Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: You obviously try to twist things. Are you really expecting people to present papers and descriptions of demos before the demos? Yes, absolutely. I expect a demo to be accompanied with a complete description of the planned even. Of course it may not come off as planned, but it should be planned. No company does that. On the contrary, they all do. Professionals do not go to trade shows without documents and without rehearsing their spiel. Programmer?? For example, do you expect a programmer to post source code before the public release and show? No one posts source code. I expect copies of a user manual pre-print to be distributed with the demo. Or release a journal paper and presentation before the demo of a new program/ like a video game. Absolutely they should. A pre-print is essential. Or a car company to present technical specs before they take it to a show. Who said anything about before the show? You release the technical specs at the show. They are all ready to go, along with brochures and whatnot. Why oh why do you conclude that just because I (or anyone) do not tell YOU ever thing before a demo that I do not have data, and other information? You sound clueless to me! Like CETI was in California. I hope it works out better than that. Good luck and have fun! If you had not been kicked out of CMNS (or run off?) . . . . I quit, because I do not want to read any secrets. They want to keep the contents confidential. I have no objection to confidential discussion but I do not want to take part in them. , you would have even been able to find the months of prep leading up to this . . . So you ARE prepared. Good. I suggest you write a report, now. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
You and your motives are very hard to understand and do not seem inconsistent. First you say ” nothing, anywhere, ever about the kind of device you plan to show at NI Week”. (incomplete sentence) Again you make a big negative assumption about others. How do you know if I do or do not have a writeup?I will grant you it is not complete since my data acq system is in Austin getting a NI program installed and written,but there is a write up and even a folder with the user manuals for the major equipment items and chemical sources.Learn to check facts before you throw out automatic condemnations. When I point out that I have posted descriptions and pictures both via Vortex and CMNS you then back track and say“I mean a scientific paper. In a proceedings or journal.” (incomplete sentence) When I say that is not proper to present papers on demos that have not yet be preformed, you then say“I expect a demo to be accompanied with a complete description of the planned even (sic).” I would normally take that to mean you would not expect a full description until the planned event but that is in direct conflict of what I would normally understand from your first complaint. It is your continued use of incomplete sentences and misspelling in a public forum that make me very hesitant to accept your editing offer. I accept it from the science researchers but they do not profess to be editors. I suggest you write a report, now. You haven't even seen my first report about my demo. Why should I write another report? D2 Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 11:09:33 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: You obviously try to twist things. Are you really expecting people to present papers and descriptions of demos before the demos? Yes, absolutely. I expect a demo to be accompanied with a complete description of the planned even. Of course it may not come off as planned, but it should be planned. . So you ARE prepared. Good. I suggest you write a report, now. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
How many well known collisions produce outgoing particles who kinetic energy is approx. 100 times that of the incoming particles? Can it be compared with known collisions? Harry On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:40 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: The fact that no (or few?) reactions are detected on the front side shows that the reaction is not a typical hot fusion reaction. If this is a reference to the Chambers experiment in 1990, it is an interesting detail that the particles were emitted from the backside of the Ti/D thin foil. But I don't recall there being a detector on the front side of the foil, so I don't think much can be concluded about directionality of the reaction in that particular instance. Eric
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: You and your motives are very hard to understand and do not seem inconsistent. You are mistaken. I am a very simple person. My only motivation is to promote the success of cold fusion by any means. You can always take my words at face value. I do not have ulterior motives and I do not try to disguise the meaning. I think you misunderstand because you do not take me literally. You look for hidden meanings where there are none. For example, I say I wish you had money because it is a useful tool to conduct research. You seem to have acquired the notion that I care whether you become rich or poor. That is completely incorrect. I would like to see you equipped with a few million dollars worth of scientific instruments. Whether you personally make any money or not is absolutely no concern of mine. I could not care less. First you say ” *nothing, anywhere*, ever about the kind of device you plan to show at NI Week”. (incomplete sentence) ** Again you make a big negative assumption about others. How do you know if I do or do not have a writeup? It is simple. I asked if you have a report. You responded: Strange, you expect a write up of a demo before it happens. I take that to mean no. Perhaps I misunderstand. Again, I take things literally. Yes, I do expect a write up before a demo. I take it you do not. Therefore this must mean you have not prepared a document describing the demo. Your previous demonstrations did not include any reports or explanatory material that I recall. I never saw anything from you after the demonstrations. No video, no reports. Perhaps you published something but I missed it. So again, I take that to mean you are unprepared. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I think we should drop the subject. but there is a write up and even a folder with the user manuals for the major equipment items and chemical sources. Where? Where is this write up? I don't see it. Maybe it was attached and it got lost. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
I wrote: but there is a write up and even a folder with the user manuals for the major equipment items and chemical sources. Where? Where is this write up? I don't see it. Maybe it was attached and it got lost. Ah. You mean there exists a write up. I thought this meant here in this message (or in this link) is a write up. I thought you were directing my attention to said write-up. I hope it is a good write-up. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Wed, 10 Jul 2013 20:23:49 -0700: Hi, [snip] I stand corrected. On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:40 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: The fact that no (or few?) reactions are detected on the front side shows that the reaction is not a typical hot fusion reaction. If this is a reference to the Chambers experiment in 1990, it is an interesting detail that the particles were emitted from the backside of the Ti/D thin foil. But I don't recall there being a detector on the front side of the foil, so I don't think much can be concluded about directionality of the reaction in that particular instance. Eric Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
In reply to H Veeder's message of Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:11:24 -0400: Hi, [snip] How many well known collisions produce outgoing particles who kinetic energy is approx. 100 times that of the incoming particles? Can it be compared with known collisions? Harry It can only happen when energy is released somehow. Presumably this (and the back side measurement) is why the authors thought it worth reporting in the first place. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:11 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: How many well known collisions produce outgoing particles who kinetic energy is approx. 100 times that of the incoming particles? Can it be compared with known collisions? It was closer to 15,000 times the original energy (5,000,000 eV / 350 eV), after having traversed ~1 um of titanium (or, possibly, some daughter particle resulting from a chain reaction of some kind that occurred closer to the exiting side of the foil). The presence of the foil complicates things, because it's not clear how far the daughter had to travel through it. The longer it had to travel, the more it would slow down, I think, especially if it was not initially aligned along an open pathway in the crystal structure. The authors speculated that the mystery particle was tritium on the basis of the energy difference in the energy peak when the 200 V detecter bias was turned off (silicon surface-barrier detector spectra respond to changes in voltage, apparently). The authors did not offer a possible reaction. Another possibility apart from a nuclear reaction was that background radiation was mistakenly associated with the incoming beam collisions. They only saw events in four of nine experiments, and the particles could have been cosmic rays or something similar. Also interesting is the fact that there was an earlier experiment by a group in Germany with a very similar setup that I just read about, and they saw nothing that could not be explained by normal dd reaction cross sections. But I don't think they saw anything above noise in the 300 eV range, and their foils were 3 um thick. Eric
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:22 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to H Veeder's message of Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:11:24 -0400: Hi, [snip] How many well known collisions produce outgoing particles who kinetic energy is approx. 100 times that of the incoming particles? Can it be compared with known collisions? Harry It can only happen when energy is released somehow. Presumably this (and the back side measurement) is why the authors thought it worth reporting in the first place. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Yes. If the energy incoming particles were focused to arrive at the same time at the same place it might result in hot fusion as one sees in inertial confinement fusion. However, since the apparent energy release stems from incoming particles arriving in a stream it may be an anomalous nuclear effect. (ANE - another name for CF ;-) ) Until an effort is made to detect particle emissions in every direction, I don't think it is significant that high energy particles were detected leaving the backside of the foil. In my mind the most intriguing observation is the production of high energy particles. However, I believe Ed Storms said he is going to explain this apparent anomaly with conventional nuclear physics at ICCF 18 so we shouldn't get excited that it is evidence of an anomalous nuclear effect. Harry
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:11 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: How many well known collisions produce outgoing particles who kinetic energy is approx. 100 times that of the incoming particles? Can it be compared with known collisions? It was closer to 15,000 times the original energy (5,000,000 eV / 350 eV), after having traversed ~1 um of titanium (or, possibly, some daughter particle resulting from a chain reaction of some kind that occurred closer to the exiting side of the foil). The presence of the foil complicates things, because it's not clear how far the daughter had to travel through it. The longer it had to travel, the more it would slow down, I think, especially if it was not initially aligned along an open pathway in the crystal structure. Thanks for the clarification. I knew it was large, but since I couldn't immediately recall the figures I deliberately under estimated. The authors speculated that the mystery particle was tritium on the basis of the energy difference in the energy peak when the 200 V detecter bias was turned off (silicon surface-barrier detector spectra respond to changes in voltage, apparently). The authors did not offer a possible reaction. Another possibility apart from a nuclear reaction was that background radiation was mistakenly associated with the incoming beam collisions. They only saw events in four of nine experiments, and the particles could have been cosmic rays or something similar. Also interesting is the fact that there was an earlier experiment by a group in Germany with a very similar setup that I just read about, and they saw nothing that could not be explained by normal dd reaction cross sections. But I don't think they saw anything above noise in the 300 eV range, and their foils were 3 um thick. Assuming it is a real anomaly, it suggests a memory effect whereby each incoming particle serves to nudge the nuclei closer together. Harry Eric
RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 22:38:55 -0400 That is very interesting Dennis. If I understand you correctly, you solve the thermal run away problem by extracting heat fast enough to keep the thermal positive feedback loop gain below unity. That should work provided there is enough energy released per pulse of drive to achieve a high enough COP. Yes, that is the way I look at it. You can get large COP at lower outputs and lower temps. For example I have a small unit with no sparking that has infinite COP but only fractional watts of excess. The behavior that you describe would not depend upon very much gain being augmented by thermal feedback as I suspect that Rossi is relying upon. Do you understand why a spark would be so efficient at producing LENR? You mention local heating as a possible factor, which certainly could cause small hot regions to develop. Is this the key to high gain without meltdown? There must be a thermal path out of the region to take away the heat at the right speed. I assume that that could be done by adjusting the particle size and packing, but in my case, the metal host occupies pores within carbon. Once a hot spot is initiated, what prevents the heat from spreading rapidly into the adjacent material and causing a sudden extreme burst of energy? Perhaps the distribution of active hydrogen in the NAE is such that areas capable of spreading the heat only exist in small patches and are easy to extinguish. If this is true, new active regions would need to form in time to take over the process as others die out. Again, I believe the rates have an exponential them. coef. Notice in my case the active regions are isolated via the carbon. So as the heat spreads other regions would not be at as high a temp. and have a much lower heat production rate. The slowly extinguish as the spark moves to other regions. So what functions does the spark perform in a system of this type? Heating of a small region makes a great deal of sense as each spark strikes the surface. Also, do you expect that the spark breaks apart the hydrogen molecules as a second function? I can imagine a rain of protons falling upon the metal due to ionization as another possible piece of the puzzle. The spark just causes very high local temps. I don't really see the spark functioning to ionize the H (my case D and H). I think it is the H already in the lattice that reacts. Has there been evidence of enhanced reaction caused be the magnetic field associated with the currents entering or leaving the metal surfaces? If I recall, DGT speaks of dipole behavior of Ryndberg hydrogen helping out. Can you describe any evidence of this? Yes, it seems that the reaction is almost linear in respect to the B field. (also linear with mass, and expon. in terms of Energy of vacancy formation. (that is why Ag helps Pd system and Cu and Pd . helps Ni systems.) I believe that the H occupies or must move through the vacancies. The occupation of H in a vacancy is likely in a controlling pathway. Your bowl shaped targets are quite interesting to consider. Does the bowl tend to spread out the spark contact region? Yes, think of the plasma globe type lights. I have a central electrode (actually W rod held by a Cu tube). It is within a brass sphere holding my material. But the material is only stuck to the lower half on the wall. From what you describe it appears that your reaction is almost entirely a surface effect. Would you expect a very thin layer of active metal to work in the same manner? A thin coating layered upon another passive metal might be helpful in preventing a large scale thermal event. Maybe one of Axils heat pipes underneath could extract the heat quickly enough to enhance the net energy density. Yes, one configuration (I have 4) has variable heat conductive heat pipes. I have to juggle the heat extraction and production. (changes contact areas) Do you have to worry about the destruction of your active material as the process operates? If I turn it up to much my material is destroyed. In one device, I use internal B fields (added Sm 2 Co 17 powder) and it will demagnetize. Are you planning to demonstrate one of your devices at the conference? At NI Week (Booth 922). It will be just a golly gee type of demo not a science prove it demo. Small in the few watt range. I hope to be upstaged by Defkalion. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 9:29 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? My take on their process is that the control and the sparks are related to the positive heat coef. of the reaction and the rate at which the heat is extracted. My best empirical model shows an almost
