 700C as being 1400C. Ordinarily a surface at 1400C should glow visibly white but in this case the visible glow is red. If the power output is the same as that associated with a 1400C surface then the missing energy might be in the form of extra UV emissions. Harry On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There was a directly observable miracle that showed unmelted nano structure on the surface of those nickel micro particles that should have melted at 1000C and yet where photographed after days of 1400C reactor operating temperatures. Those temperature differences are TOO LARGE to be due to poor experimental measurement or technique. Your imagery is vivid, but you've assumed that the experiment actually ran at 1400C. This is one of the questions that is up for debate. Misdirection is not yet established given what we know. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
Where are the neutrons? Must be a mistake. Where is the white glow? Must be another mistake. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 5:36 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: appendix 3 measured abundance in ash sample 6Li - 92.1% 7Li - 7.9% 62Ni - 98.7% This is TOF-SIMS, secondary ion mass spectroscopy. It is a surface analysis. Heavy ions are accelerated towards the target and cause atoms from the surface to spall away as ions, whose masses are then measured by looking at their displacement under a magnetic field of known strength. appendix 4 measured abundance in ash sample 6Li - 57.5% 7Li - 42.5% 62Ni - 99.3% These are the results of ICP-MS, a technique I'm not familiar with. Apparently they take the entire sample and dissolve it. In that case I take it that the technique would give a percentage that combines the bulk and surface amounts, and so is in a sense an approximation for the bulk amount. Can you fake such a distribution by simply purchasing enriched samples? You make an interesting point, here. In the two samples analyzed, it would seem there is indeed a gradient effect for 6Li and 6Li. There does not appear to be much of a gradient effect for 62Ni, which is high in both cases; if anything, there is a reverse gradient, but I suspect the error bars are rather large for this kind of analysis. One challenge with a line reasoning about gradients of isotopes in the present instance is that we're dealing with a sample size of n=2 or thereabouts. In this light I would like to know more about the isotope analysis before drawing conclusions from it, which makes it inconclusive for me. I would also like to think that the measurements of heat and the reporting of the materials that were used and the matter of nickel with tubercules on it and so on were the data from a normal run of the E-Cat and that we're just having a hard time using lateral thinking to make the pieces fit together. So I don't have a strong opinion yet on the matter of misdirection, but I do have a hard time taking all of the details of the report at face value at this point. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
Note that the Figure 12 of the Lugano report does not say when the photos were taken. It only says during the test. The pictures could have been taken while the device was in dummy test mode, while the device was heating up, while the device was cooling down. The report does not say what temperature was assessed when these pictures were taken. When they took the picture, they probably had no idea what people would try to infer from it. We'll just have to see if the authors address this. However, IMO this is not the most important question. Neutrons? None of the LENR experiments show neutrons in any way commensurate with heat output - and a good thing. The Lugano report did show a slight rise in neutron count. So, actually it would be real LENR surprise to find neutrons. No mistake there. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:12 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Where are the neutrons? Must be a mistake. Where is the white glow? Must be another mistake. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
Maybe the intent of those pictures on page 12 was to show the heater wire shadows. The reactor may have gotten too hot to show what the testers wanted to show so they picked the pictures with the best wire shadow image regardless of the temperature. This might be a compromise made to tell the story they wanted to pass on. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Note that the Figure 12 of the Lugano report does not say when the photos were taken. It only says during the test. The pictures could have been taken while the device was in dummy test mode, while the device was heating up, while the device was cooling down. The report does not say what temperature was assessed when these pictures were taken. When they took the picture, they probably had no idea what people would try to infer from it. We'll just have to see if the authors address this. However, IMO this is not the most important question. Neutrons? None of the LENR experiments show neutrons in any way commensurate with heat output - and a good thing. The Lugano report did show a slight rise in neutron count. So, actually it would be real LENR surprise to find neutrons. No mistake there. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:12 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Where are the neutrons? Must be a mistake. Where is the white glow? Must be another mistake. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
page 12 should read page 25 On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe the intent of those pictures on page 12 was to show the heater wire shadows. The reactor may have gotten too hot to show what the testers wanted to show so they picked the pictures with the best wire shadow image regardless of the temperature. This might be a compromise made to tell the story they wanted to pass on. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Note that the Figure 12 of the Lugano report does not say when the photos were taken. It only says during the test. The pictures could have been taken while the device was in dummy test mode, while the device was heating up, while the device was cooling down. The report does not say what temperature was assessed when these pictures were taken. When they took the picture, they probably had no idea what people would try to infer from it. We'll just have to see if the authors address this. However, IMO this is not the most important question. Neutrons? None of the LENR experiments show neutrons in any way commensurate with heat output - and a good thing. The Lugano report did show a slight rise in neutron count. So, actually it would be real LENR surprise to find neutrons. No mistake there. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:12 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Where are the neutrons? Must be a mistake. Where is the white glow? Must be another mistake. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
Right Axil - I meant to say Figure 12. Thanks for the correction. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: page 12 should read page 25 On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe the intent of those pictures on page 12 was to show the heater wire shadows. The reactor may have gotten too hot to show what the testers wanted to show so they picked the pictures with the best wire shadow image regardless of the temperature. This might be a compromise made to tell the story they wanted to pass on. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Note that the Figure 12 of the Lugano report does not say when the photos were taken. It only says during the test. The pictures could have been taken while the device was in dummy test mode, while the device was heating up, while the device was cooling down. The report does not say what temperature was assessed when these pictures were taken. When they took the picture, they probably had no idea what people would try to infer from it. We'll just have to see if the authors address this. However, IMO this is not the most important question.
