Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Periodinc dumping of H seems not true for me. the tank would be empty quickly, and it would be dangerous. DGT clearly said that no Vent is done, except in catastrophic situation, that induce shutdown and maintenance. however maybe is there a reversible storage (I have seen here a pattented device to heat catalystic exhaust cleaner), that allow to absorbe or free H stored inside an hydrid, or alike... another simple solution could be a mechanical piston to tune pressure quickly. I see three solenoid valve controls for hydrogen in/out and the control circuitry which indicates clearly to me that hydrogen is being periodically dumped and refilled by computer control.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Here is the link to that device http://www.ergenics.com/page22.htm On 25/01/12 07:59, Alain Sepeda wrote: Periodinc dumping of H seems not true for me. the tank would be empty quickly, and it would be dangerous. DGT clearly said that no "Vent" is done, except in catastrophic situation, that induce shutdown and maintenance. however maybe is there a reversible storage (I have seen here a pattented device to heat catalystic exhaust cleaner), that allow to absorbe or free H stored inside an hydrid, or alike... another simple solution could be a mechanical piston to tune pressure quickly. I see three solenoid valve controls for hydrogen in/out and the control circuitry which indicates clearly to me that hydrogen is being periodically dumped and refilled by computer control.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
DGT has accused Rossi of using an idea or design which they came up with, and IIRC, they were referring to the flat, rectangular-shaped reactor core that Rossi began using instead of the cylindrical design seen in the first several demos in early 2011. So I think Rossi is now using something akin to what DGT is, and what you described in your posting. -m From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance IMHO, quiescence is caused by deterioration of the micro-powder surface due to inadequate heat control. I speculate that DGT has move the heat producing powder zone to the reactor vessel wall. The powder is mechanically affixed to the reactor vessel wall with excellent heat transfer characteristics. Because of this design change, the temperature of the powder will never exceed the coolant temperature and therefore is idiot proofed But in order to get the powder above the Curie temperature of nickel, the coolant must support very high temperature heat transfer in excess of 400C. On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I don't have the answer, but it was my assumption, about control. Quiescence does not seems to be a problem with DGT according to their talk and (more important) to their test protocol (which does talk about continuous heat). 2012/1/24 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Question: Could the quiescence be something as simple as heat not being extracted fast enough from the Ni-core material and it eventually builds up to begin melting the Ni tubercles, slowly quenching the 'active area'? If so, then my initial thoughts don't apply and it is an engineering problem.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Can you provide a citation for that first quote from DGT ? At any rate, venting 3-4 times per day WOULD BE maintenance, if it is done to prevent quiescence. And a tank that size would last 200 days before losing too much pressure - with regular venting. There are many ways to look at what is going on, but in one perspective - it is likely that the hydrogen cannot be reused in this type reactor - as it would be the cause of the problem. Expelled hydrogen could always be reused in a separate fuel cell for its chemical energy, or simply burned, so technically that is not venting either since it adds heat. Winter heating always benefits from added moisture. From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com DGT clearly said that no Vent is done, except in catastrophic situation, that induce shutdown and maintenance. however maybe is there a reversible storage (I have seen here a patented device to heat catalytic exhaust cleaner), that allow to absorb or free H stored inside an hydride, or alike... another simple solution could be a mechanical piston to tune pressure quickly. I see three solenoid valve controls for hydrogen in/out and the control circuitry which indicates clearly to me that hydrogen is being periodically dumped and refilled by computer control.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Can you provide a citation for that first quote from DGT ? http://defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19t=773 Re: dumping 350 degree hydrogen Defkalion GT Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:33 pm Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 6:56 am Posts: 418 Depressurizing Hydrogen for safety/emergency reasons was a problem that we had to deal with during design of our products, following also the official recommendations and regulations on hydrogen handling (please see specs Environmental and Safety, p19). According to them, degas to the environment is not permitted. Following our design, it is not needed. As you can notice in the released spec sheet, there is plenty of space in the filled with Argon tamper resistant compartment A of Hyperions. This is the area where degas procedure sends the Hydrogen in case of emergency through the exhaust valves. Casing specs, which we have not released in details, can hold the maximum internal pressure from such degassing. As it is proved during our internal safety/stress tests, the limited amount of very hot hydrogen in such Argon atmosphere creates no safety problems to the product nor its environment. We consider such emergency hydrogen evacuation as a result of the malfunction of several other safety systems related with the hydrogen circuit. As such, in the case of degas (Hydrogen in the Argon atmosphere), Hyperion will shut down, will turn to stand by mode and automatically will send an alarm message to Hyperion Support Center triggering a replacement and repair procedure for the product. Thank you for this good question end
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Can you provide a citation for that first quote from DGT ? http://defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19t=773 This is why I think they agitate their powder using hydrogen puffing. Or Pydrogen huffing? :-) T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
I did not pay close attention to that defkalion post earlier. Reading it now cheers me up: to me these are thorough and sane (?) answers that go that extra mile in explaining practical details while at the same time matching up with the earlier released specs, proving that they are not patchwork scammer's answers to keep us quiet, but something they really bumped into earlier. Was it Mark Twain who said something about who never lies does not need a good memory? (Do I make sense?) Andre On 01/25/2012 10:31 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Jones Beenejone...@pacbell.net wrote: Can you provide a citation for that first quote from DGT ? http://defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19t=773 Re: dumping 350 degree hydrogen Defkalion GT Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:33 pm Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 6:56 am Posts: 418 Depressurizing Hydrogen for safety/emergency reasons was a problem that we had to deal with during design of our products, following also the official recommendations and regulations on hydrogen handling (please see specs Environmental and Safety, p19). According to them, degas to the environment is not permitted. Following our design, it is not needed. As you can notice in the released spec sheet, there is plenty of space in the filled with Argon tamper resistant compartment A of Hyperions. This is the area where degas procedure sends the Hydrogen in case of emergency through the exhaust valves. Casing specs, which we have not released in details, can hold the maximum internal pressure from such degassing. As it is proved during our internal safety/stress tests, the limited amount of very hot hydrogen in such Argon atmosphere creates no safety problems to the product nor its environment. We consider such emergency hydrogen evacuation as a result of the malfunction of several other safety systems related with the hydrogen circuit. As such, in the case of degas (Hydrogen in the Argon atmosphere), Hyperion will shut down, will turn to stand by mode and automatically will send an alarm message to Hyperion Support Center triggering a replacement and repair procedure for the product. Thank you for this good question end
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Most Interesting ! and it shows the thought given detail, for a product that is obviously going into production. However, it is also a stretch to think that they did it solely for environmental or private use concerns. They are years away from proper permits to sell in the USA or EEC, so that stated rationale could be a poisson rouge. They do not want to give away too much. Once again, hat's off to DGT - and it tends to highlight Rossi's comparative lack of engineering skills. However, this feature also tends to reinforce the conclusion of regular turnover of hydrogen being necessary, since the likelihood is as a safety issue for a commercial product, it came later in time. But when the need arose, it went hand in hand with the already addressed need to avoid quiescence, going back to the time of the split with Rossi. IOW they likely developed an elaborate purge system for one fundamental purpose but publicized it for another use, even though it accomplishes both elegantly. Time will tell - but that is my story for today (dual-use H2 purging system) and I'm sticking to it :) -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton http://defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19t=773 Depressurizing Hydrogen for safety/emergency reasons was a problem that we had to deal with during design of our products, following also the official recommendations and regulations on hydrogen handling (please see specs Environmental and Safety, p19). According to them, degas to the environment is not permitted. Following our design, it is not needed. As you can notice in the released spec sheet, there is plenty of space in the filled with Argon tamper resistant compartment A of Hyperions. This is the area where degas procedure sends the Hydrogen in case of emergency through the exhaust valves. Casing specs, which we have not released in details, can hold the maximum internal pressure from such degassing. As it is proved during our internal safety/stress tests, the limited amount of very hot hydrogen in such Argon atmosphere creates no safety problems to the product nor its environment. We consider such emergency hydrogen evacuation as a result of the malfunction of several other safety systems related with the hydrogen circuit. As such, in the case of degas (Hydrogen in the Argon atmosphere), Hyperion will shut down, will turn to stand by mode and automatically will send an alarm message to Hyperion Support Center triggering a replacement and repair procedure for the product. Thank you for this good question end
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Can one regen the hydrogen by circulating it through some type of catalyst, palladium etc to get it re-energized ? On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Can you provide a citation for that first quote from DGT ? ** ** At any rate, venting 3-4 times per day WOULD BE maintenance, if it is done to prevent quiescence. And a tank that size would last 200 days before losing too much pressure - with regular venting. ** ** There are many ways to look at what is going on, but in one perspective - it is likely that the hydrogen cannot be reused in this type reactor – as it would be the cause of the problem. ** ** Expelled hydrogen could always be reused in a separate fuel cell for its chemical energy, or simply burned, so technically that is not venting either since it adds heat. Winter heating always benefits from added moisture. ** ** * * * * *From:* alain.coetm...@gmail.com DGT clearly said that no Vent is done, except in catastrophic situation, that induce shutdown and maintenance. however maybe is there a reversible storage (I have seen here a patented device to heat catalytic exhaust cleaner), that allow to absorb or free H stored inside an hydride, or alike... another simple solution could be a mechanical piston to tune pressure quickly. ** ** I see three solenoid valve controls for hydrogen in/out and the control circuitry which indicates clearly to me that hydrogen is being periodically dumped and refilled by computer control. ** **
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything. T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