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
*Yes, think of the plasma globe type lights. I have a central electrode (actually W rod held by a Cu tube). It is within a brass sphere holding my material. But the material is only stuck to the lower half on the wall. * ** *If this info is not closely held, does this electrode produce a spark? If not what does it do?* On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:42 AM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: -- To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 22:38:55 -0400 That is very interesting Dennis. If I understand you correctly, you solve the thermal run away problem by extracting heat fast enough to keep the thermal positive feedback loop gain below unity. That should work provided there is enough energy released per pulse of drive to achieve a high enough COP. *Yes, that is the way I look at it. You can get large COP at lower outputs and lower temps. For example I have a small unit with no sparking that has infinite COP but only fractional watts of excess. * The behavior that you describe would not depend upon very much gain being augmented by thermal feedback as I suspect that Rossi is relying upon. Do you understand why a spark would be so efficient at producing LENR? You mention local heating as a possible factor, which certainly could cause small hot regions to develop. Is this the key to high gain without meltdown? *There must be a thermal path out of the region to take away the heat at the right speed. I assume that that could be done by adjusting the particle size and packing, but in my case, the metal host occupies pores within carbon. * Once a hot spot is initiated, what prevents the heat from spreading rapidly into the adjacent material and causing a sudden extreme burst of energy? Perhaps the distribution of active hydrogen in the NAE is such that areas capable of spreading the heat only exist in small patches and are easy to extinguish. If this is true, new active regions would need to form in time to take over the process as others die out. *Again, I believe the rates have an exponential them. coef. Notice in my case the active regions are isolated via the carbon. So as the heat spreads other regions would not be at as high a temp. and have a much lower heat production rate. The slowly extinguish as the spark moves to other regions*. So what functions does the spark perform in a system of this type? Heating of a small region makes a great deal of sense as each spark strikes the surface. Also, do you expect that the spark breaks apart the hydrogen molecules as a second function? I can imagine a rain of protons falling upon the metal due to ionization as another possible piece of the puzzle. *The spark just causes very high local temps. I don't really see the spark functioning to ionize the H (my case D and H). I think it is the H already in the lattice that reacts.* Has there been evidence of enhanced reaction caused be the magnetic field associated with the currents entering or leaving the metal surfaces? If I recall, DGT speaks of dipole behavior of Ryndberg hydrogen helping out. Can you describe any evidence of this? *Yes, it seems that the reaction is almost linear in respect to the B field. (also linear with mass, and expon. in terms of Energy of vacancy formation. (that is why Ag helps Pd system and Cu and Pd . helps Ni systems.) I believe that the H occupies or must move through the vacancies. The occupation of H in a vacancy is likely in a controlling pathway. * Your bowl shaped targets are quite interesting to consider. Does the bowl tend to spread out the spark contact region? *Yes, think of the plasma globe type lights. I have a central electrode (actually W rod held by a Cu tube). It is within a brass sphere holding my material. But the material is only stuck to the lower half on the wall. * From what you describe it appears that your reaction is almost entirely a surface effect. Would you expect a very thin layer of active metal to work in the same manner? A thin coating layered upon another passive metal might be helpful in preventing a large scale thermal event. Maybe one of Axils heat pipes underneath could extract the heat quickly enough to enhance the net energy density. *Yes, one configuration (I have 4) has variable heat conductive heat pipes. I have to juggle the heat extraction and production. (changes contact areas)* Do you have to worry about the destruction of your active material as the process operates? *If I turn it up to much my material is destroyed. In one device, I use internal B fields (added Sm 2 Co 17 powder) and it will demagnetize. * Are you planning to demonstrate one of your devices at the conference? *At NI Week (Booth 922). It will be just a golly gee type of demo not a science prove it demo. Small in the few watt range. I hope
RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
?? yes it produces sparks or arcs or discharge I am not sure of the technical variations. I am using a modified strobe light circuit. I cannot see into the good brass sphere. I do have a cut away mockup of the sphere (I will have that with my demo). The terminal ending moves among the various locations. Most of the time the sparks terminate on one of the metal containing carbon particles. They are higher than the binder that holds them. There is a little more to it than that- actually the lower half of the sphere has an internal insulation layer to help it from too much heat loss, a conductive connection between the brass sphere and the conductive binder holding the particles. The upper half is empty or should I say filled with gas so there can be convection movement of the gas. One think I did learn from Les Case is that there must be convection or flow of H through the material, or mixing of the powders in the gas. (note: as mentioned in some of my earlier post, I am using mesopore carbon to contain my metal host lattice - which is a doped metal to lower its E of vac. formation - I have not bought into the transmutation of Nickel idea and am using mostly D not H) The sphere I will have at the NI demo is self sustaining at low power. But only when brought up in temp. I will be holding it at 75C in an Al bead dry bath. You can compare its temp to the control sphere. I hope to have one infinite COP (the spheres in a constant temp bath) device and a low COP higher power device. I will be lucky to get to 1.33. I have not evaluated the COP level for that one. Again, it is just for the unwashed masses and not as a science item to produce data. It took me a while to figure out something visual for the public to show heat production and compare it to a control. Something that does not require any calculation- just comparisons. (but yes, a passerby could put on a clamp amp meter if they enjoy that kind of thing.) I know it will tick of Jed, but it is just for fun and to stimulate public interest in the field - nothing more. D2 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:28:09 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Yes, think of the plasma globe type lights. I have a central electrode (actually W rod held by a Cu tube). It is within a brass sphere holding my material. But the material is only stuck to the lower half on the wall. If this info is not closely held, does this electrode produce a spark? If not what does it do? On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:42 AM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 22:38:55 -0400 That is very interesting Dennis. If I understand you correctly, you solve the thermal run away problem by extracting heat fast enough to keep the thermal positive feedback loop gain below unity. That should work provided there is enough energy released per pulse of drive to achieve a high enough COP. Yes, that is the way I look at it. You can get large COP at lower outputs and lower temps. For example I have a small unit with no sparking that has infinite COP but only fractional watts of excess. The behavior that you describe would not depend upon very much gain being augmented by thermal feedback as I suspect that Rossi is relying upon. Do you understand why a spark would be so efficient at producing LENR? You mention local heating as a possible factor, which certainly could cause small hot regions to develop. Is this the key to high gain without meltdown? There must be a thermal path out of the region to take away the heat at the right speed. I assume that that could be done by adjusting the particle size and packing, but in my case, the metal host occupies pores within carbon. Once a hot spot is initiated, what prevents the heat from spreading rapidly into the adjacent material and causing a sudden extreme burst of energy? Perhaps the distribution of active hydrogen in the NAE is such that areas capable of spreading the heat only exist in small patches and are easy to extinguish. If this is true, new active regions would need to form in time to take over the process as others die out. Again, I believe the rates have an exponential them. coef. Notice in my case the active regions are isolated via the carbon. So as the heat spreads other regions would not be at as high a temp. and have a much lower heat production rate. The slowly extinguish as the spark moves to other regions. So what functions does the spark perform in a system of this type? Heating of a small region makes a great deal of sense as each spark strikes the surface. Also, do you expect that the spark breaks apart the hydrogen molecules as a second function? I can imagine a rain of protons falling upon the metal due to ionization as another
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
Thanks for the clarification Dennis. I wish you luck at the NI booth and perhaps DGT will have something that trumps yours, but it appears that you are in the running. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jul 10, 2013 10:42 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 22:38:55 -0400 That is very interesting Dennis. If I understand you correctly, you solve the thermal run away problem by extracting heat fast enough to keep the thermal positive feedback loop gain below unity. That should work provided there is enough energy released per pulse of drive to achieve a high enough COP. Yes, that is the way I look at it. You can get large COP at lower outputs and lower temps. For example I have a small unit with no sparking that has infinite COP but only fractional watts of excess. The behavior that you describe would not depend upon very much gain being augmented by thermal feedback as I suspect that Rossi is relying upon. Do you understand why a spark would be so efficient at producing LENR? You mention local heating as a possible factor, which certainly could cause small hot regions to develop. Is this the key to high gain without meltdown? There must be a thermal path out of the region to take away the heat at the right speed. I assume that that could be done by adjusting the particle size and packing, but in my case, the metal host occupies pores within carbon. Once a hot spot is initiated, what prevents the heat from spreading rapidly into the adjacent material and causing a sudden extreme burst of energy? Perhaps the distribution of active hydrogen in the NAE is such that areas capable of spreading the heat only exist in small patches and are easy to extinguish. If this is true, new active regions would need to form in time to take over the process as others die out. Again, I believe the rates have an exponential them. coef. Notice in my case the active regions are isolated via the carbon. So as the heat spreads other regions would not be at as high a temp. and have a much lower heat production rate. The slowly extinguish as the spark moves to other regions. So what functions does the spark perform in a system of this type? Heating of a small region makes a great deal of sense as each spark strikes the surface. Also, do you expect that the spark breaks apart the hydrogen molecules as a second function? I can imagine a rain of protons falling upon the metal due to ionization as another possible piece of the puzzle. The spark just causes very high local temps. I don't really see the spark functioning to ionize the H (my case D and H). I think it is the H already in the lattice that reacts. Has there been evidence of enhanced reaction caused be the magnetic field associated with the currents entering or leaving the metal surfaces? If I recall, DGT speaks of dipole behavior of Ryndberg hydrogen helping out. Can you describe any evidence of this? Yes, it seems that the reaction is almost linear in respect to the B field. (also linear with mass, and expon. in terms of Energy of vacancy formation. (that is why Ag helps Pd system and Cu and Pd . helps Ni systems.) I believe that the H occupies or must move through the vacancies. The occupation of H in a vacancy is likely in a controlling pathway. Your bowl shaped targets are quite interesting to consider. Does the bowl tend to spread out the spark contact region? Yes, think of the plasma globe type lights. I have a central electrode (actually W rod held by a Cu tube). It is within a brass sphere holding my material. But the material is only stuck to the lower half on the wall. From what you describe it appears that your reaction is almost entirely a surface effect. Would you expect a very thin layer of active metal to work in the same manner? A thin coating layered upon another passive metal might be helpful in preventing a large scale thermal event. Maybe one of Axils heat pipes underneath could extract the heat quickly enough to enhance the net energy density. Yes, one configuration (I have 4) has variable heat conductive heat pipes. I have to juggle the heat extraction and production. (changes contact areas) Do you have to worry about the destruction of your active material as the process operates? If I turn it up to much my material is destroyed. In one device, I use internal B fields (added Sm 2 Co 17 powder) and it will demagnetize. Are you planning to demonstrate one of your devices at the conference? At NI Week (Booth 922). It will be just a golly gee type of demo not a science prove it demo. Small in the few watt range. I hope to be upstaged by Defkalion. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