What about the reactor wall as a sheet of nickel or nickel alloy with the surface of the sheet treated to form the type of micro characteristics necessary for this reaction? Is there a way to make the sheet surface look like the powder surfaces? If so, a pair of sheets could be formed into a long flat tube, welded or crimped along the edges, with H2 pressure applied within. These flat tubes in a auto type radiator like arrangement with the H2 circulating like radiator fluid in them, and the glycol coolant passing over the tubes like air does in an auto radiator. - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 1:50 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance IMHO, quiescence is caused by deterioration of the micro-powder surface due to inadequate heat control. I speculate that DGT has move the heat producing powder zone to the reactor vessel wall. The powder is mechanically affixed to the reactor vessel wall with excellent heat transfer characteristics. Because of this design change, the temperature of the powder will never exceed the coolant temperature and therefore is idiot proofed But in order to get the powder above the Curie temperature of nickel, the coolant must support very high temperature heat transfer in excess of 400C. On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I don't have the answer, but it was my assumption, about control. Quiescence does not seems to be a problem with DGT according to their talk and (more important) to their test protocol (which does talk about continuous heat). 2012/1/24 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Question: Could the quiescence be something as simple as heat not being extracted fast enough from the Ni-core material and it eventually builds up to begin melting the Ni tubercles, slowly quenching the ‘active area’? If so, then my initial thoughts don’t apply and it is an engineering problem.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
What about the reactor wall as a sheet of nickel or nickel alloy with the surface of the sheet treated to form the type of micro characteristics necessary for this reaction? Is there a way to make the sheet surface look like the powder surfaces? If so, a pair of sheets could be formed into a long flat tube, welded or crimped along the edges, with H2 pressure applied within. These flat tubes in a auto type radiator like arrangement with the H2 circulating like radiator fluid in them, and the glycol coolant passing over the tubes like air does in an auto radiator. - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 1:50 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance IMHO, quiescence is caused by deterioration of the micro-powder surface due to inadequate heat control. I speculate that DGT has move the heat producing powder zone to the reactor vessel wall. The powder is mechanically affixed to the reactor vessel wall with excellent heat transfer characteristics. Because of this design change, the temperature of the powder will never exceed the coolant temperature and therefore is idiot proofed But in order to get the powder above the Curie temperature of nickel, the coolant must support very high temperature heat transfer in excess of 400C. On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I don't have the answer, but it was my assumption, about control. Quiescence does not seems to be a problem with DGT according to their talk and (more important) to their test protocol (which does talk about continuous heat). 2012/1/24 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Question: Could the quiescence be something as simple as heat not being extracted fast enough from the Ni-core material and it eventually builds up to begin melting the Ni tubercles, slowly quenching the ‘active area’? If so, then my initial thoughts don’t apply and it is an engineering problem.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
From: Chemical Engineer * Can one regen the hydrogen by circulating it through some type of catalyst, palladium etc to get it re-energized ? Very interesting question/speculation. In fact you may have hit on an important detail. This probably gets back to QCD and gauge bosons - and how (or if) nuclear mass can be transferred between nuclear entities, without benefit of a known thermonuclear reaction. I have no strong clue, and do not pretend to be an expert on the full range of QM, but have read as much on the subject as can be digested, up to now. If I had to guess with limited knowledge, it would seem that the heavier (in a.m.u.) that the donor is (it must be a proton conductor), then the more likely extra mass in the form of nuclear bosons would transfer - i.e. transfer from a heavier element to the depleted proton. Pd is a likely candidate, but there are better ones. Again, let's keep in mind the net proton mass is far from quantized. The leap of faith is that net proton mass is an average with a range of values, since it is not quantized like quark mass (and that it can vary a fractional percent or more as overage or deficit). Of course, some of the mass variation would then be convertible to energy when the strong force is pitted against Coulomb repulsion. That is where QCD comes into play. Let's say the known mass of the proton in the standard model is 938.272013 MeV. However, this is really an average mass based on whatever the most advanced current measurement technique is being employed - and that it can vary in individual protons. The quark component of protons is the only component which is fixed with a quantum value and at least a hundred MeV is in play. There is a range of expendable mass-energy of the non-quark remainder (pion, gluon, etc) - which is extractable as the 'gain' seen in the Ni-H thermal effect - yet the proton maintains its identity. Can this mass loss, if depleted (leading to quiescence) then can be replenished by exposure to a heavy nucleus (bringing the average mass of the proton back up)? That is the gist of our speculation. Perhaps the proton net mass can go down to say - 937 MeV, for instance, on a temporary basis, and with a decent amount of energy release - and thereafter this deficit is recouped. We do not need to specify how it is recouped (regauged) yet, but the route is surely encompassed in one of the definitions of ZPE (i.e. Dirac's negative energy 'sea'). Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: We do not need to specify how it is recouped (regauged) yet, but the route is surely encompassed in one of the definitions of ZPE (i.e. Dirac's negative energy 'sea'). Are you growing a Beard(en)? 'Regauged' was/is his favorite word. Hmmm, I should check his web site: http://www.cheniere.org/ since he's probably already explained it all. Regarding the rest of your post, suppose it's those slightly different pass protons which are giving up mass that is not replenished by PAMD's sea. It would mean that new H2 would need to be added to the mix to get more ragged proton mass. If Rossi restarts his eCatnapping reactor, do we know how he does it? T
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Jones: A few questions... I have specific reasons for each one. 1) When you refer to the variable mass of a proton, are you thinking about H, or protons in all elements? 2) If the mass of a proton = m_sub_p +- m_sub_v , would the variability (m_sub_v) be less than or equal to the total mass of the electrons in the element? -Mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 8:18 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance From: Chemical Engineer * Can one regen the hydrogen by circulating it through some type of catalyst, palladium etc to get it re-energized ? Very interesting question/speculation. In fact you may have hit on an important detail. This probably gets back to QCD and gauge bosons - and how (or if) nuclear mass can be transferred between nuclear entities, without benefit of a known thermonuclear reaction. I have no strong clue, and do not pretend to be an expert on the full range of QM, but have read as much on the subject as can be digested, up to now. If I had to guess with limited knowledge, it would seem that the heavier (in a.m.u.) that the donor is (it must be a proton conductor), then the more likely extra mass in the form of nuclear bosons would transfer - i.e. transfer from a heavier element to the depleted proton. Pd is a likely candidate, but there are better ones. Again, let's keep in mind the net proton mass is far from quantized. The leap of faith is that net proton mass is an average with a range of values, since it is not quantized like quark mass (and that it can vary a fractional percent or more as overage or deficit). Of course, some of the mass variation would then be convertible to energy when the strong force is pitted against Coulomb repulsion. That is where QCD comes into play. Let's say the known mass of the proton in the standard model is 938.272013 MeV. However, this is really an average mass based on whatever the most advanced current measurement technique is being employed - and that it can vary in individual protons. The quark component of protons is the only component which is fixed with a quantum value and at least a hundred MeV is in play. There is a range of expendable mass-energy of the non-quark remainder (pion, gluon, etc) - which is extractable as the 'gain' seen in the Ni-H thermal effect - yet the proton maintains its identity. Can this mass loss, if depleted (leading to quiescence) then can be replenished by exposure to a heavy nucleus (bringing the average mass of the proton back up)? That is the gist of our speculation. Perhaps the proton net mass can go down to say - 937 MeV, for instance, on a temporary basis, and with a decent amount of energy release - and thereafter this deficit is recouped. We do not need to specify how it is recouped (regauged) yet, but the route is surely encompassed in one of the definitions of ZPE (i.e. Dirac's negative energy 'sea'). Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton ... suppose it's those slightly different mass protons which are giving up mass that is not replenished by PAMD's sea. It would mean that new H2 would need to be added to the mix to get more ragged [sic - rugged?] proton mass. If Rossi restarts his eCatnapping reactor, do we know how he does it? Well, Rossi could purge and add more H2, for one thing. I do NOT know that is what he does, of course, or else I would be more assertive about the explanation. If he does purge and refill, and then it restarts as easily as it did the first time, then it is almost case-closed for this explanation having some validity. ... or QED, which in his case is a pun on itself :) J.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 1) When you refer to the variable mass of a proton, are you thinking about H, or protons in all elements? To be honest, this hypothesis really has not gotten beyond hydrogen protons, so far. 2) If the mass of a proton = m_sub_p +- m_sub_v , would the variability (m_sub_v) be less than or equal to the total mass of the electrons in the element? It could be more than 512 keV, if I understand the question. The accepted value is for a proton is 938.272013 MeV, but that value (in my hypothesis) is an average of many protons. If there is a range, even a narrow range, and a distribution within the range - something like a bell curve or even a Maxwellian distribution of mass-energy, then the tail could be up to 940 or more and several MeV extra mass in the form of bosons are present... and that would mean significant energy is there to spare. Since over half of the mass-energy is quark mass, presumably quantized, there is plenty of leeway. Jones From: Chemical Engineer * Can one regen the hydrogen by circulating it through some type of catalyst, palladium etc to get it re-energized ? Very interesting question/speculation. In fact you may have hit on an important detail. This probably gets back to QCD and gauge bosons - and how (or if) nuclear mass can be transferred between nuclear entities, without benefit of a known thermonuclear reaction. I have no strong clue, and do not pretend to be an expert on the full range of QM, but have read as much on the subject as can be digested, up to now. If I had to guess with limited knowledge, it would seem that the heavier (in a.m.u.) that the donor is (it must be a proton conductor), then the more likely extra mass in the form of nuclear bosons would transfer - i.e. transfer from a heavier element to the depleted proton. Pd is a likely candidate, but there are better ones. Again, let's keep in mind the net proton mass is far from quantized. The leap of faith is that net proton mass is an average with a range of values, since it is not quantized like quark mass (and that it can vary a fractional percent or more as overage or deficit). Of course, some of the mass variation would then be convertible to energy when the strong force is pitted against Coulomb repulsion. That is where QCD comes into play. Let's say the known mass of the proton in the standard model is 938.272013 MeV. However, this is really an average mass based on whatever the most advanced current measurement technique is being employed - and that it can vary in individual protons. The quark component of protons is the only component which is fixed with a quantum value and at least a hundred MeV is in play. There is a range of expendable mass-energy of the non-quark remainder (pion, gluon, etc) - which is extractable as the 'gain' seen in the Ni-H thermal effect - yet the proton maintains its identity. Can this mass loss, if depleted (leading to quiescence) then can be replenished by exposure to a heavy nucleus (bringing the average mass of the proton back up)? That is the gist of our speculation. Perhaps the proton net mass can go down to say - 937 MeV, for instance, on a temporary basis, and with a decent amount of energy release - and thereafter this deficit is recouped. We do not need to specify how it is recouped (regauged) yet, but the route is surely encompassed in one of the definitions of ZPE (i.e. Dirac's negative energy 'sea'). Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Earlier in the thread, hydrogen was mentioned as a control mechanism, or a possible factor to be purged at the onset of quiescence: I'm having trouble imagining that the existing reactor core has a pile of nickel, a hydrogen gas fitting, and a hydrogen release for anything short of emergency evacuation. If the hydrogen can be purged regularly, some very precise filtering would be necessary to prevent aerosolising nano-nickel particles and fouling any such relief valve From: jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:14:53 -0800 -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton ... suppose it's those slightly different mass protons which are giving up mass that is not replenished by PAMD's sea. It would mean that new H2 would need to be added to the mix to get more ragged [sic - rugged?] proton mass. If Rossi restarts his eCatnapping reactor, do we know how he does it? Well, Rossi could purge and add more H2, for one thing. I do NOT know that is what he does, of course, or else I would be more assertive about the explanation. If he does purge and refill, and then it restarts as easily as it did the first time, then it is almost case-closed for this explanation having some validity. ... or QED, which in his case is a pun on itself :) J.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Agreed. I just posted something similar On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: Earlier in the thread, hydrogen was mentioned as a control mechanism, or a possible factor to be purged at the onset of quiescence: I'm having trouble imagining that the existing reactor core has a pile of nickel, a hydrogen gas fitting, and a hydrogen release for anything short of emergency evacuation. If the hydrogen can be purged regularly, some very precise filtering would be necessary to prevent aerosolising nano-nickel particles and fouling any such relief valve From: jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:14:53 -0800 -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton ... suppose it's those slightly different mass protons which are giving up mass that is not replenished by PAMD's sea. It would mean that new H2 would need to be added to the mix to get more ragged [sic - rugged?] proton mass. If Rossi restarts his eCatnapping reactor, do we know how he does it? Well, Rossi could purge and add more H2, for one thing. I do NOT know that is what he does, of course, or else I would be more assertive about the explanation. If he does purge and refill, and then it restarts as easily as it did the first time, then it is almost case-closed for this explanation having some validity. ... or QED, which in his case is a pun on itself :) J.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Not true at all ! Think about it, a incredibly simple solution to stop dispersal of powder is a solid proton conductor blocking the exit of the reactor. All the nickel stays in - only hydrogen goes through a proton conductor, and it exits fast, depending on the type. Many fail to realize how easily hydrogen can go through what appears to be solid. Even stainless shim stock works for this purpose. You do not have to use palladium as the proton conductor. From: Robert Leguillon Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance Earlier in the thread, hydrogen was mentioned as a control mechanism, or a possible factor to be purged at the onset of quiescence: I'm having trouble imagining that the existing reactor core has a pile of nickel, a hydrogen gas fitting, and a hydrogen release for anything short of emergency evacuation. If the hydrogen can be purged regularly, some very precise filtering would be necessary to prevent aerosolising nano-nickel particles and fouling any such relief valve ... suppose it's those slightly different mass protons which are giving up mass that is not replenished by PAMD's sea. It would mean that new H2 would need to be added to the mix to get more ragged [sic - rugged?] proton mass. If Rossi restarts his eCatnapping reactor, do we know how he does it? Well, Rossi could purge and add more H2, for one thing. I do NOT know that is what he does, of course, or else I would be more assertive about the explanation. If he does purge and refill, and then it restarts as easily as it did the first time, then it is almost case-closed for this explanation having some validity. ... or QED, which in his case is a pun on itself :) J.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
I think Rossi's best chance is to stop giving out contradicting information / statements. A couple of weeks ago the home e-cat was going to ship at the end of this year, then yesterday he states that it won't be for another 12-18 months. What happened? There is the continuing inconclusive specification of the home e-cat, not to mention all the issues with the 1MW plant. It strikes me that he seems to be in a bit of panic mode as he's realised that DGT may indeed have something and beat him to market with a superiorly engineered product. Rossi really needs to get a team of professional engineers to take his products and engineer them to refined commercial products. That is assuming he hasn't already got a team doing this. If he has there is not much evidence of it. As for Ampenergo, it still exists and is still active http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/pls/bsqry/f?p=100:7:211773132719711::NO:7:P7_CHARTER_NUM:1852164. Why the e-mail address doesn't work is anyones guess. Saying that has anyone managed to get in contact with Hydrofusion? I sent a couple of e-mails in the past and never got a reply or any acknowledgement of them receiving my e-mail. It's things like this that fuel the sceptics and the scam rumours. What is surprising, assuming DGT have what they say they have, is how quick DGT managed to come up with their own reactor technology. If no information transfer occurred between Rossi and DGT as Rossi states (which I don't believe) then DGT really pulled one out of the hat. I'm surprised no one else has managed to replicate yet if DGT managed it without any IP transfer from Rossi. In a way I feel sorry for Rossi as he has possibly found the answer to clean cheap energy but his personality may prevent him from actually being the first to market it commercially. Rossi is his own worse enemy. It may be as Jed said that he could be doing this deliberately to keep people off his back and to keep competitors from homing in. On 24/01/12 12:18, Vorl Bek wrote: Wolf Fischer wrote: there have been two different news lately: The first one being that Ampenergo seemingly has gone "inactive" (although I don't know what this exactly means, if this is even the company which is related to Leonardo, how this would affect Rossi, etc.): http://ecatnews.com/?p=1897 Second: The University of Bologna has seemingly terminated the contract with Rossi, as Krivit has posted: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/01/24/university-of-bologna-terminates-relationship-with-rossi/ It seems to me Rossi's best chance is to hold conference calls with mom-and-pop investors and ask them to contribute $100 so that Rossi can do the last bit of engineering needed to stabilize the e-cat and allow him to run it for more than 4 hours. In return, they will get a $500 credit on whatever e-cat model they decide to buy, whenever the model gets made. The way it looks now, Rossi's enterprise is tottering, but he seems to have a number of Believers who would probably fork over the $100 or even more.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Probably Rossi has some NI persons on the controlling front...? If Rossis statement about production facility planning is true there must be other engineers involved (although the thought of Rossi doing every single piece of engineering on himself makes me laugh :)) Perhaps (my theory): Defkalion started gathering professionals and therefore working on their own reactor from the beginning of August, whereas Rossi started the more professionalized work after the successful 1MW plant test (at least it seems like this to me). Therefore Defkalion might have a 3 to 4 month lead on Rossi? However, what interests me then, is: How long until one can buy a Hyperion? (given that the certification runs fine for Defkalion). As they only sell licenses the licensee has to first start developing a concept on what the production looks like. This in turn might Rossi give some lead back, doesn't it? Wolf I think Rossi's best chance is to stop giving out contradicting information / statements. A couple of weeks ago the home e-cat was going to ship at the end of this year, then yesterday he states that it won't be for another 12-18 months. What happened? There is the continuing inconclusive specification of the home e-cat, not to mention all the issues with the 1MW plant. It strikes me that he seems to be in a bit of panic mode as he's realised that DGT may indeed have something and beat him to market with a superiorly engineered product. Rossi really needs to get a team of professional engineers to take his products and engineer them to refined commercial products. That is assuming he hasn't already got a team doing this. If he has there is not much evidence of it. As for Ampenergo, it still exists and is still active http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/pls/bsqry/f?p=100:7:211773132719711::NO:7:P7_CHARTER_NUM:1852164. Why the e-mail address doesn't work is anyone's guess. Saying that has anyone managed to get in contact with Hydrofusion? I sent a couple of e-mails in the past and never got a reply or any acknowledgement of them receiving my e-mail. It's things like this that fuel the sceptics and the scam rumours. What is surprising, assuming DGT have what they say they have, is how quick DGT managed to come up with their own reactor technology. If no information transfer occurred between Rossi and DGT as Rossi states (which I don't believe) then DGT really pulled one out of the hat. I'm surprised no one else has managed to replicate yet if DGT managed it without any IP transfer from Rossi. In a way I feel sorry for Rossi as he has possibly found the answer to clean cheap energy but his personality may prevent him from actually being the first to market it commercially. Rossi is his own worse enemy.It may be as Jed said that he could be doing this deliberately to keep people off his back and to keep competitors from homing in. On 24/01/12 12:18, Vorl Bek wrote: Wolf Fischer wrote: there have been two different news lately: The first one being that Ampenergo seemingly has gone inactive (although I don't know what this exactly means, if this is even the company which is related to Leonardo, how this would affect Rossi, etc.): http://ecatnews.com/?p=1897 Second: The University of Bologna has seemingly terminated the contract with Rossi, as Krivit has posted: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/01/24/university-of-bologna-terminates-relationship-with-rossi/ It seems to me Rossi's best chance is to hold conference calls with mom-and-pop investors and ask them to contribute $100 so that Rossi can do the last bit of engineering needed to stabilize the e-cat and allow him to run it for more than 4 hours. In return, they will get a $500 credit on whatever e-cat model they decide to buy, whenever the model gets made. The way it looks now, Rossi's enterprise is tottering, but he seems to have a number of Believers who would probably fork over the $100 or even more.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
From what I understand with regards to DGT's licensing, is that the license fee gives you all the necessary info to start the production. So all you need to do is find a premises of sufficient size and then DGT will give the blue prints for the manufacturing plant. what is not clear is if the license fee also includes the tools and machinery in the plant. I think (just my hunch) DGT were working on their reactor before the agreement with Rossi fell apart. From their dealing with Rossi they probably discovered that they wouldn't be able to work with him and that he most likely would fail to deliver on the terms of their agreement, i.e. demo a device running for 48hours. They probably kept close to Rossi and went along with him all the while they could find out as much as they could about the workings of his reactor and at any opportunity steal his IP. Again this is just my thinking. I find it hard to believe they magically developed their own reactor that quickly (when others are still trying) and have supposedly got it reliable and producing high temp steam without any IP transfer from Rossi. They must have got the secret or seed from Rossi that allowed them to proceed so quickly. It still remains to be seen how quick DGT get their product to market though and it all depends on them getting their certification. On 24/01/12 13:00, Wolf Fischer wrote: Probably Rossi has some NI persons on the controlling front...? If Rossis statement about production facility planning is true there must be other engineers involved (although the thought of Rossi doing every single piece of engineering on himself makes me laugh :)) Perhaps (my theory): Defkalion started gathering professionals and therefore working on their own reactor from the beginning of August, whereas Rossi started the more professionalized work after the "successful" 1MW plant test (at least it seems like this to me). Therefore Defkalion might have a 3 to 4 month lead on Rossi? However, what interests me then, is: How long until one can buy a Hyperion? (given that the certification runs fine for Defkalion). As they only sell licenses the licensee has to first start developing a concept on what the production looks like. This in turn might Rossi give some lead back, doesn't it? Wolf I think Rossi's best chance is to stop giving out contradicting information / statements. A couple of weeks ago the home e-cat was going to ship at the end of this year, then yesterday he states that it won't be for another 12-18 months. What happened? There is the continuing inconclusive specification of the home e-cat, not to mention all the issues with the 1MW plant. It strikes me that he seems to be in a bit of panic mode as he's realised that DGT may indeed have something and beat him to market with a superiorly engineered product. Rossi really needs to get a team of professional engineers to take his products and engineer them to refined commercial products. That is assuming he hasn't already got a team doing this. If he has there is not much evidence of it. As for Ampenergo, it still exists and is still active http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/pls/bsqry/f?p=100:7:211773132719711::NO:7:P7_CHARTER_NUM:1852164. Why the e-mail address doesn't work is anyones guess. Saying that has anyone managed to get in contact with Hydrofusion? I sent a couple of e-mails in the past and never got a reply or any acknowledgement of them receiving my e-mail. It's things like this that fuel the sceptics and the scam rumours. What is surprising, assuming DGT have what they say they have, is how quick DGT managed to come up with their own reactor technology. If no information transfer occurred between Rossi and DGT as Rossi states (which I don't believe) then DGT really pulled one out of the hat. I'm surprised no one else has managed to replicate yet if DGT managed it without any IP transfer from Rossi. In a way I feel sorry for Rossi as he has possibly found the answer to clean cheap energy but his personality may prevent him from actually being the first to market it commercially. Rossi is his own worse enemy. It may be as Jed said that he could be doing this deliberately to keep people off his back and to keep competitors from homing in. On 24/01/12 12:18, Vorl Bek