As strange as it may sound at first, your approach is similar to what DGT is doing. DGT uses Ni foam to protect their powder from the high heat of the spark as you are doing. DGT: “We then had to protect the modified Ni crystals from the high temperatures around the glow discharges (3500 K at its surface, 14000 K in the kernel)[4] distributing them in a special designed “cage” of Ni foam of the same size (5 microns, 200 microns of porous)” Alain Sepeda said in a post dated may 30 I found that Nelson report reporting KCO3 usage by DGT: http://ecatnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Summary-of-Visit-to-Defkalion.pdf From A to B, the temperature of the active chamber continues to rise prior to initiation of triggering. This is explained as a chemical reaction occurring between the 3 components added to the Nickel Powder to enhance the reaction 1 of which is Potassium Carbonate. I would be interested in a verification of this additive in your reactor. Could you add some Potassium Carbonate to your process to see if the production of Rydberg matter by spark improves your reactivity? On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:16 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: ?? yes it produces sparks or arcs or discharge I am not sure of the technical variations. I am using a modified strobe light circuit. I cannot see into the good brass sphere. I do have a cut away mockup of the sphere (I will have that with my demo). The terminal ending moves among the various locations. Most of the time the sparks terminate on one of the metal containing carbon particles. They are higher than the binder that holds them. There is a little more to it than that- actually the lower half of the sphere has an internal insulation layer to help it from too much heat loss, a conductive connection between the brass sphere and the conductive binder holding the particles. The upper half is empty or should I say filled with gas so there can be convection movement of the gas. One think I did learn from Les Case is that there must be convection or flow of H through the material, or mixing of the powders in the gas. (note: as mentioned in some of my earlier post, I am using mesopore carbon to contain my metal host lattice - which is a doped metal to lower its E of vac. formation - I have not bought into the transmutation of Nickel idea and am using mostly D not H) The sphere I will have at the NI demo is self sustaining at low power. But only when brought up in temp. I will be holding it at 75C in an Al bead dry bath. You can compare its temp to the control sphere. I hope to have one infinite COP (the spheres in a constant temp bath) device and a low COP higher power device. I will be lucky to get to 1.33. I have not evaluated the COP level for that one. Again, it is just for the unwashed masses and not as a science item to produce data. It took me a while to figure out something visual for the public to show heat production and compare it to a control. Something that does not require any calculation- just comparisons. (but yes, a passerby could put on a clamp amp meter if they enjoy that kind of thing.) I know it will tick of Jed, but it is just for fun and to stimulate public interest in the field - nothing more. D2 -- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:28:09 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com *Yes, think of the plasma globe type lights. I have a central electrode (actually W rod held by a Cu tube). It is within a brass sphere holding my material. But the material is only stuck to the lower half on the wall. * ** *If this info is not closely held, does this electrode produce a spark? If not what does it do?* On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:42 AM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.comwrote: -- To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 22:38:55 -0400 That is very interesting Dennis. If I understand you correctly, you solve the thermal run away problem by extracting heat fast enough to keep the thermal positive feedback loop gain below unity. That should work provided there is enough energy released per pulse of drive to achieve a high enough COP. *Yes, that is the way I look at it. You can get large COP at lower outputs and lower temps. For example I have a small unit with no sparking that has infinite COP but only fractional watts of excess. * The behavior that you describe would not depend upon very much gain being augmented by thermal feedback as I suspect that Rossi is relying upon. Do you understand why a spark would be so efficient at producing LENR? You mention local heating as a possible factor, which certainly could cause small hot regions to develop. Is this the key to high gain without meltdown? *There must be a thermal path out of the region to take away
RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
Thanks, but I am not really trying to compete with DGT or Rossi. I am just doing it to see if it can be done, and to give my swansong farewell before I retire to my arm chair. That is enough for me. I tried the commercialization path and got burned. never again. I have published papers on practical methods to observe the effect. The knowledge base is there for anyone who wants to look. I had a working device on a board table of a major corp, (actually two different companies) and had their technicians measure and verify and it went nowhere - back in the CETI days. I don't believe a word that Jed says about corporations jumping in and throwing money at commercialization. The proof and methodology is already there. We must first change the public perception. :) If you show up at NI, stop by, introduce yourself and I will heat up a cup of tea for you. (OK only COP 1.1 - I hope- but still ) :) I really do want DGT to upstage me. Dennis To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:21:37 -0400 Thanks for the clarification Dennis. I wish you luck at the NI booth and perhaps DGT will have something that trumps yours, but it appears that you are in the running. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jul 10, 2013 10:42 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 22:38:55 -0400 That is very interesting Dennis. If I understand you correctly, you solve the thermal run away problem by extracting heat fast enough to keep the thermal positive feedback loop gain below unity. That should work provided there is enough energy released per pulse of drive to achieve a high enough COP. Yes, that is the way I look at it. You can get large COP at lower outputs and lower temps. For example I have a small unit with no sparking that has infinite COP but only fractional watts of excess. The behavior that you describe would not depend upon very much gain being augmented by thermal feedback as I suspect that Rossi is relying upon. Do you understand why a spark would be so efficient at producing LENR? You mention local heating as a possible factor, which certainly could cause small hot regions to develop. Is this the key to high gain without meltdown? There must be a thermal path out of the region to take away the heat at the right speed. I assume that that could be done by adjusting the particle size and packing, but in my case, the metal host occupies pores within carbon. Once a hot spot is initiated, what prevents the heat from spreading rapidly into the adjacent material and causing a sudden extreme burst of energy? Perhaps the distribution of active hydrogen in the NAE is such that areas capable of spreading the heat only exist in small patches and are easy to extinguish. If this is true, new active regions would need to form in time to take over the process as others die out. Again, I believe the rates have an exponential them. coef. Notice in my case the active regions are isolated via the carbon. So as the heat spreads other regions would not be at as high a temp. and have a much lower heat production rate. The slowly extinguish as the spark moves to other regions. So what functions does the spark perform in a system of this type? Heating of a small region makes a great deal of sense as each spark strikes the surface. Also, do you expect that the spark breaks apart the hydrogen molecules as a second function? I can imagine a rain of protons falling upon the metal due to ionization as another possible piece of the puzzle. The spark just causes very high local temps. I don't really see the spark functioning to ionize the H (my case D and H). I think it is the H already in the lattice that reacts. Has there been evidence of enhanced reaction caused be the magnetic field associated with the currents entering or leaving the metal surfaces? If I recall, DGT speaks of dipole behavior of Ryndberg hydrogen helping out. Can you describe any evidence of this? Yes, it seems that the reaction is almost linear in respect to the B field. (also linear with mass, and expon. in terms of Energy of vacancy formation. (that is why Ag helps Pd system and Cu and Pd . helps Ni systems.) I believe that the H occupies or must move through the vacancies. The occupation of H in a vacancy is likely in a controlling pathway. Your bowl shaped targets are quite interesting to consider. Does the bowl tend to spread out the spark contact region? Yes, think of the plasma globe type lights. I have a central electrode (actually W rod held by a Cu tube
RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
I do not want to reveal my formulation at this time. However, I would say that K and other things that can lower the energy of vacancy formation are useful. I prefer Li if I use an alkaline. I often reduce my metal after placed in C with Li Al hydride. I have tried to use Ni foam (http://mtixtl.com/nickelfoamforbatterycathodesubstrate1mlengthx300mmwidthx1.6mm.aspx ) I could not get it alone to work for me. It does if plated with other materials. But only marginally so. However recall I am doing things with D (or D with H impurities) and not H. I don't think that the spark is required. After all I have a warm sphere that sits and stays warm for months on end with on input. (but only if there is space available for convection flow) I think it is just giving a local hot spot. Part of that is from the laser/electrochemical experiments. Perhaps it helps pump things in and out of the material. I have turned to loaded Carbon particles. Since I can make it easier and keep the particles from sintering. Also I can make it in bulk. (you can get buckets/barrels of the stuff) I started with ceramics to isolate the particles but I could not get enough current to pass. Also the Carbon helps me keep the metal on the reduced side. What would be great to try (but costly) would be to try an IR laser to locally heat areas. D2 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:58:53 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com As strange as it may sound at first, your approach is similar to what DGT is doing. DGT uses Ni foam to protect their powder from the high heat of the spark as you are doing. DGT: “We then had to protect the modified Ni crystals from the high temperatures around the glow discharges (3500 K at its surface, 14000 K in the kernel)[4] distributing them in a special designed “cage” of Ni foam of the same size (5 microns, 200 microns of porous)” Alain Sepeda said in a post dated may 30 I found that Nelson report reporting KCO3 usage by DGT: http://ecatnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Summary-of-Visit-to-Defkalion.pdf From A to B, the temperature of the active chamber continues to rise prior to initiation of triggering. This is explained as a chemical reaction occurring between the 3 components added to the Nickel Powder to enhance the reaction 1 of which is Potassium Carbonate. I would be interested in a verification of this additive in your reactor. Could you add some Potassium Carbonate to your process to see if the production of Rydberg matter by spark improves your reactivity? On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:16 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: ?? yes it produces sparks or arcs or discharge I am not sure of the technical variations. I am using a modified strobe light circuit. I cannot see into the good brass sphere. I do have a cut away mockup of the sphere (I will have that with my demo). The terminal ending moves among the various locations. Most of the time the sparks terminate on one of the metal containing carbon particles. They are higher than the binder that holds them. There is a little more to it than that- actually the lower half of the sphere has an internal insulation layer to help it from too much heat loss, a conductive connection between the brass sphere and the conductive binder holding the particles. The upper half is empty or should I say filled with gas so there can be convection movement of the gas. One think I did learn from Les Case is that there must be convection or flow of H through the material, or mixing of the powders in the gas. (note: as mentioned in some of my earlier post, I am using mesopore carbon to contain my metal host lattice - which is a doped metal to lower its E of vac. formation - I have not bought into the transmutation of Nickel idea and am using mostly D not H) The sphere I will have at the NI demo is self sustaining at low power. But only when brought up in temp. I will be holding it at 75C in an Al bead dry bath. You can compare its temp to the control sphere. I hope to have one infinite COP (the spheres in a constant temp bath) device and a low COP higher power device. I will be lucky to get to 1.33. I have not evaluated the COP level for that one. Again, it is just for the unwashed masses and not as a science item to produce data. It took me a while to figure out something visual for the public to show heat production and compare it to a control. Something that does not require any calculation- just comparisons. (but yes, a passerby could put on a clamp amp meter if they enjoy that kind of thing.) I know it will tick of Jed, but it is just for fun and to stimulate public interest in the field - nothing more. D2 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:28:09 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Yes, think of the plasma globe type
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: I had a working device on a board table of a major corp, (actually two different companies) and had their technicians measure and verify and it went nowhere - back in the CETI days. Are you are talking about the CETI demonstration they showed in the hotel next to Disneyland? The one that was supposed to impress Motorola. That was a DISGRACE!!! It was horrible. They did not even have a written description of it! When I wrote one, they used mine, for crying out loud. Without permission. This was after they almost threw me out because I wanted to their temperature (which was right) and flow (which was wrong). And why was it so bad? For the most idiotic reason imaginable. Patterson and Reding told me that they deliberately designed that to be unimpressive. They wanted to sway Motorola but not excite anyone else's interest. It was supposed to be carefully calibrated to be bad -- dreadful, really -- but just a smidgen good enough to bring in $20 million. It was enough to make me throw up. When I told Chris Tinsley about it on the phone that night I was hopping mad. Furious. By the time I finished we were both laughing hysterically. Chris and I had had experience doing demonstrations of products at trade shows. We knew a disaster when we saw it. If that was your idea of a demonstration you have no clue. I don't believe a word that Jed says about corporations jumping in and throwing money at commercialization. I repeat, if you think a corporation or any sane investor would put money into something as poorly presented as that, you have no clue. That demonstration made Rossi look like a consummate professional. I will grant the thing was probably working as claimed. As far as I could tell, it was. But if it had been done properly, with proper instruments, a written description and a professional presentation script, I could have used to that device to convince any corporation on earth. I could have brought in $100 million *in my sleep*. I offered to do this but Patterson rejected all offers of help, just as Rossi and others have done. Patterson told me he wanted a 100% market share. He got that, and took it to the grave with him. 100% of nothing. The proof and methodology is already there. We must first change the public perception. Oh, please. You have NEVER TRIED to change public perception. You will not even upload a paper to LENR-CANR.org. You have not lifted a finger to change public perception. I have done that. You have contributed nothing because you hide your light under a bushel. (You do not publish your results.) A person who does research but does not publish is no scientist. Rossi is no scientist, but he does research and tries to sell, so he is a businessman, instead. You are neither. Patterson was neither. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
It does not surprise me to hear about your lack of a positive reception by major corporations. I have witnessed similar things before and it appears to be a combination of fear and disbelief that slows these guys down. Fear is very real when someone gets behind a new concept that might fail. The rewards for success generally are not known, but if you cost your company many megabucks by making a major mistake, they will remember it well. The funny thing is that once one group demonstrates that LENR devices are real and sellable, then everyone will jump on board. No one but the brave need attempt the introduction of new technology that is unproven. And the second problem you faced is lack of credibility which is much like what we see from the pseudoskeptics on this list. There is no amount of proof available that they will accept. Cude would rather boil in oil heated by an ECAT than believe that it is possible. Until the physics community agrees that LENR exists, we will always run into stiff resistance. In this case, I suspect that Rossi has the correct idea. Who can doubt the existence of a device that can be bought at a local hardware store? Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jul 10, 2013 2:59 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? Thanks, but I am not really trying to compete with DGT or Rossi. I am just doing it to see if it can be done, and to give my swansong farewell before I retire to my arm chair. That is enough for me. I tried the commercialization path and got burned. never again. I have published papers on practical methods to observe the effect. The knowledge base is there for anyone who wants to look. I had a working device on a board table of a major corp, (actually two different companies) and had their technicians measure and verify and it went nowhere - back in the CETI days. I don't believe a word that Jed says about corporations jumping in and throwing money at commercialization. The proof and methodology is already there. We must first change the public perception. :) If you show up at NI, stop by, introduce yourself and I will heat up a cup of tea for you. (OK only COP 1.1 - I hope- but still ) :) I really do want DGT to upstage me. Dennis To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:21:37 -0400 Thanks for the clarification Dennis. I wish you luck at the NI booth and perhaps DGT will have something that trumps yours, but it appears that you are in the running. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jul 10, 2013 10:42 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 22:38:55 -0400 That is very interesting Dennis. If I understand you correctly, you solve the thermal run away problem by extracting heat fast enough to keep the thermal positive feedback loop gain below unity. That should work provided there is enough energy released per pulse of drive to achieve a high enough COP. Yes, that is the way I look at it. You can get large COP at lower outputs and lower temps. For example I have a small unit with no sparking that has infinite COP but only fractional watts of excess. The behavior that you describe would not depend upon very much gain being augmented by thermal feedback as I suspect that Rossi is relying upon. Do you understand why a spark would be so efficient at producing LENR? You mention local heating as a possible factor, which certainly could cause small hot regions to develop. Is this the key to high gain without meltdown? There must be a thermal path out of the region to take away the heat at the right speed. I assume that that could be done by adjusting the particle size and packing, but in my case, the metal host occupies pores within carbon. Once a hot spot is initiated, what prevents the heat from spreading rapidly into the adjacent material and causing a sudden extreme burst of energy? Perhaps the distribution of active hydrogen in the NAE is such that areas capable of spreading the heat only exist in small patches and are easy to extinguish. If this is true, new active regions would need to form in time to take over the process as others die out. Again, I believe the rates have an exponential them. coef. Notice in my case the active regions are isolated via the carbon. So as the heat spreads other regions would not be at as high a temp. and have a much lower heat production rate. The slowly extinguish as the spark moves to other regions. So what functions does the spark perform in a system of this type? Heating of a small region makes a great
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
LENR is EASY to demonstrate to any educated person. The problem is not that a plausible demonstration is impossible because skepticism is too strong. The problem is simply ignorance of two kinds. Ignorance of one kind has been identified by Jed and many other people. This kind of ignorance was demonstrated most clearly by Patterson years ago and Rossi now. Trying to prove LENR is real using heat production alone is futile. No one, including myself, would be impressed by the output of any calorimeter because too many ways are available to fake or screwup. Belief in the reality of the general effect is possible only because hundreds of calorimeters have been used and combined with other behavior. A single calorimeter means NOTHING, especially when it is in the hands of someone who knows nothing about the method and has a self-interest to be non-objective. Nevertheless, the effect has been demonstrated well enough to people who read and can understand what they read. Unfortunately, this is not a general ability these days, especially when unusual nuclear processes are the subject. Ignorance of the other kind is based on failure to understand the basic nature of the LENR effect. LENR makes three unusual and characteristic products that can be easily measured. These are: heat, weak photon radiation, and tritium. Showing a correlation between these three effects in real time would provide overwhelming proof that a nuclear reaction is occurring. This can be easily done provided the required skill is available, which unfortunately is not often the case. This correlation becomes obvious when changes are made in the operating conditions that affect each of the behaviors. This correlation can ONLY result from a nuclear reaction and cannot be faked by unknown applied power. Occurrence of a nuclear reaction is the only proof that matters. Once a nuclear reaction is demonstrated to occur, making commercial energy only requires good engineering. Instead, Rossi, starts by trying to master the engineering problems without demonstrating the source of energy. This is like trying to build a fission reactor without understanding anything about the fission process. I expect Rossi and DGT are hoping to get enough money to find out how the process works before anyone else discovers the secret and solves the engineering problems more efficiently. I predict this hope will fail. That is my two cents worth. Ed On Jul 10, 2013, at 1:34 PM, David Roberson wrote: It does not surprise me to hear about your lack of a positive reception by major corporations. I have witnessed similar things before and it appears to be a combination of fear and disbelief that slows these guys down. Fear is very real when someone gets behind a new concept that might fail. The rewards for success generally are not known, but if you cost your company many megabucks by making a major mistake, they will remember it well. The funny thing is that once one group demonstrates that LENR devices are real and sellable, then everyone will jump on board. No one but the brave need attempt the introduction of new technology that is unproven. And the second problem you faced is lack of credibility which is much like what we see from the pseudoskeptics on this list. There is no amount of proof available that they will accept. Cude would rather boil in oil heated by an ECAT than believe that it is possible. Until the physics community agrees that LENR exists, we will always run into stiff resistance. In this case, I suspect that Rossi has the correct idea. Who can doubt the existence of a device that can be bought at a local hardware store? Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jul 10, 2013 2:59 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? Thanks, but I am not really trying to compete with DGT or Rossi. I am just doing it to see if it can be done, and to give my swansong farewell before I retire to my arm chair. That is enough for me. I tried the commercialization path and got burned. never again. I have published papers on practical methods to observe the effect. The knowledge base is there for anyone who wants to look. I had a working device on a board table of a major corp, (actually two different companies) and had their technicians measure and verify and it went nowhere - back in the CETI days. I don't believe a word that Jed says about corporations jumping in and throwing money at commercialization. The proof and methodology is already there. We must first change the public perception. :) If you show up at NI, stop by, introduce yourself and I will heat up a cup of tea for you. (OK only COP 1.1 - I hope- but still ) :) I really do want DGT to upstage me. Dennis To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 9 Jul 2013 23:40:10 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] Robin, do you see any reason why the particles leaving the active region would exit the opposite side when such a low energy input is applied? I would expect to see a random distribution. This effect, if true, would appear like a stimulated emission process. :) Wow, now we have a particle laser! Dave Whatever the real reaction is, it's obviously happening on the rear side. Then particles are heading in both directions, but those pointed back toward the source are absorbed by the material. Ti like Pd and Ni is permeable to H, if I'm not mistaken, so the D ions that are brought to a stop on the front side, can migrate through the material to the rear side. The fact that no (or few?) reactions are detected on the front side shows that the reaction is not a typical hot fusion reaction. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Ignorance of one kind has been identified by Jed and many other people. This kind of ignorance was demonstrated most clearly by Patterson years ago and Rossi now. Yes indeed. It is enough to make you weep. Thank goodness Rossi has overcome this enough to allow the Levi report. He could do far more, needless to say. He is now on the right track. Let's give him credit. Trying to prove LENR is real using heat production alone is futile. No one, including myself, would be impressed by the output of any calorimeter because too many ways are available to fake or screwup. Belief in the reality of the general effect is possible only because hundreds of calorimeters have been used and combined with other behavior. YES! This is very important. It is another reason Tinsley and I were upset after the CETI non-demonstration. We thought they should provide context, and show that their results were in line with others. They should have pointed to FP, McKubre, Storms and others. I said they should have prepared a presentation. I mean a technical sales presentation suitable for an audience of engineers. A prepared talk and a handout. This list of other researchers is one of the things the presentation should have included. A single calorimeter means NOTHING, especially when it is in the hands of someone who knows nothing about the method and has a self-interest to be non-objective. True. On the other hand, with 300 W in and 900 W, Rossi could make a more convincing calorimeter than most people can. If he can make one self sustain for hours that would be very convincing. Nevertheless, the effect has been demonstrated well enough to people who read and can understand what they read. Yes! But you have make a professional presentation. Whether it is an academic style presentation suitable for ICCF18, or a commercial presentation suitable for investors, you must put your best foot forward. Show your best data. Use the best instruments you can afford. There is not much difference between an academic presentation and a technical sales presentation. Unfortunately, the Defkalion presentations look more like an automobile trade show presentation meant to impress the general public. That is not what I have in mind. This may be useful at some point, but not now. Especially not for the audience at ICCF conferences. Occurrence of a nuclear reaction is the only proof that matters. This, I disagree with. Heat is the only thing that matters. Heat is worth money. Money is what investors want. They don't care whether it is nuclear or angel farts. Instead, Rossi, starts by trying to master the engineering problems without demonstrating the source of energy. Well, that is what he is capable of. He is an engineer, not a physicist. If he keeps doing this and he allows the customers near the product I am sure he will soon be swimming in money. Unless someone steals it from him. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
re read what I wrote. I said a board room not a hotel room. It was a board room with board members, president of a company, technical advisors showing the results of the tests. It is things like that make inventors not trust you or your motives. I personal resent you calling activities disgraceful and horrible. I thought that Vortex rules prevented such things. I will defend myself You keep making claims of being able to bring mega buck and big companies. You talk about the need to save the planet. But then you say you will not even sign a NDA. Why not sign, go convince yourself and then bring your big mega buck friends and let them see it. Or would they not believe you. You use your personal NDA views as an excuse for doing nothing. Why do you think others are wrong if they do not give you data when you won't even show yourself trustworthy? You do not publish your results.-You are totally wrong and misleading. You keep perpetuating this mistruth as if by saying many times it will come true. This is why many inventors do not trust you. You have or had several of my papers on lenr canr. You know that! Do you deny it? I just did a search on LENR CANR and find 122 hits. I have papers, and people know them and reference them. My guess is you will scrub them now like Mitch S. But you keep saying these things. You also know I gave the review and keynote speech at ICCF 14 If you don't believe it, here is a link to SK's video of it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mskdJ31FXYg It was a review and things needed to see the effect and designed especially to help young researchers a start. I also gave papers at talk at ICCF10, 4, 7,.. coauthored papers with Peter H in MIT tech etc. Review facts before you attack. Stick to the facts not dreams in your sleep of how you will save the field by mega buck friends. Dennis Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 15:20:44 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: I had a working device on a board table of a major corp, (actually two different companies) and had their technicians measure and verify and it went nowhere - back in the CETI days. Are you are talking about the CETI demonstration they showed in the hotel next to Disneyland? The one that was supposed to impress Motorola. That was a DISGRACE!!! It was horrible. They did not even have a written description of it! When I wrote one, they used mine, for crying out loud. Without permission. This was after they almost threw me out because I wanted to their temperature (which was right) and flow (which was wrong). And why was it so bad? For the most idiotic reason imaginable. Patterson and Reding told me that they deliberately designed that to be unimpressive. They wanted to sway Motorola but not excite anyone else's interest. It was supposed to be carefully calibrated to be bad -- dreadful, really -- but just a smidgen good enough to bring in $20 million. It was enough to make me throw up. When I told Chris Tinsley about it on the phone that night I was hopping mad. Furious. By the time I finished we were both laughing hysterically. Chris and I had had experience doing demonstrations of products at trade shows. We knew a disaster when we saw it. If that was your idea of a demonstration you have no clue. I don't believe a word that Jed says about corporations jumping in and throwing money at commercialization. I repeat, if you think a corporation or any sane investor would put money into something as poorly presented as that, you have no clue. That demonstration made Rossi look like a consummate professional. I will grant the thing was probably working as claimed. As far as I could tell, it was. But if it had been done properly, with proper instruments, a written description and a professional presentation script, I could have used to that device to convince any corporation on earth. I could have brought in $100 million in my sleep. I offered to do this but Patterson rejected all offers of help, just as Rossi and others have done. Patterson told me he wanted a 100% market share. He got that, and took it to the grave with him. 100% of nothing. The proof and methodology is already there. We must first change the public perception. Oh, please. You have NEVER TRIED to change public perception. You will not even upload a paper to LENR-CANR.org. You have not lifted a finger to change public perception. I have done that. You have contributed nothing because you hide your light under a bushel. (You do not publish your results.) A person who does research but does not publish is no scientist. Rossi is no scientist, but he does research and tries to sell, so he is a businessman, instead. You are neither. Patterson was neither. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