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Rossi would have all the money he could ever want from any one of several thousand large multinationals or governments by next week if he did a single proper black box test similar to Jan-Jun 2011 demos (no surrounding water box) but with proper independently installed and recorded calorimetry by qualified independent test observers (including some skeptics) and run for a day or two. It wouldn't even matter if it only ran for 6 hours before falling into quiescence, clear incontrovertible independent validation of powerful LENR would still have the world beating a path to his door to give him millions. Realistically Rossi is in the game of selling a developmental advantage for a massive new field that will advance far ahead of his understanding within months or years. It is naive for him to try to sell a commercial product - he doesn't have the skills or resources to match what bigger players will do in a year or two (see how far ahead Dekaflion appear to be now if their latest claims are true). If he doesn't realise that soon then he will ultimately be left poorer and probably embittered by his bad decisions. On 24 January 2012 12:18, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: Wolf Fischer wrote: there have been two different news lately: The first one being that Ampenergo seemingly has gone inactive (although I don't know what this exactly means, if this is even the company which is related to Leonardo, how this would affect Rossi, etc.): http://ecatnews.com/?p=1897 Second: The University of Bologna has seemingly terminated the contract with Rossi, as Krivit has posted: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/01/24/university-of-bologna-terminates-relationship-with-rossi/ It seems to me Rossi's best chance is to hold conference calls with mom-and-pop investors and ask them to contribute $100 so that Rossi can do the last bit of engineering needed to stabilize the e-cat and allow him to run it for more than 4 hours. In return, they will get a $500 credit on whatever e-cat model they decide to buy, whenever the model gets made. The way it looks now, Rossi's enterprise is tottering, but he seems to have a number of Believers who would probably fork over the $100 or even more.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
I'm not so surprised. LENR is not rocket science once you read the serious but rejected papers on the subject... Maybe more simple than usual metallurgy. LENR should be called solid state fusion, like transistors were name at the beginning. then you have engineering. their job take some time, but normal time. about stability there is known methods, classic engineering, some known usual tricks, or at lease tracks to follow. they are good yes, but just good innovative engineer. Good professionals, and in my mouth it is a great compliment. (like hero who says : no matter, it's my job) their no comment, wait for press release is simply basic business way to communicate. no comment on RD, new products, 2nd generation, before finalized. (except if you want to make people wait for vaporware, like in IT). short press release without much details, asking for (serious) third party to get tech data by mail/meeting, is normal business. The most funny comment was something nor far from yes they are building their factory, but they just don't realize it is not yet another shoe factory I just notices a probable innovation : - it seems their bare reactor does not runaway quickly, otherwise their test without coolant would lead to melting. I guess that their reactor is nearly intrinsically stable at high temperature... how ? Maybe their catalyst stop working at High temp? Maybe they have a thermo-mechanical feedback on H pressure, Maybe feedback through hydride phase change. or just their control electronic is fast enough to stop heating before the melt down, and the reactor is more stable than I imagine from rossi's problems... I just hope it is not a scam, otherwise I will stop believing in round earth, and will become like MY. I talk about DGT engineering team. beside, about the boss/investor maybe he is simply more tricky. seeing that it works but seeing also Rossi's problems, bad method, weak team, maybe they decide to break the contract according to the conditions, then start a race with a gang of professionals knowing that their team will go much faster and further than Rossi alone, winning the race. 2012/1/24 Energy Liberator energylibera...@gmail.com What is surprising, assuming DGT have what they say they have, is how quick DGT managed to come up with their own reactor technology. If no information transfer occurred between Rossi and DGT as Rossi states (which I don't believe) then DGT really pulled one out of the hat. I'm surprised no one else has managed to replicate yet if DGT managed it without any IP transfer from Rossi. In a way I feel sorry for Rossi as he has possibly found the answer to clean cheap energy but his personality may prevent him from actually being the first to market it commercially. Rossi is his own worse enemy. It may be as Jed said that he could be doing this deliberately to keep people off his back and to keep competitors from homing in.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Thank you, Robert. This is essentially what I have been saying for many weeks: Rossi has the ability to achieve a short run of nearly infinite COP- 6-8 hours, after which there is inevitable quiescence. That is both his problem and his ace-in-the-hole. He has not shown an ability to move beyond that stalemate. Problem is - thousands of man-hours of high quality engineering are now needed, and he cannot come close to doing it alone, BUT the biggest monetary value for him would only be possible if he could do it alone. However, if he could have done it months ago, then DGT would never have split, and Rossi would have adequate capital, even if not the entire 100 million. Now he is essentially penniless and cannot even give the University a pittance for desperately needed help. His time for monetizing even this slight developmental advantage is running out. Once DGT puts on a convincing show-and-tell, Rossi is nearly toast. That could happen this week. They may succeed with what is an inferior ratio of gain. Since they have never claimed self-running - this is indicative of having success through another route that does not involve a few of Rossi's secrets. Rossi's wife is smart enough to see this. Rossi's ego is too big. However, his wife will win this argument and Rossi will act like it was his idea. It is said this particular family dynamic is common in Italy. Look for a Rossi independent demo before the end of February, where - among other things - he just admits the E-Cat will go quiescent at some time, but in this demo he does show the significantly long unpowered mode (except for the RF) which removes the possibility of a chemical reaction. Jones From: Robert Lynn * It wouldn't even matter if it only ran for 6 hours before falling into quiescence, clear incontrovertible independent validation of powerful LENR would still have the world beating a path to his door to give him millions. * Realistically Rossi is in the game of selling a developmental advantage for a massive new field that will advance far ahead of his understanding within months or years. It is naive for him to try to sell a commercial product - he doesn't have the skills or resources to match what bigger players will do in a year or two (see how far ahead Defkalion appear to be now if their latest claims are true). If he doesn't realize that soon then he will ultimately be left poorer and probably embittered by his bad decisions.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
I think you're right Jones. Once DGT have their verified test results published Rossi will be under a lot of pressure as all attention will then be diverted to DGT and there success. Rossi may just realise this (with a little help from his wife) and try do another test before DGT have a chance to announce any results. It's his only chance. On 24/01/12 15:03, Jones Beene wrote: Thank you, Robert. This is essentially what I have been saying for many weeks: Rossi has the ability to achieve a short run of nearly infinite COP 6-8 hours, after which there is inevitable quiescence. That is both his problem and his ace-in-the-hole. He has not shown an ability to move beyond that stalemate. Problem is thousands of man-hours of high quality engineering are now needed, and he cannot come close to doing it alone, BUT the biggest monetary value for him would only be possible if he could do it alone. However, if he could have done it months ago, then DGT would never have split, and Rossi would have adequate capital, even if not the entire 100 million. Now he is essentially penniless and cannot even give the University a pittance for desperately needed help. His time for monetizing even this slight developmental advantage is running out. Once DGT puts on a convincing show-and-tell, Rossi is nearly toast. That could happen this week. They may succeed with what is an inferior ratio of gain. Since they have never claimed self-running - this is indicative of having success through another route that does not involve a few of Rossis secrets. Rossis wife is smart enough to see this. Rossis ego is too big. However, his wife will win this argument and Rossi will act like it was his idea. It is said this particular family dynamic is common in Italy. Look for a Rossi independent demo before the end of February, where among other things - he just admits the E-Cat will go quiescent at some time, but in this demo he does show the significantly long unpowered mode (except for the RF) which removes the possibility of a chemical reaction. Jones From:Robert Lynn It wouldn't even matter if it only ran for 6 hours before falling into quiescence, clearincontrovertibleindependent validation of powerful LENR would still have the world beating a path to his door to give him millions. Realistically Rossi is in the game of selling a developmental advantage for a massive new field that will advance far ahead of his understanding within months or years. It is naive for him to try to sell a commercial product - he doesn't have the skills or resources to match what bigger players will do in a year or two (see how far ahead Defkalion appear to be now if their latest claims are true). If he doesn't realize that soon then he will ultimately be left poorer and probably embittered by his bad decisions.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Jones, I also agree. However one question: Why does DGTs reactor provide an inferior ratio? As far as I remember, DGT claims a COP larger than 20 for a single reactor, whereas Rossi speaks of 6. Wolf Thank you, Robert. This is essentially what I have been saying for many weeks: Rossi has the ability to achieve a short run of nearly infinite COP-- 6-8 hours, after which there is inevitable quiescence. That is both his problem and his ace-in-the-hole. He has not shown an ability to move beyond that stalemate. Problem is -- thousands of man-hours of high quality engineering are now needed, and he cannot come close to doing it alone, BUT the biggest monetary value for him would only be possible if he could do it alone. However, if he could have done it months ago, then DGT would never have split, and Rossi would have adequate capital, even if not the entire 100 million. Now he is essentially penniless and cannot even give the University a pittance for desperately needed help. His time for monetizing even this slight developmental advantage is running out. Once DGT puts on a convincing show-and-tell, Rossi is nearly toast. That could happen this week. They may succeed with what is an inferior ratio of gain. Since they have never claimed self-running - this is indicative of having success through another route that does not involve a few of Rossi's secrets. Rossi's wife is smart enough to see this. Rossi's ego is too big. However, his wife will win this argument and Rossi will act like it was his idea. It is said this particular family dynamic is common in Italy. Look for a Rossi independent demo before the end of February, where -- among other things - he just admits the E-Cat will go quiescent at some time, but in this demo he does show the significantly long unpowered mode (except for the RF) which removes the possibility of a chemical reaction. Jones ** *From:*Robert Lynn ØIt wouldn't even matter if it only ran for 6 hours before falling into quiescence, clear incontrovertible independent validation of powerful LENR would still have the world beating a path to his door to give him millions. ØRealistically Rossi is in the game of selling a developmental advantage for a massive new field that will advance far ahead of his understanding within months or years. It is naive for him to try to sell a commercial product - he doesn't have the skills or resources to match what bigger players will do in a year or two (see how far ahead Defkalion appear to be now if their latest claims are true). If he doesn't realize that soon then he will ultimately be left poorer and probably embittered by his bad decisions.