Come to think about it, the High School reactor also uses a stark discharge into a liquid emulation of random diameter tungsten micro/nano powder and a potassium salt. They claim a COP of 4.** * * On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:16 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: ?? yes it produces sparks or arcs or discharge I am not sure of the technical variations. I am using a modified strobe light circuit. I cannot see into the good brass sphere. I do have a cut away mockup of the sphere (I will have that with my demo). The terminal ending moves among the various locations. Most of the time the sparks terminate on one of the metal containing carbon particles. They are higher than the binder that holds them. There is a little more to it than that- actually the lower half of the sphere has an internal insulation layer to help it from too much heat loss, a conductive connection between the brass sphere and the conductive binder holding the particles. The upper half is empty or should I say filled with gas so there can be convection movement of the gas. One think I did learn from Les Case is that there must be convection or flow of H through the material, or mixing of the powders in the gas. (note: as mentioned in some of my earlier post, I am using mesopore carbon to contain my metal host lattice - which is a doped metal to lower its E of vac. formation - I have not bought into the transmutation of Nickel idea and am using mostly D not H) The sphere I will have at the NI demo is self sustaining at low power. But only when brought up in temp. I will be holding it at 75C in an Al bead dry bath. You can compare its temp to the control sphere. I hope to have one infinite COP (the spheres in a constant temp bath) device and a low COP higher power device. I will be lucky to get to 1.33. I have not evaluated the COP level for that one. Again, it is just for the unwashed masses and not as a science item to produce data. It took me a while to figure out something visual for the public to show heat production and compare it to a control. Something that does not require any calculation- just comparisons. (but yes, a passerby could put on a clamp amp meter if they enjoy that kind of thing.) I know it will tick of Jed, but it is just for fun and to stimulate public interest in the field - nothing more. D2 -- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:28:09 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com *Yes, think of the plasma globe type lights. I have a central electrode (actually W rod held by a Cu tube). It is within a brass sphere holding my material. But the material is only stuck to the lower half on the wall. * ** *If this info is not closely held, does this electrode produce a spark? If not what does it do?* On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:42 AM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.comwrote: -- To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 22:38:55 -0400 That is very interesting Dennis. If I understand you correctly, you solve the thermal run away problem by extracting heat fast enough to keep the thermal positive feedback loop gain below unity. That should work provided there is enough energy released per pulse of drive to achieve a high enough COP. *Yes, that is the way I look at it. You can get large COP at lower outputs and lower temps. For example I have a small unit with no sparking that has infinite COP but only fractional watts of excess. * The behavior that you describe would not depend upon very much gain being augmented by thermal feedback as I suspect that Rossi is relying upon. Do you understand why a spark would be so efficient at producing LENR? You mention local heating as a possible factor, which certainly could cause small hot regions to develop. Is this the key to high gain without meltdown? *There must be a thermal path out of the region to take away the heat at the right speed. I assume that that could be done by adjusting the particle size and packing, but in my case, the metal host occupies pores within carbon. * Once a hot spot is initiated, what prevents the heat from spreading rapidly into the adjacent material and causing a sudden extreme burst of energy? Perhaps the distribution of active hydrogen in the NAE is such that areas capable of spreading the heat only exist in small patches and are easy to extinguish. If this is true, new active regions would need to form in time to take over the process as others die out. *Again, I believe the rates have an exponential them. coef. Notice in my case the active regions are isolated via the carbon. So as the heat spreads other regions would not be at as high a temp. and have a much lower heat production rate. The slowly extinguish as the spark moves to other regions
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
On Jul 10, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: This, I disagree with. Heat is the only thing that matters. Heat is worth money. Money is what investors want. They don't care whether it is nuclear or angel farts. The source determines the engineering behavior, the life-time, and the cost. I would imagine angel farts would be of limited supply. :-) As I have been saying many times, if the reaction is nuclear and is described by my model, Rossi and DGT are making tritium. This is essential to know. That is why the kind of reaction is essential to know before the process is made commercial. Instead, Rossi, starts by trying to master the engineering problems without demonstrating the source of energy. Well, that is what he is capable of. He is an engineer, not a physicist. If he keeps doing this and he allows the customers near the product I am sure he will soon be swimming in money. Unless someone steals it from him. That I expect that will happen. His granted patent is a joke and he has no idea what is causing the heat. Until he understand the process, he can not write a useful patent. He is in a serious situation. The more other people publish, the less basic understanding is available to patent because it becomes prior art. At some time, the granted patents will only describe various engineering designs, with each competing for a small part of the market, like selling a better toaster. The basic process will not be granted a patent any more than the laws of thermodynamics could be patented. Ed - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: re read what I wrote. I said a board room not a hotel room. In that case I know nothing about it. I personal resent you calling activities disgraceful and horrible. I resent seeing people piss away $20 million. I thought that Vortex rules prevented such things. I will defend myself I am talking about Patterson. You played only a bit role. You keep making claims of being able to bring mega buck and big companies. You talk about the need to save the planet. But then you say you will not even sign a NDA. Why not sign, go convince yourself and then bring your big mega buck friends and let them see it. You have that backward! I would not need to sign an NDA if I am presenting the information. As it happens, I have no secret information. Or would they not believe you. They believe me. That's why people download so many papers. You use your personal NDA views as an excuse for doing nothing. I do plenty! See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthefuturem.pdf Why do you think others are wrong if they do not give you data when you won't even show yourself trustworthy? I am drowning in data! You do not publish your results.-You are totally wrong and misleading. You keep perpetuating this mistruth as if by saying many times it will come true. Let me rephrase: You have not published your results in many years as far as I know. Perhaps I have not kept up with your publications. This is why many inventors do not trust you. Who would that be? You have or had several of my papers on lenr canr. You know that! Do you deny it? Nothing after 2008 and nothing, anywhere, ever about the kind of device you plan to show at NI Week. You have been talking about it for years but as far as I know you have not published so much as a calibration curve. And yet you expect people to magically know about it! I just did a search on LENR CANR and find 122 hits. I have papers, and people know them and reference them. My guess is you will scrub them now like Mitch S. But you keep saying these things. Mitch S. sent me two letters saying he would sue me if I uploaded his papers or quoted from them. If you send me letters like that, yes, I will scrub your papers. You don't even have to threaten a lawsuit. You tell me to remove them and they will be gone the next day. Several authors asked me to remove papers, usually just one paper, leaving the others. I have not removed any other papers for any other reason. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
You again do not check before replying. You complained that DGT did not send you their data, yet now you say you are drowning in data. Make up you mind. NDA. Re read. I did not say for you to give your claimed big buck friends any NDA information other than to let them know you are convinced with what you saw. If they trust you, they would send people to check themselves. My guess is that your claimed connections do not exist. Name them. You want others to name their business contacts. nothing, anywhere, ever about the kind of device you plan to show at NI Week. --You might want to read some postings on Vortex. There is even a link to a picture of one of my devices.I think it is as basic as it gets. One sphere with a sample hotter than the control in the same constant temperature bath. There are also descriptions of the device. I even gave the volumes, make of the bath.. see for example: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg83809.html Check your facts before your attacks. I have not described the second device. Only that I hope it to be visually interesting for a passerby. You assume too much. How do you know if I have funding or not and for what? You need to avoid attacking so much and not criticize other's path of actions as though you alone know what is best for others. If DGT wants to go the NDA route then let them. You do not know their or anyone else's constraints or who might be helping them. And never, ever, have you offered to help write or correct one of my papers. You have only presented attacks and criticisms.. Fact. D2 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 19:34:28 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: re read what I wrote. I said a board room not a hotel room. In that case I know nothing about it. I personal resent you calling activities disgraceful and horrible. I resent seeing people piss away $20 million. I thought that Vortex rules prevented such things. I will defend myself I am talking about Patterson. You played only a bit role. You keep making claims of being able to bring mega buck and big companies. You talk about the need to save the planet. But then you say you will not even sign a NDA. Why not sign, go convince yourself and then bring your big mega buck friends and let them see it. You have that backward! I would not need to sign an NDA if I am presenting the information. As it happens, I have no secret information. Or would they not believe you. They believe me. That's why people download so many papers. You use your personal NDA views as an excuse for doing nothing. I do plenty! See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthefuturem.pdf Why do you think others are wrong if they do not give you data when you won't even show yourself trustworthy? I am drowning in data! You do not publish your results.-You are totally wrong and misleading. You keep perpetuating this mistruth as if by saying many times it will come true. Let me rephrase: You have not published your results in many years as far as I know. Perhaps I have not kept up with your publications. This is why many inventors do not trust you. Who would that be? You have or had several of my papers on lenr canr. You know that! Do you deny it? Nothing after 2008 and nothing, anywhere, ever about the kind of device you plan to show at NI Week. You have been talking about it for years but as far as I know you have not published so much as a calibration curve. And yet you expect people to magically know about it! I just did a search on LENR CANR and find 122 hits. I have papers, and people know them and reference them. My guess is you will scrub them now like Mitch S. But you keep saying these things. Mitch S. sent me two letters saying he would sue me if I uploaded his papers or quoted from them. If you send me letters like that, yes, I will scrub your papers. You don't even have to threaten a lawsuit. You tell me to remove them and they will be gone the next day. Several authors asked me to remove papers, usually just one paper, leaving the others. I have not removed any other papers for any other reason. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: You again do not check before replying. You complained that DGT did not send you their data, yet now you say you are drowning in data. I am not complaining that DGT has not sent me data. I don't give a damn about that. If they don't want me to know, I don't want to hear about it. I am complaining that they are making fools of themselves and presenting perfume advertisements at ICCF conferences instead of physics papers. It is embarrassing to watch. NDA. Re read. I did not say for you to give your claimed big buck friends any NDA information other than to let them know you are convinced with what you saw. What would I tell them? Someone has made a claim for years but has never published a paper describing it? Any investor would dismiss that, instantly. I might as well recommend they work with Patterson or Case, despite the fact that they are dead. I mean that a person who provides no rigorous, organized information in a paper might as well not exist. Gabbing about something on Vortex does not count. nothing, anywhere, ever about the kind of device you plan to show at NI Week. --You might want to read some postings on Vortex. There is even a link to a picture of one of my devices. I mean a scientific paper. In a proceedings or journal. I am pretty sure you know I mean that. Since I am aware of the existence of your claims, obviously I heard about them on Vortex or somewhere like that. You assume too much. How do you know if I have funding or not and for what? Well you sure have complained enough about not having funding, and being forced to retire! If DGT wants to go the NDA route then let them. How can I stop them? If they want to make themselves look like amateurs at ICCF conferences I can't stop that either. If you want to present papers with spelling errors I can't stop that, either, unless they make me the copy editor again. You and DGC are not the only ones doing this. In cold fusion many people run around acting unprofessional, and then they get upset because people don't respect them. Papers are often filled with spelling errors, contradictions, incorrect units, incomplete thoughts, made-up-terminology and other mistakes that no scientist or engineer should make. I have probably read more papers than anyone but Storms and Britz. I know how abysmal the documents and most of the research in this field is. That is typical of science in this stage, but the people who write that are not doing themselves any favors. You do not know their or anyone else's constraints or who might be helping them. And never, ever, have you offered to help write or correct one of my papers. You have only presented attacks and criticisms.. Fact. Oh Yes I Have. And I repeat that offer here and now. Furthermore, I have extensively edited your papers and the ones you co-authored. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
At 07:34 PM 7/10/2013, you wrote: DJ Cravens mailto:djcrav...@hotmail.comdjcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: I just did a search on LENR CANR and find 122 hits. I have papers, and people know them and reference them. My guess is you will scrub them now like Mitch S. But you keep saying these things. Rothwell: Mitch S. sent me two letters saying he would sue me if I uploaded his papers or quoted from them. If you send me letters like that, yes, I will scrub your papers. You don't even have to threaten a lawsuit. You tell me to remove them and they will be gone the next day. Several authors asked me to remove papers, usually just one paper, leaving the others. I have not removed any other papers for any other reason. - Jed Jed Rothwell is untruthful, always trying to twist the facts to make himself look innocent. The only threats have been from him and his associates. == The science papers we have written improving calorimetry and describing how to achieve CF/LANR have been censored by Jed Rothwell. I, and we, have always given permission to have these papers listed and shared. They were provided for the ICCF Proceedings on time for the publication. We have always expected the ICCF14 papers to be in the Proceedings. Proof for the non-informed? I am so tired of Rothwell's false statements that it is time to let some light on the matter. Dave Nagel, and I, BOTH told Rothwell NOT to remove our seven (7) papers from the Proc. ICCF14.A partial copy, with the relevant parts, of Dave Nagel's letter to me affirming that he also told Rothwell that, is attached. = beginning of email Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:32:33 -0500 To: Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.com From: David J. Nagelna...@gwu.edu Subject: Re: Mitchell, I can say two things in response to your notes. First, the entire proceedings are on the web at the ISCMNS site, as you already know. Jed sent the intact copy of the proceedings to Bill Collis, and Bill put them on his site. That much was done correctly. Second, I wrote Jed emphatically that I did not want a second and incomplete version of the ICCF-14 proceedings in circulation. But, I do not control what Jed posts on his site. Dave === end of email === This copy of that email demonstrates that Dennis is correct and Rothwell light years south of disingenuous. Further supporting this tendency of Rothwell, despite his disingenuous, mutating comments, attention is directed to the fact that it was HE who removed, [in addition to our three papers from ICCF10 (which showed how to do CF/LANR and reported the open five day demonstration)] papers by others such as Dr. Bass, and --so relevant this month-- the late Ken Shoulder's papers. Point of fact, Jed Rothwell is sometimes so unbalanced and malevolent that he was caught, and stopped by Larry Forsley and Dave Nagel, from impetuously taking down one of my posters at ICCF14 in Washington, DC. As yet a further corollary of his bad behavior, it is a fact that Jed nearly always mischaracterizes our work. For example, I just noticed he misstated again on Vortex about the wires leading into the PHUSORS and NANORS, when in fact they are 1 mm diameter. That is mentioned in detail in the censored papers such as Swartz, M., Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. Peter L. Hagelstein, Scott, R. Chubb, World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006). Swartz, M., Excess Power Gain using High Impedance and Codepositional LANR Devices Monitored by Calorimetry, Heat Flow, and Paired Stirling Engines, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-14), 10-15 August 2008, Washington, D.C. Ed: D J. Nagel and M Melich, ISBN: 978-0-578-06694-3, 123, (2010)). Swartz, M., G. Verner, Excess Heat from Low Electrical Conductivity Heavy Water Spiral-Wound Pd/D2O/Pt and Pd/D2O-PdCl2/Pt Devices, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. PHagelstein, S Chubb, World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006). Mitchell Swartz A written fact is considered innately more true than spoken gossip or hearsay, but physical documents have no greater claim to accuracy than an anecdote from an actual eyewitness. Gilbertus Albans, Mentat Discourses on History
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
Dr. Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.com wrote: == *The science papers we have written improving calorimetry and describing how to achieve CF/LANR have been censored by Jed Rothwell. *I, and we, have always given permission to have these papers listed and shared. No, you have not. You are only trying to set me up so you can sue me the way you sued others. I know your tricks. You have tried to play them on other people as well, and they have contacted me. If you want to give me permission you have to send signed, notarized letter to me at the address shown at LENR-CANR, and you have to list every individual title you want me to upload. I have given you a draft of the letter you must send. Sign it, notarize it and mail it, or shut up. Those are my terms. No negotiations. I will NOT -- repeat not -- spend money fighting a nuisance lawsuit from you. You should be thankful I would even consider uploading your papers. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
At 09:34 PM 7/10/2013, you wrote: Dr. Mitchell Swartz mailto:m...@theworld.comm...@theworld.com wrote: == The science papers we have written improving calorimetry and describing how to achieve CF/LANR have been censored by Jed Rothwell. I, and we, have always given permission to have these papers listed and shared. No, you have not. You are only trying to set me up so you can sue me the way you sued others. I know your tricks. You have tried to play them on other people as well, and they have contacted me. If you want to give me permission you have to send signed, notarized letter to me at the address shown at LENR-CANR, and you have to list every individual title you want me to upload. I have given you a draft of the letter you must send. Sign it, notarize it and mail it, or shut up. Those are my terms. No negotiations. I will NOT -- repeat not -- spend money fighting a nuisance lawsuit from you. You should be thankful I would even consider uploading your papers. - Jed Again, Jed Rothwell is not truthful. Since I have not sued anyone in cold fusion, his wild fabrication shows elements of paranoia and disingenuity. As the previously posted Nagel letter shows, Jed has not been honest. The letter proves the seven ICCF14 papers were always censored ... by Jed. They were never missing as he previously claimed before his last allegation re-mutated. I, and we, have always given permission to have these seven papers papers to be listed and shared. The seven papers were provided for the ICCF14 Proceedings on time for the publication. We have always expected the ICCF4 papers to be in the Proceedings. There only conclusion is that Jed has been dishonest about this both at the CANR-LENR site and on Vortex. Some of the reasons are now clearer. Mitchell Swartz
RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
What would I tell them? If they are real friends as you claim and they think you trustworthy, then it should be simple enough to say something like Kim said - that is, I have been there, I have seen their system, and it looks like they have something. Stop the excuses. I have never complained about lack of funding. That is only a accusation you continually make - as if everyone is after money. Yes there are times I have not been funded, but those times were good - nothing to complain about. Only money grabbers would think that statement of lack of funding is a complaint. Wise up to the real world where some people do things for reasons other than money. Get a heart and try to understand. I see you back tracking, which is your usually style. You definitely said nothing, anywhere. You typically attack then back track. You have edited some of my papers- true. But not by my request and have never offered to help. I would have accepted. But you are right in general. That is why this will be the end of my CF adventure. As you have pointed out, my papers do not do the field any favors, and my research should only be done in big labs. The era of the amateur is coming to a close. That is clear. D2 Who said I was forced to retire? Again you throw out insults without fact. I am retiring- True, but forced - False. Only in your mind. Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 21:28:23 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: You again do not check before replying. You complained that DGT did not send you their data, yet now you say you are drowning in data. I am not complaining that DGT has not sent me data. I don't give a damn about that. If they don't want me to know, I don't want to hear about it. I am complaining that they are making fools of themselves and presenting perfume advertisements at ICCF conferences instead of physics papers. It is embarrassing to watch. NDA. Re read. I did not say for you to give your claimed big buck friends any NDA information other than to let them know you are convinced with what you saw. What would I tell them? Someone has made a claim for years but has never published a paper describing it? Any investor would dismiss that, instantly. I might as well recommend they work with Patterson or Case, despite the fact that they are dead. I mean that a person who provides no rigorous, organized information in a paper might as well not exist. Gabbing about something on Vortex does not count. nothing, anywhere, ever about the kind of device you plan to show at NI Week. --You might want to read some postings on Vortex. There is even a link to a picture of one of my devices. I mean a scientific paper. In a proceedings or journal. I am pretty sure you know I mean that. Since I am aware of the existence of your claims, obviously I heard about them on Vortex or somewhere like that. You assume too much. How do you know if I have funding or not and for what? Well you sure have complained enough about not having funding, and being forced to retire! If DGT wants to go the NDA route then let them. How can I stop them? If they want to make themselves look like amateurs at ICCF conferences I can't stop that either. If you want to present papers with spelling errors I can't stop that, either, unless they make me the copy editor again. You and DGC are not the only ones doing this. In cold fusion many people run around acting unprofessional, and then they get upset because people don't respect them. Papers are often filled with spelling errors, contradictions, incorrect units, incomplete thoughts, made-up-terminology and other mistakes that no scientist or engineer should make. I have probably read more papers than anyone but Storms and Britz. I know how abysmal the documents and most of the research in this field is. That is typical of science in this stage, but the people who write that are not doing themselves any favors. You do not know their or anyone else's constraints or who might be helping them. And never, ever, have you offered to help write or correct one of my papers. You have only presented attacks and criticisms.. Fact. Oh Yes I Have. And I repeat that offer here and now. Furthermore, I have extensively edited your papers and the ones you co-authored. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:19 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: There is even a link to a picture of one of my devices. For the benefit of your critics, here is the link again: https://plus.google.com/photos/100517292944598113317/albums/5896172801049146737/5896172796425182786?pid=5896172796425182786oid=100517292944598113317
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: What would I tell them? If they are real friends as you claim and they think you trustworthy, then it should be simple enough to say something like Kim said - that is, I have been there, I have seen their system, and it looks like they have something. Stop the excuses. You mean what Kim said about Defkalion? I would NEVER say anything like what Kim said! That was unprofessional. A travesty, like Gilardone's statements. There was no quantitative information in Kim's message. Here is the only thing I would say about you or Defkalion: I have no hard information. No calibration, no description of the calorimetry, no data. I have no idea how big the cell is, what temperatures or how much power it produces. I cannot judge anything about this. I have no idea whether the claims are true or not. I have never complained about lack of funding. This is like saying you complain of thirst, not that you have no water. You complain you cannot do the work. You complain you are forced to retire. You cannot do the work because you do not have money. If you had money, you could do the work. That is only a accusation you continually make - as if everyone is after money. Don't be silly. You have made it clear you are not after money. Naturally, I believe you. However whether you want it or not, money is essential to solving your problems and allowing you to make progress, so you should get money even if you hate the stuff. Yes there are times I have not been funded, but those times were good - nothing to complain about. Only money grabbers would think that statement of lack of funding is a complaint. Only someone who totally misunderstands me would say I am a money grubber, or that I want you to get money for its own sake. I do not give a damn whether you live on welfare and you have $10 in the bank. It is no concern of mine. My only agenda is to see that cold fusion succeeds. I am in favor any step to promote that, including funding people who hate money. It is a means to an end. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
Strange, you expect a write up of a demo before it happens. You are not realistic. D2 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 21:28:23 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com nothing, anywhere, ever about the kind of device you plan to show at NI Week. --You might want to read some postings on Vortex. There is even a link to a picture of one of my devices. I mean a scientific paper. In a proceedings or journal. I am pretty sure you know I mean that. Since I am aware of the existence of your claims, obviously I heard about them on Vortex or somewhere like that.