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Wolf, This comes under the category of 'puffery' and it probably relates to net gain, if there is any truth to it. Obviously if one can achieve lots of heat without input - COP is infinite. However, when you factor in the quiescent period and the startup delay then the average over an extended period could be COP-6. In the case of DGT, they could be saying that COP=20 is the best gain ever seen, and they may want to downplay the fact that the average over time, is far less. We await real data, in either case. Jones From: Wolf Fischer Jones, I also agree. However one question: Why does DGTs reactor provide an inferior ratio? As far as I remember, DGT claims a COP larger than 20 for a single reactor, whereas Rossi speaks of 6. Wolf Thank you, Robert. This is essentially what I have been saying for many weeks: Rossi has the ability to achieve a short run of nearly infinite COP- 6-8 hours, after which there is inevitable quiescence. That is both his problem and his ace-in-the-hole. He has not shown an ability to move beyond that stalemate. Problem is - thousands of man-hours of high quality engineering are now needed, and he cannot come close to doing it alone, BUT the biggest monetary value for him would only be possible if he could do it alone. However, if he could have done it months ago, then DGT would never have split, and Rossi would have adequate capital, even if not the entire 100 million. Now he is essentially penniless and cannot even give the University a pittance for desperately needed help. His time for monetizing even this slight developmental advantage is running out. Once DGT puts on a convincing show-and-tell, Rossi is nearly toast. That could happen this week. They may succeed with what is an inferior ratio of gain. Since they have never claimed self-running - this is indicative of having success through another route that does not involve a few of Rossi's secrets. Rossi's wife is smart enough to see this. Rossi's ego is too big. However, his wife will win this argument and Rossi will act like it was his idea. It is said this particular family dynamic is common in Italy. Look for a Rossi independent demo before the end of February, where - among other things - he just admits the E-Cat will go quiescent at some time, but in this demo he does show the significantly long unpowered mode (except for the RF) which removes the possibility of a chemical reaction. Jones From: Robert Lynn * It wouldn't even matter if it only ran for 6 hours before falling into quiescence, clear incontrovertible independent validation of powerful LENR would still have the world beating a path to his door to give him millions. * Realistically Rossi is in the game of selling a developmental advantage for a massive new field that will advance far ahead of his understanding within months or years. It is naive for him to try to sell a commercial product - he doesn't have the skills or resources to match what bigger players will do in a year or two (see how far ahead Defkalion appear to be now if their latest claims are true). If he doesn't realize that soon then he will ultimately be left poorer and probably embittered by his bad decisions.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
The issue I have with with Rossi's device is the high electricity demand required to start off the E-Cat and the length of time required to get it going and then the periodic electric demand to keep it going. In comparison DGT's system seems draw much lower power to start up and starts much faster. Do you think that's because DGT have a better / more efficient heater or their reactor fuel has some catalyst that kick starts the reaction faster. What sort of temperatures are required to start the reaction? On 24/01/12 15:27, Jones Beene wrote: Wolf, This comes under the category of puffery and it probably relates to net gain, if there is any truth to it. Obviously if one can achieve lots of heat without input COP is infinite. However, when you factor in the quiescent period and the startup delay then the average over an extended period could be COP-6. In the case of DGT, they could be saying that COP=20 is the best gain ever seen, and they may want to downplay the fact that the average over time, is far less. We await real data, in either case. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi would have all the money he could ever want from any one of several thousand large multinationals or governments by next week if he did a single proper black box test similar to Jan-Jun 2011 demos . . . Maybe. Maybe not. Many cold fusion researchers have done proper black box tests that produced irrefutable results, albeit on a much smaller scale. They should have gotten unlimited support from multinationals and governments. Unfortunately, they got the frozen boot. They were ridiculed, harassed, demoted to menial jobs, and so on. Rossi is well aware of this history. He has had a difficult life himself. He does not think the world is rational or that that justice, fair play, and equal opportunity often prevail. I don't either. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I know history. I read the newspapers. I know that in real life people who invent things which challenge gigantic ruthless industries -- such as the oil companies and coal companies -- often come to bad ends. They may not be shot. They may not be fired, or driven out of the country the way Pons was. But they are seldom welcomed by governments and multinationals. I urged Rossi to do a test like the one you described. I told him it could bring about support. However it is naïve to imagine it would instantly solve these problems or make him a multimillionaire. I believe that Rossi fears it would trigger a backlash from vested interests. He may be right about that. It is a real risk. If I were him I would take that risk, but it is his decision and I agree he has good reasons to be afraid. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
From: Energy Liberator: The issue I have with Rossi's device is the high electricity demand required to start off the E-Cat . You may recall that DGT uses a heat transfer fluid, not water. One can employ a reservoir of hot fluid for faster startup, and this bulk reservoir can serve many units. Thus the need for electric input is mollified. On vortex, a year ago we were suggesting that Rossi should do this (use a dedicated heat transfer fluid), since one can store heat like this with a low vapor pressure at high temperature, possible near or higher than the threshold for startup. With water you cannot do this - YET Rossi still does not get it. This is why he needs the strong engineering help that he is NOT getting. DGT almost immediately picked up on this, which indicates that they are either monitoring this forum or had come to the conclusion independently. Typically with other positive results in Ni-H, which have been openly reported in the USA (Ahern) - the gain is in the form of a temperature inversion in which there is (X) input and the output is a multiple - let's say it is 6*(X). Note that Ahern was getting only about 1.2(X) - that is: until recently when we found a commercial nanopowder may have pushed the multiple way up (Sorry the report of that advance is not ready for publication yet and subject to many more runs). And thank Zeus that MY is not here to pounce on this bit of delay in publication. Anyway, early on, the skeptics hit on this need for constant input very hard - as being non-reconcilable with the claimed large gain, since after startup, any large gain should eliminate the need for further input. They are both right and wrong. They would be correct if there was steady gain over time in the reactor - but this does not happen with a few grams of reactant ! The lack of steady gain is part of the larger problem of quiescence. The active material goes in and out gain-mode sequentially. (we have a possible QM explanation for that oddity). Get it? I hope we do not have to re-convince the new-comers to Vo of the fact that this need for some kind of forced continuity (or stable input power) is indeed reconcilable with strong gain. It is part of the process and it is new physics. You will not find much on this in current literature but I am prepared to defend it once again if there are continuing doubts. Jones From: Energy Liberator The issue I have with Rossi's device is the high electricity demand required to start off the E-Cat and the length of time required to get it going and then the periodic electric demand to keep it going. In comparison DGT's system seems draw much lower power to start up and starts much faster. Do you think that's because DGT have a better / more efficient heater or their reactor fuel has some catalyst that kick starts the reaction faster. What sort of temperatures are required to start the reaction? On 24/01/12 15:27, Jones Beene wrote: Wolf, This comes under the category of 'puffery' and it probably relates to net gain, if there is any truth to it. Obviously if one can achieve lots of heat without input - COP is infinite. However, when you factor in the quiescent period and the startup delay then the average over an extended period could be COP-6. In the case of DGT, they could be saying that COP=20 is the best gain ever seen, and they may want to downplay the fact that the average over time, is far less. We await real data, in either case. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
The design of the DGT device allows them to lower if not stop the coolant flow into the heated core unit. The heating of the core can then be much faster and also require less net energy than Rossi's configuration. I would expect that both designs would need approximately the same temperature for efficient output. This is just my opinion, but I think the DGT design is more ideal. Dave -Original Message- From: Energy Liberator energylibera...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jan 24, 2012 10:39 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance The issue I have with with Rossi's device is the high electricity demand required to start off the E-Cat and the length of time required to get it going and then the periodic electric demand to keep it going. In comparison DGT's system seems draw much lower power to start up and starts much faster. Do you think that's because DGT have a better / more efficient heater or their reactor fuel has some catalyst that kick starts the reaction faster. What sort of temperatures are required to start the reaction? On 24/01/12 15:27, Jones Beene wrote: Wolf, This comes under the category of ‘puffery’ and it probably relates to net gain, if there is any truth to it. Obviously if one can achieve lots of heat without input – COP is infinite. However, when you factor in the quiescent period and the startup delay then the average over an extended period could be COP-6. In the case of DGT, they could be saying that COP=20 is the best gain ever seen, and they may want to downplay the fact that the average over time, is far less. We await real data, in either case. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Thanks for the explanation. I knew DGT were using a heat transfer fluid but didn't realise they were preheating it to assist with the start up. "...The lack of steady gain is part of the larger problem of quiescence. The active material goes in and out gain-mode sequentially. (we have a possible QM explanation for that oddity)..." Is this problem of "quiescence" verified or something you been informed of? I've not seen it mentioned anywhere. One would think Rossi would monitor what DGT are up to and see if he can learn anything but he seems completely convinced they have nothing or at least publicly that is the impression he is giving. He could learn a few engineering tips just by looking at the Hyperion spec sheet. I think Rossi may be hurting from the whole DGT affair and through blind spite is dismissing everything relating to DGT. Just to be clear, I'm not a sceptic. I actually believe Rossi and DGT have something but I'm keeping my feet firmly planted and will question things that don't seem to add up. On 24/01/12 16:22, Jones Beene wrote: From:Energy Liberator: The issue I have with Rossi's device is the high electricity demand required to start off the E-Cat You may recall that DGT uses a heat transfer fluid, not water. One can employ a reservoir of hot fluid for faster startup, and this bulk reservoir can serve many units. Thus the need for electric input is mollified. On vortex, a year ago we were suggesting that Rossi should do this (use a dedicated heat transfer fluid), since one can store heat like this with a low vapor pressure at high temperature, possible near or higher than the threshold for startup. With water you cannot do this - YET Rossi still does not get it. This is why he needs the strong engineering help that he is NOT getting. DGT almost immediately picked up on this, which indicates that they are either monitoring this forum or had come to the conclusion independently. Typically with other positive results in Ni-H, which have been openly reported in the USA (Ahern) - the gain is in the form of a temperature inversion in which there is (X) input and the output is a multiple lets say it is 6*(X). Note that Ahern was getting only about 1.2(X) that is: until recently when we found a commercial nanopowder may have pushed the multiple way up (Sorry the report of that advance is not ready for publication yet and subject to many more runs). And thank Zeus that MY is not here to pounce on this bit of delay in publication. Anyway, early on, the skeptics hit on this need for constant input very hard - as being non-reconcilable with the claimed large gain, since after startup, any large gain should eliminate the need for further input. They are both right and wrong. They would be correct if there was steady gain over time in the reactor - but this does not happen with a few grams of reactant ! The lack of steady gain is part of the larger problem of quiescence. The active material goes in and out gain-mode sequentially. (we have a possible QM explanation for that oddity). Get it? I hope we do not have to re-convince the new-comers to Vo of the fact that this need for some kind of forced continuity (or stable input power) is indeed reconcilable with strong gain. It is part of the process and it is new physics. You will not find much on this in current literature but I am prepared to defend it once again if there are continuing doubts. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Being fast to start and avoiding meltdown mean that they have a very good, nearly optimal control. Maybe part of the secret is classic control theory, helping to design the optimal retro-action, once you know the core thermal parameters... but being also able to work without cooling, with nudist reactors under the sky, mean they don't need the coolant to survive... something is stabilizing the core, or at least helping/damping the core to be stabilized from far by a very good temp-power loop (maybe a good PID predictor). One idea would be that they use very fast induction heating, but they say NO RFG... maybe induction is not RFG for them (true in a way). this might explain why they use (as someone explain here) a magnetically transparent steel. the stability of the core might be about the powder behavior at high temperature, relative to induction... (why not curie point? 627 C?) but in their spec they talk about resistors, not induction coils... they talk about a chemically assisted preheating... undisclosed. pre-heat 6 seconds... max op temp 1050C... however coolant oil is limited to 350C, and 430 for molten salts... not the 600C we see as limit for the tests... whatever they did, it is smart job... either a tricky intrinsic feedback (like lead-bismuth nuke do), or optimal control, after good modelization. 2012/1/24 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com The design of the DGT device allows them to lower if not stop the coolant flow into the heated core unit. The heating of the core can then be much faster and also require less net energy than Rossi's configuration. I would expect that both designs would need approximately the same temperature for efficient output. This is just my opinion, but I think the DGT design is more ideal. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
No such thing as a magnetically transparent steel (or any conductor for that matter) RF will not pass through a conductive material. And for the same reason high frequency magnetic fields will not penetrate any metal by more than a fraction of a mm. For a bit of a guide as to what sort of distances we are talking about check out the skin effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect (not exactly the same, but similar behaviour). If you are referring to a non-ferromagnetic steel and what significance it might have then keep in mind that Austenitic Stainless steels like AISI 301, 304, 316, 321 etc are the cheapest, most commonly available materials with good high temperature strength, creep resistance, ductility, excellent machinability, excellent weldability, resistance to hydrogen embrittlement and resistance to many other forms of chemical attack and oxidation. They are used in many high temp applications for all of those reasons, and are in many ways the chemical (and particularly food processing) industry's work horse materials. I am sure that there is nothing more to the use of non-ferromagnetic stainless steel than convenience. You can also get Ferritic stainless steel (4xx series) that are ferromagnetic (ie attracted to magnetic fields), but generally not as good for high temps or corrosion. On 24 January 2012 17:42, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Being fast to start and avoiding meltdown mean that they have a very good, nearly optimal control. Maybe part of the secret is classic control theory, helping to design the optimal retro-action, once you know the core thermal parameters... but being also able to work without cooling, with nudist reactors under the sky, mean they don't need the coolant to survive... something is stabilizing the core, or at least helping/damping the core to be stabilized from far by a very good temp-power loop (maybe a good PID predictor). One idea would be that they use very fast induction heating, but they say NO RFG... maybe induction is not RFG for them (true in a way). this might explain why they use (as someone explain here) a magnetically transparent steel. the stability of the core might be about the powder behavior at high temperature, relative to induction... (why not curie point? 627 C?) but in their spec they talk about resistors, not induction coils... they talk about a chemically assisted preheating... undisclosed. pre-heat 6 seconds... max op temp 1050C... however coolant oil is limited to 350C, and 430 for molten salts... not the 600C we see as limit for the tests... whatever they did, it is smart job... either a tricky intrinsic feedback (like lead-bismuth nuke do), or optimal control, after good modelization. 2012/1/24 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com The design of the DGT device allows them to lower if not stop the coolant flow into the heated core unit. The heating of the core can then be much faster and also require less net energy than Rossi's configuration. I would expect that both designs would need approximately the same temperature for efficient output. This is just my opinion, but I think the DGT design is more ideal. Dave
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Lots of good, and *rational*, skepticism going on today. Rossi's failure to deliver is likely due to the lack of competent experts in the required technologies (physics, engineering), and that is probably due to his ego and/or paranoia of someone stealing his 'secret sauce'. DGT differs in that they have an appreciation for the complexity and sophistication of the effort, and apparently hired the expertise needed. If Jones' statements about quiescence are in fact what is happening, and Rossi was aware of it, then the business decision to attempt a commercial unit was a major error. he should have focused on solving that problem prior to any commercial announcement. perhaps he was attempting a 'hail mary', and betting that he could solve the problem before delivery, but that decision has come back and bit him in the a$$... Also, I doubt that the quiescence problem can be solved by engineering. it is likely due to the physics of the reaction and will require strong scientific understanding to solve. Fortunately, Rossi has stoked the fires of interest in LENR, and there are plenty of very competent scientists now working on it. -m From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 8:22 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance From: Energy Liberator: The issue I have with Rossi's device is the high electricity demand required to start off the E-Cat . You may recall that DGT uses a heat transfer fluid, not water. One can employ a reservoir of hot fluid for faster startup, and this bulk reservoir can serve many units. Thus the need for electric input is mollified. On vortex, a year ago we were suggesting that Rossi should do this (use a dedicated heat transfer fluid), since one can store heat like this with a low vapor pressure at high temperature, possible near or higher than the threshold for startup. With water you cannot do this - YET Rossi still does not get it. This is why he needs the strong engineering help that he is NOT getting. DGT almost immediately picked up on this, which indicates that they are either monitoring this forum or had come to the conclusion independently. Typically with other positive results in Ni-H, which have been openly reported in the USA (Ahern) - the gain is in the form of a temperature inversion in which there is (X) input and the output is a multiple - let's say it is 6*(X). Note that Ahern was getting only about 1.2(X) - that is: until recently when we found a commercial nanopowder may have pushed the multiple way up (Sorry the report of that advance is not ready for publication yet and subject to many more runs). And thank Zeus that MY is not here to pounce on this bit of delay in publication. Anyway, early on, the skeptics hit on this need for constant input very hard - as being non-reconcilable with the claimed large gain, since after startup, any large gain should eliminate the need for further input. They are both right and wrong. They would be correct if there was steady gain over time in the reactor - but this does not happen with a few grams of reactant ! The lack of steady gain is part of the larger problem of quiescence. The active material goes in and out gain-mode sequentially. (we have a possible QM explanation for that oddity). Get it? I hope we do not have to re-convince the new-comers to Vo of the fact that this need for some kind of forced continuity (or stable input power) is indeed reconcilable with strong gain. It is part of the process and it is new physics. You will not find much on this in current literature but I am prepared to defend it once again if there are continuing doubts. Jones From: Energy Liberator The issue I have with Rossi's device is the high electricity demand required to start off the E-Cat and the length of time required to get it going and then the periodic electric demand to keep it going. In comparison DGT's system seems draw much lower power to start up and starts much faster. Do you think that's because DGT have a better / more efficient heater or their reactor fuel has some catalyst that kick starts the reaction faster. What sort of temperatures are required to start the reaction? On 24/01/12 15:27, Jones Beene wrote: Wolf, This comes under the category of 'puffery' and it probably relates to net gain, if there is any truth to it. Obviously if one can achieve lots of heat without input - COP is infinite. However, when you factor in the quiescent period and the startup delay then the average over an extended period could be COP-6. In the case of DGT, they could be saying that COP=20 is the best gain ever seen, and they may want to downplay the fact that the average over time, is far less. We await real data, in either case. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Do you guys know about Iron Sky? It does have themes interesting to this group as alternative energy sources, anti-gravity and so on. It is a movie rendition of the well known meme that Nazi escaped to the moon at the end of the second world war. It is should be a pretty entertaining movie I think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeAfoiN5SDw I plan to write a book on it called: The physics of Iron Sky. http://www.facebook.com/groups/physicsironsky/ Giovanni On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Lots of good, and **rational**, skepticism going on today… ** ** Rossi’s failure to deliver is likely due to the lack of competent experts in the required technologies (physics, engineering), and that is probably due to his ego and/or paranoia of someone stealing his ‘secret sauce’. DGT differs in that they have an appreciation for the complexity and sophistication of the effort, and apparently hired the expertise needed.** ** ** ** If Jones’ statements about “quiescence” are in fact what is happening, and Rossi was aware of it, then the business decision to attempt a commercial unit was a major error… he should have focused on solving that problem prior to any commercial announcement… perhaps he was attempting a ‘hail mary’, and betting that he could solve the problem before delivery, but that decision has come back and bit him in the a$$... ** ** Also, I doubt that the quiescence problem can be solved by engineering… it is likely due to the physics of the reaction and will require strong scientific understanding to solve. Fortunately, Rossi has stoked the fires of interest in LENR, and there are plenty of very competent scientists now working on it. ** ** -m ** ** *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2012 8:22 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance ** ** *From:* Energy Liberator: The issue I have with Rossi's device is the high electricity demand required to start off the E-Cat … ** ** ** ** You may recall that DGT uses a heat transfer fluid, not water. ** ** One can employ a reservoir of hot fluid for faster startup, and this bulk reservoir can serve many units. Thus the need for electric input is mollified. ** ** On vortex, a year ago we were suggesting that Rossi should do this (use a dedicated heat transfer fluid), since one can store heat like this with a low vapor pressure at high temperature, possible near or higher than the threshold for startup. ** ** With water you cannot do this - YET Rossi still does not get it. This is why he needs the strong engineering help that he is NOT getting. DGT almost immediately picked up on this, which indicates that they are either monitoring this forum or had come to the conclusion independently. ** ** Typically with other positive results in Ni-H, which have been openly reported in the USA (Ahern) - the gain is in the form of a “temperature inversion” in which there is (X) input and the output is a multiple – let’s say it is 6*(X). ** ** Note that Ahern was getting only about 1.2(X) – that is: until recently when we found a commercial nanopowder may have pushed the multiple way up (Sorry the report of that advance is not ready for publication yet and subject to many more runs). And thank Zeus that MY is not here to pounce on this bit of delay in publication. ** ** Anyway, early on, the skeptics hit on this need for constant input very hard - as being non-reconcilable with the claimed large gain, since after startup, any large gain should eliminate the need for further input. They are both right and wrong. ** ** They would be correct if there was steady gain over time in the reactor - but this does not happen with a few grams of reactant ! The lack of steady gain is part of the larger problem of “quiescence”. The active material goes in and out gain-mode sequentially. (we have a possible QM explanation for that oddity). ** ** Get it? ** ** I hope we do not have to re-convince the new-comers to Vo of the fact that this need for some kind of “forced continuity” (or stable input power) is indeed reconcilable with strong gain. ** ** It is part of the process and it is *new physics*. You will not find much on this in current literature but I am prepared to defend it once again if there are continuing doubts. ** ** Jones ** ** *From:* Energy Liberator ** ** The issue I have with Rossi's device is the high electricity demand required to start off the E-Cat and the length of time required to get it going and then the periodic electric demand to keep it going. In comparison DGT's system seems draw much lower power to start up and starts much faster. Do you think that's because DGT have a better / more efficient heater
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
It is not clear at all how DGT is initializing the reaction. Maybe the hot chemical that assists the startup is only used to back up the main electrical heating element. This may be a way to heat the chemical over a relatively long time period without too much power and then having it release its heat quickly into the inner cube at the same time the electrical heating is available. It would seem possible to effectively multiply the peak heating requirement by a factor of 3 or so in this manner. I agree that they must have a well designed and functioning control unit to prevent meltdown. How nice it would be to have data to review as we give consideration to these ideas! Guess we might have to wait before we get our probes onto a final device. Do you think that DGT would have determined a safe temperature to preheat the core to before having to worry about thermal runaway? Their testing should have allowed them to see that there is no danger of runaway when the core is at, as example, 300 C. So any preheating liquid at or below that temperature could flood the device with no danger. Only after that temperature has been achieved would the control system and electrical heater have to kick in and work well. I have long suspected that the RFG is mainly to confuse others and misdirect their efforts. DGT does not suggest that they have one in their design. The magnetically transparent steel might allow static fields to enter freely, but if it is a conductor of reasonable performance, RF fields would not enter. Their working with nudist reactors is confusing. I wonder if the reactor for this test is only being loaded with a small Hydrogen charge. How would they possibly get the heat out of a normally functioning device with no coolant flow? I suspect that they are interested in just proving that LENR is real but not operating at the required levels. I would expect that the P(T) curve would be modified greatly by the charge level. As we know, no hydrogen means no power so a small amount must result in a modest power gain. I would rather see a fully functioning unit in operation and being measured. We speak of the maximum operating temperature of the coolant as being below the specified output temperature. I suspect that we just are not aware of the type of coolant that they are using. Now, since they claim that they operate at 600 C or more under normal conditions, then why could they not use some of the coolant as the initial chemically assisted heating material? This would be in line with my suspicion that the pumps are stopped while the device is brought up to the desired range. One thing that I have wondered about for a while is the effects of low frequency magnetic fields. I assume that the nickel powder is attracted to a magnet at room temperature. Would a slowly changing field cause the material to be continually mixed up and agitated? Perhaps this motion would keep the material alive. A low frequency magnetic field could penetrate a modest conductor. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jan 24, 2012 12:43 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance Being fast to start and avoiding meltdown mean that they have a very good, nearly optimal control. Maybe part of the secret is classic control theory, helping to design the optimal retro-action, once you know the core thermal parameters... but being also able to work without cooling, with nudist reactors under the sky, mean they don't need the coolant to survive... something is stabilizing the core, or at least helping/damping the core to be stabilized from far by a very good temp-power loop (maybe a good PID predictor). One idea would be that they use very fast induction heating, but they say NO RFG... maybe induction is not RFG for them (true in a way). this might explain why they use (as someone explain here) a magnetically transparent steel. the stability of the core might be about the powder behavior at high temperature, relative to induction... (why not curie point? 627 C?) but in their spec they talk about resistors, not induction coils... they talk about a chemically assisted preheating... undisclosed. pre-heat 6 seconds... max op temp 1050C... however coolant oil is limited to 350C, and 430 for molten salts... not the 600C we see as limit for the tests... whatever they did, it is smart job... either a tricky intrinsic feedback (like lead-bismuth nuke do), or optimal control, after good modelization. 2012/1/24 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com The design of the DGT device allows them to lower if not stop the coolant flow into the heated core unit. The heating of the core can then be much faster and also require less net energy than Rossi's configuration. I would expect that both designs would need approximately the same temperature for efficient output. This is just my
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
thanks for the data. of course RFG could not get through a big piece of metal, but low frequency magnetic field could pass through, if the metal is not too ferromagnetic, and cause induction current in a resistive ferromagnetic nickel powder (but also in the metal around...)... but your explanation is very good... they choose the usual basic solution for this kind of problem of hot metal... and as I say nothing seems to evocate something else resistive and chemical heating... all seems simple, except - the catalyst - the startup chemical heating - maybe a tricky control method... 2012/1/24 Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com No such thing as a magnetically transparent steel (or any conductor for that matter) RF will not pass through a conductive material. And for the same reason high frequency magnetic fields will not penetrate any metal by more than a fraction of a mm. For a bit of a guide as to what sort of distances we are talking about check out the skin effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect (not exactly the same, but similar behaviour). If you are referring to a non-ferromagnetic steel and what significance it might have then keep in mind that Austenitic Stainless steels like AISI 301, 304, 316, 321 etc are the cheapest, most commonly available materials with good high temperature strength, creep resistance, ductility, excellent machinability, excellent weldability, resistance to hydrogen embrittlement and resistance to many other forms of chemical attack and oxidation. They are used in many high temp applications for all of those reasons, and are in many ways the chemical (and particularly food processing) industry's work horse materials. I am sure that there is nothing more to the use of non-ferromagnetic stainless steel than convenience. You can also get Ferritic stainless steel (4xx series) that are ferromagnetic (ie attracted to magnetic fields), but generally not as good for high temps or corrosion. On 24 January 2012 17:42, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Being fast to start and avoiding meltdown mean that they have a very good, nearly optimal control. Maybe part of the secret is classic control theory, helping to design the optimal retro-action, once you know the core thermal parameters... but being also able to work without cooling, with nudist reactors under the sky, mean they don't need the coolant to survive... something is stabilizing the core, or at least helping/damping the core to be stabilized from far by a very good temp-power loop (maybe a good PID predictor). One idea would be that they use very fast induction heating, but they say NO RFG... maybe induction is not RFG for them (true in a way). this might explain why they use (as someone explain here) a magnetically transparent steel. the stability of the core might be about the powder behavior at high temperature, relative to induction... (why not curie point? 627 C?) but in their spec they talk about resistors, not induction coils... they talk about a chemically assisted preheating... undisclosed. pre-heat 6 seconds... max op temp 1050C... however coolant oil is limited to 350C, and 430 for molten salts... not the 600C we see as limit for the tests... whatever they did, it is smart job... either a tricky intrinsic feedback (like lead-bismuth nuke do), or optimal control, after good modelization. 2012/1/24 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com The design of the DGT device allows them to lower if not stop the coolant flow into the heated core unit. The heating of the core can then be much faster and also require less net energy than Rossi's configuration. I would expect that both designs would need approximately the same temperature for efficient output. This is just my opinion, but I think the DGT design is more ideal. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
A low frequency magnetic field (basically DC turned on and off) could help agitate the powder and dissipate hot spots, but at temperatures above 360°C curie temp of Nickel (that appears to be where the reactors operate according to DGT) static magnetic fields will have no effect on pure nickel. We really haven't seen any indication that an applied magnetic field is necessary or useful to the reaction, The reaction appears to continue even after the resistive heating element (with it's associated magnetic field) is turned off. I calculate that for nickel particles of 4µm and the reasonable high density of high pressure hydrogen even in such a small reaction chamber the convective gas motion is capable of blowing nickel particles around - basically a slow and gentle geyser in the hotter centre of the chamber lifting particles up to then fall down the cooler walls, thus slowly mixing and agitating the powder. On 24 January 2012 19:40, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is not clear at all how DGT is initializing the reaction. Maybe the hot chemical that assists the startup is only used to back up the main electrical heating element. This may be a way to heat the chemical over a relatively long time period without too much power and then having it release its heat quickly into the inner cube at the same time the electrical heating is available. It would seem possible to effectively multiply the peak heating requirement by a factor of 3 or so in this manner. I agree that they must have a well designed and functioning control unit to prevent meltdown. How nice it would be to have data to review as we give consideration to these ideas! Guess we might have to wait before we get our probes onto a final device. Do you think that DGT would have determined a safe temperature to preheat the core to before having to worry about thermal runaway? Their testing should have allowed them to see that there is no danger of runaway when the core is at, as example, 300 C. So any preheating liquid at or below that temperature could flood the device with no danger. Only after that temperature has been achieved would the control system and electrical heater have to kick in and work well. I have long suspected that the RFG is mainly to confuse others and misdirect their efforts. DGT does not suggest that they have one in their design. The magnetically transparent steel might allow static fields to enter freely, but if it is a conductor of reasonable performance, RF fields would not enter. Their working with nudist reactors is confusing. I wonder if the reactor for this test is only being loaded with a small Hydrogen charge. How would they possibly get the heat out of a normally functioning device with no coolant flow? I suspect that they are interested in just proving that LENR is real but not operating at the required levels. I would expect that the P(T) curve would be modified greatly by the charge level. As we know, no hydrogen means no power so a small amount must result in a modest power gain. I would rather see a fully functioning unit in operation and being measured. We speak of the maximum operating temperature of the coolant as being below the specified output temperature. I suspect that we just are not aware of the type of coolant that they are using. Now, since they claim that they operate at 600 C or more under normal conditions, then why could they not use some of the coolant as the initial chemically assisted heating material? This would be in line with my suspicion that the pumps are stopped while the device is brought up to the desired range. One thing that I have wondered about for a while is the effects of low frequency magnetic fields. I assume that the nickel powder is attracted to a magnet at room temperature. Would a slowly changing field cause the material to be continually mixed up and agitated? Perhaps this motion would keep the material alive. A low frequency magnetic field could penetrate a modest conductor. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jan 24, 2012 12:43 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance Being fast to start and avoiding meltdown mean that they have a very good, nearly optimal control. Maybe part of the secret is classic control theory, helping to design the optimal retro-action, once you know the core thermal parameters... but being also able to work without cooling, with nudist reactors under the sky, mean they don't need the coolant to survive... something is stabilizing the core, or at least helping/damping the core to be stabilized from far by a very good temp-power loop (maybe a good PID predictor). One idea would be that they use very fast induction heating, but they say NO RFG... maybe induction is not RFG for them (true in a way). this might explain why they use (as someone explain here