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Strange, you expect a write up of a demo before it happens. OF COURSE I DO!!! For goodness sake, haven't you rehearsed?!? Don't you know what the thing will do? Assuming it works. This is mind boggling!!! I cannot imagine anyone going to a conference or a trade show with a device he intends to show who has not written a description of the device, and a script for a presentation, and who has not prepared gobs of data. Are you planning to wing it? Try the gadget for the first time in the conference hall??? Good grief! When I think of the weeks of work I put into trade show demos and customer demos in my youth, sweating bullets and rehearsing and rehearsing and rehearsing . . . To hear from you that you cannot write it up until *after the presentation*, makes my head spin. Of course the gadget may not work right, but that is all the more reason should have every detail nailed down, with gobs of paper and video presentation available in that event, ready to present in lieu of the demonstration. Heck I have devoted weeks to the paper I will present, and a month to Mizuno's poster presentation, and I will put another month into them when I get back. You are not realistic. And you are meshugganah, going off half cocked and unrehearsed! All I can say is, you are the polar opposite of a programmer. We leave nothing to chance, except when we must. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 22:21:47 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I have never complained about lack of funding. This is like saying you complain of thirst, not that you have no water. You complain you cannot do the work. You complain you are forced to retire. You cannot do the work because you do not have money. If you had money, you could do the work. Point to any complaint other than your attacks. Again your statement of forced to retire is a lie an insulting. (I do admit that my wife wants me to back of experiments with nano powders due to health safety.) Your statement of not working because I don't have the money, is a lie. I HAVE worked without getting money for it. That is not a complaint. Your analogy is weak. You do not have to be thirsty just because you have no water. Sometimes you just don't need water. And sometimes you can have things beside water. You don't always need money. There are other rewards at exploring the unknown. Only someone who totally misunderstands or tries to twist things would say that not being externally funded is a complaint. Only someone who totally misunderstands me would say I am a money grubber, or that I want you to get money for its own sake. I do not give a damn whether you live on welfare and you have $10 in the bank. It is no concern of mine. My only agenda is to see that cold fusion succeeds. I am in favor any step (sic) to promote that, including funding people who hate money. It is a means to an end. Perhaps you should work on your style because I misunderstand you. You tend to use the money argument over and over. If you care as you say, then talk to your so called friends. Either you are the type that people would believe you at your word or you have not shown yourself to be truly trustworthy, or they are only imaginary fair weather friends. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: *I am in favor any step (sic) *to promote that, including funding people who hate money. It is a means to an end. *Perhaps you should work on your style because I misunderstand you.* Then you are obtuse, which is unbecoming of a professor. This is very simple: You must have money to perfect your gadget. No one can do RD without money. Therefore, whether you want it or not, you should get some money. Whether you keep any for yourself is no concern of mine. I could not care less about your personal financial state. Money is, I repeat, a means to end. Money is a tool, like a thermocouple, an SEM or electricity. It is something anyone must have to conduct research properly, in a safe, orderly rapid manner. Get it? How hard is that to understand? Whether you personally make out like a bandit or live like a penitent monk does not make the slightest difference to me. Enriching you has not been my goal ever, not for a nanosecond. * You tend to use the money argument over and over. If you care as you say, then talk to your so called friends.* And tell them what?!? That I have no information? That you have not published so much as a calibration curve? If I personally had a billion dollars burning a hole in my pocket I would not give you a dime -- not one thin dime! -- until you publish a properly written scientific paper. You get no free pass from me. Do your job and I will do what I can to help. Kvetch, moan, and show up at a conference without rehearsing and without a proper presentation and you get nothing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Occurrence of a nuclear reaction is the only proof that matters. Once a nuclear reaction is demonstrated to occur, making commercial energy only requires good engineering. I wish this were true, in and of itself. But people have known about muon catalyzed fusion, pre-1989 cold fusion, sonoluminescence and neutrons being emitted from lightening for a long time, and these phenomena have remained curiosities. An additional ingredient that must be present in order for people to become excited about LENR is the possibility of a new energy source. Eric
RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
You obviously try to twist things. Are you really expecting people to present papers and descriptions of demos before the demos? No company does that. Programmer?? For example, do you expect a programmer to post source code before the public release and show? Or release a journal paper and presentation before the demo of a new program/ like a video game. Or a car company to present technical specs before they take it to a show. They just give general descriptions or perhaps a screen shot. That does not mean the have not tested the car or have not run a program and even tested a beta product. Why oh why do you conclude that just because I (or anyone) do not tell YOU ever thing before a demo that I do not have data, and other information? If you had not been kicked out of CMNS (or run off?) , you would have even been able to find the months of prep leading up to this, including a shot of my booth back wall and even what music selection that would be used as background. Strange expectations and as always, assuming the worst in others instead of hoping for the best in others. D2 PS, I expect to be writing up an article for IE about NI Week (by request). But that must wait till after the event, since Defkalion is still an unknown. (will they or won't they, and what will it be) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 22:32:03 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Strange, you expect a write up of a demo before it happens. OF COURSE I DO!!! For goodness sake, haven't you rehearsed?!? Don't you know what the thing will do? Assuming it works. This is mind boggling!!! I cannot imagine anyone going to a conference or a trade show with a device he intends to show who has not written a description of the device, and a script for a presentation, and who has not prepared gobs of data. Are you planning to wing it? Try the gadget for the first time in the conference hall??? Good grief! When I think of the weeks of work I put into trade show demos and customer demos in my youth, sweating bullets and rehearsing and rehearsing and rehearsing . . . To hear from you that you cannot write it up until after the presentation, makes my head spin. Of course the gadget may not work right, but that is all the more reason should have every detail nailed down, with gobs of paper and video presentation available in that event, ready to present in lieu of the demonstration. Heck I have devoted weeks to the paper I will present, and a month to Mizuno's poster presentation, and I will put another month into them when I get back. You are not realistic. And you are meshugganah, going off half cocked and unrehearsed! All I can say is, you are the polar opposite of a programmer. We leave nothing to chance, except when we must. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
I hesitate to put in my 2 cents worth, but this argument should be cooled down a few notches. Both of you guys are making fine contributions to the field and it would be much better for you to work together instead of against each other. Dennis, I think you should take Jed up on his offer to edit your inputs if it would help your case. And Jed, try to be a bit less confrontational toward Dennis. Remember, he is actually performing experiments that sound difficult and interesting. I find his open discussions of the demonstrations that he plans to present refreshing and informative. What he is doing is not an easy task and I understand why he prefers to tackle the technical aspects of the concepts much more readily than the boring paper work. Jed, your life revolves around paper work that most scientists would rather not perform at the expense of their time. Unfortunately, there is a requirement to put things to paper which you find comfortable. I admire the work you are doing in maintaining the cold fusion library and I hope that you continue with the same zeal as always. You guys kiss and make up! Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jul 10, 2013 10:40 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 22:21:47 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I have never complained about lack of funding. This is like saying you complain of thirst, not that you have no water. You complain you cannot do the work. You complain you are forced to retire. You cannot do the work because you do not have money. If you had money, you could do the work. Point to any complaint other than your attacks. Again your statement of forced to retire is a lie an insulting. (I do admit that my wife wants me to back of experiments with nano powders due to health safety.) Your statement of not working because I don't have the money, is a lie. I HAVE worked without getting money for it. That is not a complaint. Your analogy is weak. You do not have to be thirsty just because you have no water. Sometimes you just don't need water. And sometimes you can have things beside water. You don't always need money. There are other rewards at exploring the unknown. Only someone who totally misunderstands or tries to twist things would say that not being externally funded is a complaint. Only someone who totally misunderstands me would say I am a money grubber, or that I want you to get money for its own sake. I do not give a damn whether you live on welfare and you have $10 in the bank. It is no concern of mine. My only agenda is to see that cold fusion succeeds. I am in favor any step (sic) to promote that, including funding people who hate money. It is a means to an end. Perhaps you should work on your style because I misunderstand you. You tend to use the money argument over and over. If you care as you say, then talk to your so called friends. Either you are the type that people would believe you at your word or you have not shown yourself to be truly trustworthy, or they are only imaginary fair weather friends. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:40 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: The fact that no (or few?) reactions are detected on the front side shows that the reaction is not a typical hot fusion reaction. If this is a reference to the Chambers experiment in 1990, it is an interesting detail that the particles were emitted from the backside of the Ti/D thin foil. But I don't recall there being a detector on the front side of the foil, so I don't think much can be concluded about directionality of the reaction in that particular instance. Eric
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
The hot fusion method that you describe has been explored for over 100 years using over 50 billion dollars. Several methods are being explored because they have promise, but not the ones you note because they have no promise. Hot fusion continues to receive support in an attempt to overcome the ENGINEERING problems. Once LENR is acknowledged as a nuclear reaction, it also will get similar support. So far, the financial system does not acknowledge this fact. Ed On Jul 10, 2013, at 9:19 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Occurrence of a nuclear reaction is the only proof that matters. Once a nuclear reaction is demonstrated to occur, making commercial energy only requires good engineering. I wish this were true, in and of itself. But people have known about muon catalyzed fusion, pre-1989 cold fusion, sonoluminescence and neutrons being emitted from lightening for a long time, and these phenomena have remained curiosities. An additional ingredient that must be present in order for people to become excited about LENR is the possibility of a new energy source. Eric
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
I suspect that it is going to take a product at the local department stores to convince the normal public that LENR is real. Once they see for themselves how much money it saves them they will buy the products. It should be an easy sales pitch if the operational costs are 10% of what is currently available. The profits developed by the first manufacturers will initiate a stampede of investment provided the companies are not too large. It will be important for the profits from the LENR products be large relative to the existing operations for this to become a feeding frenzy. I hope to grab some of the action in the early stages and enjoy the ride. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jul 10, 2013 11:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Occurrence of a nuclear reaction is the only proof that matters. Once a nuclear reaction is demonstrated to occur, making commercial energy only requires good engineering. I wish this were true, in and of itself. But people have known about muon catalyzed fusion, pre-1989 cold fusion, sonoluminescence and neutrons being emitted from lightening for a long time, and these phenomena have remained curiosities. An additional ingredient that must be present in order for people to become excited about LENR is the possibility of a new energy source. Eric
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
I would not have expected any form of directionality when the input particles are of such low energy compared to the outputs. I assumed that you were describing an experiment where the exit direction was measured...my mistake. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jul 10, 2013 11:24 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:40 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: The fact that no (or few?) reactions are detected on the front side shows that the reaction is not a typical hot fusion reaction. If this is a reference to the Chambers experiment in 1990, it is an interesting detail that the particles were emitted from the backside of the Ti/D thin foil. But I don't recall there being a detector on the front side of the foil, so I don't think much can be concluded about directionality of the reaction in that particular instance. Eric
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I assumed that you were describing an experiment where the exit direction was measured...my mistake. You were right -- the setup was like this: d beam --- | thin foil | --- MeV particles --- | Si detector | So the low energy d's entered the thin foil from the left and energetic particles exited from the right, through 1 um of substrate (which I think can easily stop a 350 eV beam). I was just pointing out that there was no detector on the lefthand side as well; if there was one, perhaps particles would have been detected. Eric
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: What does the spark of DGT offer that heat alone seems to neglect in the ECAT? This gets back to the earlier thread on the ion beam and glow discharge experiments. I suspect that some of what they're seeing in those experiments is real LENR, and that it is hasty to write it off as hot fusion. You may recall an experiment that was recently mentioned in which 350-1000 eV beams of deuterium nuclei were accelerated towards 1 um deuterated titanium foils, and out of the back came ~5 MeV particles (identity unknown). This is a little like dropping pennies onto the ground on one floor of a building and having cannonballs fall from the ceiling below. It's easy to lose sight of the difference between 350 eV and 5 MeV, but it's large. About the difference between a glow discharge/ion beam type arrangement like Defkalion's and a purely thermally driven one like the HotCat, it seems we can only speculate at this point. My current line of thinking for the ion beam stuff -- there is something in the electronic structure of the substrate that is at work here, be it plasmons, or shielding, or cracks, my favorite, sufficient deceleration in the fields of heavy lattice atoms to keep the interacting nuclei close to one another for a prolonged period of time sufficient to achieve tunneling and sharing of momentum with the spectator lattice atom. (Note that this also opens the possibility of a similar kind of interaction happening in a *gas*, e.g., heavy noble gas atoms like xenon, with sufficiently strong binding energies for the inner shell electrons.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: My current line of thinking for the ion beam stuff -- there is something in the electronic structure of the substrate that is at work here, be it plasmons, or shielding, or cracks, my favorite, sufficient deceleration in the fields of heavy lattice atoms to keep the interacting nuclei close to one another for a prolonged period of time sufficient to achieve tunneling and sharing of momentum with the spectator lattice atom. That was a little word-salady. The electronic structure mentioned above is perhaps two things -- apart from its relevance in other contexts such as plasmons and so on, it is in this context, first, the Coulomb field of the heavy lattice atoms, which is used to beneficial effect through the deceleration it provides to oncoming light nuclei. It can be expected to cause them to linger around for a little while before they bounce back out; longer, at any rate, than they might have stuck around in free space or in simple elastic collisions with ligher nuclei. It's sort of like the longish bounce you get on a large trampoline versus the very quick bounce you get on a small, exercise trampoline. Second, electronic structure here is intended to refer to the Auger-like effect that has been proposed elsewhere where a light atom is accelerated in place of an Auger electron that would be ejected upon the receipt of an incoming photon in the normal course of events. Eric
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
Eric, if you attend ICCF-18, I will answer this question during my talk. Ed On Jul 9, 2013, at 4:54 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: What does the spark of DGT offer that heat alone seems to neglect in the ECAT? This gets back to the earlier thread on the ion beam and glow discharge experiments. I suspect that some of what they're seeing in those experiments is real LENR, and that it is hasty to write it off as hot fusion. You may recall an experiment that was recently mentioned in which 350-1000 eV beams of deuterium nuclei were accelerated towards 1 um deuterated titanium foils, and out of the back came ~5 MeV particles (identity unknown). This is a little like dropping pennies onto the ground on one floor of a building and having cannonballs fall from the ceiling below. It's easy to lose sight of the difference between 350 eV and 5 MeV, but it's large. About the difference between a glow discharge/ion beam type arrangement like Defkalion's and a purely thermally driven one like the HotCat, it seems we can only speculate at this point. My current line of thinking for the ion beam stuff -- there is something in the electronic structure of the substrate that is at work here, be it plasmons, or shielding, or cracks, my favorite, sufficient deceleration in the fields of heavy lattice atoms to keep the interacting nuclei close to one another for a prolonged period of time sufficient to achieve tunneling and sharing of momentum with the spectator lattice atom. (Note that this also opens the possibility of a similar kind of interaction happening in a *gas*, e.g., heavy noble gas atoms like xenon, with sufficiently strong binding energies for the inner shell electrons.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
Eric, I recall mention of an experiment of that nature but do not recall specifics. Could you offer a link that I might follow? I can understand your interest in the results if less than 1000 eV Ds are used for the collision since that is far less than the normal energy used for hot fusion experiments. I read DGT's paper and see that they believe that Rydberg hydrogen is especially helpful toward making their device function at high efficiency and this might be an important clue. Who is certain about the actual energy that their ions have when driven by a spark? I highly suspect that the molecules are split apart first by the strong fields and then ionized before impacting the region surrounding the nickel. DGT promises that no dangerous radiation is emitted by their process, so it must be considered LENR. Hot fusion would not be acceptable for our needs and gammas of very strong energies would no doubt be seen. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 6:54 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: What does the spark of DGT offer that heat alone seems to neglect in the ECAT? This gets back to the earlier thread on the ion beam and glow discharge experiments. I suspect that some of what they're seeing in those experiments is real LENR, and that it is hasty to write it off as hot fusion. You may recall an experiment that was recently mentioned in which 350-1000 eV beams of deuterium nuclei were accelerated towards 1 um deuterated titanium foils, and out of the back came ~5 MeV particles (identity unknown). This is a little like dropping pennies onto the ground on one floor of a building and having cannonballs fall from the ceiling below. It's easy to lose sight of the difference between 350 eV and 5 MeV, but it's large. About the difference between a glow discharge/ion beam type arrangement like Defkalion's and a purely thermally driven one like the HotCat, it seems we can only speculate at this point. My current line of thinking for the ion beam stuff -- there is something in the electronic structure of the substrate that is at work here, be it plasmons, or shielding, or cracks, my favorite, sufficient deceleration in the fields of heavy lattice atoms to keep the interacting nuclei close to one another for a prolonged period of time sufficient to achieve tunneling and sharing of momentum with the spectator lattice atom. (Note that this also opens the possibility of a similar kind of interaction happening in a *gas*, e.g., heavy noble gas atoms like xenon, with sufficiently strong binding energies for the inner shell electrons.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:02 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, I recall mention of an experiment of that nature but do not recall specifics. Could you offer a link that I might follow? The thread was here [1]. Defkalion mention Rydberg hydrogen. An interesting thing that I recently read was that you can infer when hydrogen within a solid is ionic by its mobility under a voltage. Presumably ionic hydrogen will migrate readily whereas monoatomic hydrogen will not, because of the shielding from the electron. I wonder whether Defkalion are really dealing with Rydberg hydrogen. Eric [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg84032.html
RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
My take on their process is that the control and the sparks are related to the positive heat coef. of the reaction and the rate at which the heat is extracted. My best empirical model shows an almost exponential increase in max power output with temperature (due to vacancy production). A few very hot regions can produce a large fraction of the output. My reoccurring problem is to balance the temperature of the reaction species with the rate at which I remove the heat. You remove too much heat and the reaction sites cool down and the reaction slows. Most people seem to be looking at the global average temperature of the bulk and not the temperatures of local areas. By sparking to your sample you can have very high local temperatures and thus higher local reaction rates, IF your material is such that its resistivity increases with temperature. Notice this is the case for most metals. Since the sparks target the paths with greatest conductivity, the sparks are to new regions with lower temperatures and lower resistance. i.e. you hit new regions. I believe that they are basically sparking to a flat area within a cylinder. I prefer to use a spark into a bowl shaped target. You just simply make sure that your heat flow out of the system is large enough to stop any runaway reactions. (you are also saved by the 4th power law) For my system, it is a balancing act between heat production and heat transfer out of the system. I do that by both having a variable heat conductive path (variable contact areas by turning- think variable air caps) for rough tuning and then changing the spark rate (I use a strobe circuit). Dennis To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:39:06 -0400 Subject: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? Whenever I read about the DGT device I get the impression that it behaves much differently than the ECAT. The main difference I focus upon so far is the method of control. We have discussed the ECAT thermal positive feedback control on many occasions and have developed models that appear to explain its operation. The same is not yet true for the DGT beast. Thermal control such as that used by Rossi seems to have difficulty achieving a stable COP of 6 for the basic device excluding electrical power generation and feedback. Of course it is expected that one will be able to use the fed back electrical power to drive the device one day and achieve a net COP of infinity. This should become possible fairly soon and Rossi appears to be working hard to arrive at a reasonable design. DGT suggests that they potentially can already obtain a large COP, but I have questions about the design since little has been demonstrated in public. My reservations can easily be disposed of by additional information and I anxiously await that time. The spark plug like ignition system of the DGT animal bears little resemblance to the thermal operation of Rossi's ECAT. I have the suspicion that there is something important to be learned by the fact that these various devices both function. How can that be? What is it about the DGT design that appears to efficiently use the spark induced reactions while maintaining excellent control? We certainly are not interested in hot fusion products which tend to be associated with high voltages such as spark discharges. If acceleration due to high voltage is present then why does this not occur? Does DGT balance the spark magnitude carefully enough to avoid this fate while achieving adequate LENR activity? I want to learn from the DGT device as well as the ECAT. There appears to be an understanding among most of us that some form of NAE is present which allows LENR to proceed, but what form does it take? Is it the same for both designs? What does the spark of DGT offer that heat alone seems to neglect in the ECAT? It seems as if the ECAT would love to thermally run away without much provocation while the DGT device does not seem to exhibit that behavior. Perhaps DGT has done a good job of hiding this problem, but they offer information that suggests that this is not happening with their design. I find the description that the DGT design can be turned on and off rapidly to potentially find applications that are diverse such as transportation, the gold standard of mine as evidence. If thermal run away were a major issue, then the rapid control might not be so easy to demonstrate. From the information that I have gleaned, both systems appear to offer excellent energy density and good power output. This is extremely important for future applications. It will be interesting to witness the race between these two horses in the near future. Of course, others might enter the fray soon and we all will benefit it that occurs. I realize that I have touched upon a multitude of interesting issues in this post and I hope that some of our esteemed members can add
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
That is very interesting Dennis. If I understand you correctly, you solve the thermal run away problem by extracting heat fast enough to keep the thermal positive feedback loop gain below unity. That should work provided there is enough energy released per pulse of drive to achieve a high enough COP. The behavior that you describe would not depend upon very much gain being augmented by thermal feedback as I suspect that Rossi is relying upon. Do you understand why a spark would be so efficient at producing LENR? You mention local heating as a possible factor, which certainly could cause small hot regions to develop. Is this the key to high gain without meltdown? Once a hot spot is initiated, what prevents the heat from spreading rapidly into the adjacent material and causing a sudden extreme burst of energy? Perhaps the distribution of active hydrogen in the NAE is such that areas capable of spreading the heat only exist in small patches and are easy to extinguish. If this is true, new active regions would need to form in time to take over the process as others die out. So what functions does the spark perform in a system of this type? Heating of a small region makes a great deal of sense as each spark strikes the surface. Also, do you expect that the spark breaks apart the hydrogen molecules as a second function? I can imagine a rain of protons falling upon the metal due to ionization as another possible piece of the puzzle. Has there been evidence of enhanced reaction caused be the magnetic field associated with the currents entering or leaving the metal surfaces? If I recall, DGT speaks of dipole behavior of Ryndberg hydrogen helping out. Can you describe any evidence of this? Your bowl shaped targets are quite interesting to consider. Does the bowl tend to spread out the spark contact region? From what you describe it appears that your reaction is almost entirely a surface effect. Would you expect a very thin layer of active metal to work in the same manner? A thin coating layered upon another passive metal might be helpful in preventing a large scale thermal event. Maybe one of Axils heat pipes underneath could extract the heat quickly enough to enhance the net energy density. Do you have to worry about the destruction of your active material as the process operates? Are you planning to demonstrate one of your devices at the conference? Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 9:29 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? My take on their process is that the control and the sparksare related to the positive heat coef. of the reaction and the rate at whichthe heat is extracted. My best empirical model shows an almost exponential increasein max power output with temperature (due to vacancy production). A few very hot regions can produce a largefraction of the output. My reoccurring problem is to balance the temperature of thereaction species with the rate at which I remove the heat. You remove too much heat and the reactionsites cool down and the reaction slows. Most people seem to be looking at the global average temperature of thebulk and not the temperatures of local areas. By sparking to your sample you can have very high local temperatures andthus higher local reaction rates, IF your material is such that its resistivityincreases with temperature. Notice thisis the case for most metals. Since thesparks target the paths with greatest conductivity, the sparks are to newregions with lower temperatures and lower resistance. i.e. you hit new regions. I believe that they are basically sparking toa flat area within a cylinder. I preferto use a spark into a bowl shaped target. You just simply make sure that your heat flow out of thesystem is large enough to stop any runaway reactions. (you are also saved bythe 4th power law) For mysystem, it is a balancing act between heat production and heat transfer out ofthe system. I do that by both having avariable heat conductive path (variable contact areas by turning- thinkvariable air caps) for rough tuning and then changing the spark rate (I use a strobe circuit). Dennis To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:39:06 -0400 Subject: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? Whenever I read about the DGT device I get the impression that it behaves much differently than the ECAT. The main difference I focus upon so far is the method of control. We have discussed the ECAT thermal positive feedback control on many occasions and have developed models that appear to explain its operation. The same is not yet true for the DGT beast. Thermal control such as that used by Rossi seems to have difficulty achieving a stable COP of 6 for the basic device excluding electrical power generation and feedback. Of course it is expected that one
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
Eric, Did you calculate the actual number of Ds impacting the target metal to generate a reasonable amount of energy? My quick estimate suggests that the number of energetic protons generated was far below enough to replace the beam energy. The effect might be larger than expected from current physics theory, but still too small to be practical. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 8:15 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:02 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, I recall mention of an experiment of that nature but do not recall specifics. Could you offer a link that I might follow? The thread was here [1]. Defkalion mention Rydberg hydrogen. An interesting thing that I recently read was that you can infer when hydrogen within a solid is ionic by its mobility under a voltage. Presumably ionic hydrogen will migrate readily whereas monoatomic hydrogen will not, because of the shielding from the electron. I wonder whether Defkalion are really dealing with Rydberg hydrogen. Eric [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg84032.html
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Tue, 9 Jul 2013 15:54:10 -0700: Hi, [snip] This gets back to the earlier thread on the ion beam and glow discharge experiments. I suspect that some of what they're seeing in those experiments is real LENR, and that it is hasty to write it off as hot fusion. You may recall an experiment that was recently mentioned in which 350-1000 eV beams of deuterium nuclei were accelerated towards 1 um deuterated titanium foils, and out of the back came ~5 MeV particles (identity unknown). This is a little like dropping pennies onto the ground on one floor of a building and having cannonballs fall from the ceiling below. It's easy to lose sight of the difference between 350 eV and 5 MeV, but it's large. 2H+48Ti = 49Ti + 1H + 5.918 MeV Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 9 Jul 2013 20:02:08 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] DGT promises that no dangerous radiation is emitted by their process, so it must be considered LENR. Hot fusion would not be acceptable for our needs and gammas of very strong energies would no doubt be seen. ..Actually, any kind of fusion would be a blessing. :) If it's not exactly clean, power production would remain centralized, but the fuel source would be essentially unlimited. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
Robin, do you see any reason why the particles leaving the active region would exit the opposite side when such a low energy input is applied? I would expect to see a random distribution. This effect, if true, would appear like a stimulated emission process. :) Wow, now we have a particle laser! Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 10:54 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? In reply to Eric Walker's message of Tue, 9 Jul 2013 15:54:10 -0700: Hi, [snip] This gets back to the earlier thread on the ion beam and glow discharge experiments. I suspect that some of what they're seeing in those experiments is real LENR, and that it is hasty to write it off as hot fusion. You may recall an experiment that was recently mentioned in which 350-1000 eV beams of deuterium nuclei were accelerated towards 1 um deuterated titanium foils, and out of the back came ~5 MeV particles (identity unknown). This is a little like dropping pennies onto the ground on one floor of a building and having cannonballs fall from the ceiling below. It's easy to lose sight of the difference between 350 eV and 5 MeV, but it's large. 2H+48Ti = 49Ti + 1H + 5.918 MeV Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 7:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Did you calculate the actual number of Ds impacting the target metal to generate a reasonable amount of energy? My quick estimate suggests that the number of energetic protons generated was far below enough to replace the beam energy. I agree. This particular experiment does not seem to be very promising as far as potential energy sources go. But hopefully it and other similar ones shed light on what might be going on with Defkalion's device. Eric