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
On 24 January 2012 19:40, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree that they must have a well designed and functioning control unit to prevent meltdown. If quiescence is a reality, and *if* it will require a scientific/QM understanding, the I don't think any amount of 'control engineering' is going to be much help. one will need to find out the cause of the quiescence, which is a physics problem. If the quiescence is of a reasonable periodic nature (i.e., repeatable), or if it gives you adequate 'warning' that it has started, then one could have 2 or 3 reactor cores inside, only one of which is 'running'. When it begins to go into quiescence, one then starts up one of the 'idle' cores. while shutting down the quiescent one. This is a brainless kind of solution, and wouldn't work if the quiescent core needs to be unassembled in order to make it 'ignite' again. If reactive capability can be reinstated by shocking it with a hi-V pulse or cycling H2 pressure, things like that, then it could be automated and done while in-situ. These are engineering problems, not scientific ones. -m
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Sounds like a fluidized bed reactor to me. It has to be a bottleneck transferring all that heat flux to the kernel walls though. I would think some type of co-deposited Ni/Catalyst onto the kernel walls would do a much better job of heat transfer but maybe that would not provide as much surface area for the Ni - hydrogen reaction. On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: A low frequency magnetic field (basically DC turned on and off) could help agitate the powder and dissipate hot spots, but at temperatures above 360°C curie temp of Nickel (that appears to be where the reactors operate according to DGT) static magnetic fields will have no effect on pure nickel. We really haven't seen any indication that an applied magnetic field is necessary or useful to the reaction, The reaction appears to continue even after the resistive heating element (with it's associated magnetic field) is turned off. I calculate that for nickel particles of 4µm and the reasonable high density of high pressure hydrogen even in such a small reaction chamber the convective gas motion is capable of blowing nickel particles around - basically a slow and gentle geyser in the hotter centre of the chamber lifting particles up to then fall down the cooler walls, thus slowly mixing and agitating the powder. On 24 January 2012 19:40, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is not clear at all how DGT is initializing the reaction. Maybe the hot chemical that assists the startup is only used to back up the main electrical heating element. This may be a way to heat the chemical over a relatively long time period without too much power and then having it release its heat quickly into the inner cube at the same time the electrical heating is available. It would seem possible to effectively multiply the peak heating requirement by a factor of 3 or so in this manner. I agree that they must have a well designed and functioning control unit to prevent meltdown. How nice it would be to have data to review as we give consideration to these ideas! Guess we might have to wait before we get our probes onto a final device. Do you think that DGT would have determined a safe temperature to preheat the core to before having to worry about thermal runaway? Their testing should have allowed them to see that there is no danger of runaway when the core is at, as example, 300 C. So any preheating liquid at or below that temperature could flood the device with no danger. Only after that temperature has been achieved would the control system and electrical heater have to kick in and work well. I have long suspected that the RFG is mainly to confuse others and misdirect their efforts. DGT does not suggest that they have one in their design. The magnetically transparent steel might allow static fields to enter freely, but if it is a conductor of reasonable performance, RF fields would not enter. Their working with nudist reactors is confusing. I wonder if the reactor for this test is only being loaded with a small Hydrogen charge. How would they possibly get the heat out of a normally functioning device with no coolant flow? I suspect that they are interested in just proving that LENR is real but not operating at the required levels. I would expect that the P(T) curve would be modified greatly by the charge level. As we know, no hydrogen means no power so a small amount must result in a modest power gain. I would rather see a fully functioning unit in operation and being measured. We speak of the maximum operating temperature of the coolant as being below the specified output temperature. I suspect that we just are not aware of the type of coolant that they are using. Now, since they claim that they operate at 600 C or more under normal conditions, then why could they not use some of the coolant as the initial chemically assisted heating material? This would be in line with my suspicion that the pumps are stopped while the device is brought up to the desired range. One thing that I have wondered about for a while is the effects of low frequency magnetic fields. I assume that the nickel powder is attracted to a magnet at room temperature. Would a slowly changing field cause the material to be continually mixed up and agitated? Perhaps this motion would keep the material alive. A low frequency magnetic field could penetrate a modest conductor. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jan 24, 2012 12:43 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance Being fast to start and avoiding meltdown mean that they have a very good, nearly optimal control. Maybe part of the secret is classic control theory, helping to design the optimal retro-action, once you know the core thermal parameters... but being also able to work without cooling
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Jones: If you are filling a bucket with water at 1 liter/min., and draining it at 0.99 l/min, it will take awhile, but will fill up and eventually overflow. Question: Could the quiescence be something as simple as heat not being extracted fast enough from the Ni-core material and it eventually builds up to begin melting the Ni tubercles, slowly quenching the 'active area'? If so, then my initial thoughts don't apply and it is an engineering problem. -Mark From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 12:40 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance On 24 January 2012 19:40, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree that they must have a well designed and functioning control unit to prevent meltdown. If quiescence is a reality, and *if* it will require a scientific/QM understanding, the I don't think any amount of 'control engineering' is going to be much help. one will need to find out the cause of the quiescence, which is a physics problem. If the quiescence is of a reasonable periodic nature (i.e., repeatable), or if it gives you adequate 'warning' that it has started, then one could have 2 or 3 reactor cores inside, only one of which is 'running'. When it begins to go into quiescence, one then starts up one of the 'idle' cores. while shutting down the quiescent one. This is a brainless kind of solution, and wouldn't work if the quiescent core needs to be unassembled in order to make it 'ignite' again. If reactive capability can be reinstated by shocking it with a hi-V pulse or cycling H2 pressure, things like that, then it could be automated and done while in-situ. These are engineering problems, not scientific ones. -m
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
DGT could use a magnetic stirrer with small magnet rods in the powder. Or their solution could simply be the geometry of the kernel itself. Possibly they inject a puff of new hydrogen to stir the powder. T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
That would be my guess. A lump of powder might quickly get hotspots and meltdown. If you can keep a fluidized bed going the heating would be uniform. Maybe that is why defkalion showed that test reactor with a window in it to see when the powder was fluidizing... On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Jones: ** ** If you are filling a bucket with water at 1 liter/min., and draining it at 0.99 l/min, it will take awhile, but will fill up and eventually overflow… ** ** Question: Could the quiescence be something as simple as heat not being extracted fast enough from the Ni-core material and it eventually builds up to begin melting the Ni tubercles, slowly quenching the ‘active area’? If so, then my initial thoughts don’t apply and it is an engineering problem. ** ** -Mark ** ** *From:* Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2012 12:40 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance ** ** On 24 January 2012 19:40, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree that they must have a well designed and functioning control unit to prevent meltdown. ** ** If quiescence is a reality, and **if** it will require a scientific/QM understanding, the I don’t think any amount of ‘control engineering’ is going to be much help… one will need to find out the cause of the quiescence, which is a physics problem… ** ** If the quiescence is of a reasonable periodic nature (i.e., repeatable), or if it gives you adequate ‘warning’ that it has started, then one could have 2 or 3 reactor cores inside, only one of which is ‘running’. When it begins to go into quiescence, one then starts up one of the ‘idle’ cores… while shutting down the quiescent one. This is a brainless kind of solution, and wouldn’t work if the quiescent core needs to be unassembled in order to make it ‘ignite’ again. If reactive capability can be reinstated by shocking it with a hi-V pulse or cycling H2 pressure, things like that, then it could be automated and done while in-situ. These are engineering problems, not scientific ones… ** ** -m
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
I don't have the answer, but it was my assumption, about control. Quiescence does not seems to be a problem with DGT according to their talk and (more important) to their test protocol (which does talk about continuous heat). 2012/1/24 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Question: Could the quiescence be something as simple as heat not being extracted fast enough from the Ni-core material and it eventually builds up to begin melting the Ni tubercles, slowly quenching the ‘active area’? If so, then my initial thoughts don’t apply and it is an engineering problem.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Mark, The first question that must be answered is: it the Ni-H phenomena Quantum Mechanical in nature, or is it Thermonuclear, on a reduced scale? There are some that still believe Ni-H is thermonuclear and in fact, Pd-D could be. In fact W-L theory tries hard not to be forced into making that decision, and has QM features - but if the defining detail of that theory involves neutrons, neutron capture - and subsequent weak-force reactions, just as are seen in traditional physics - then it is a thermonuclear theory. Theories that involve tunneling of protons in one form or another are QM based - if no neutron is involved. QM is normally too low in probability to account for much heat. But one aftermath of the development of the modern CPU by Intel and others is that QM tunneling (of electrons) can be engineer and optimized to occur at very high rates. A CPU operating a 2 GHz will have electrons tunneling in predictable fashion the high terahertz range. The CPU is a QM electron tunneling device operating at high probability. The CPU is a good model to use for proton tunneling - where instead of a small chip needing to shed 30 watts of heat (and not gainful) you have much more heat, and importantly it is anomalous due to the tunneling. If there is gain, then it must be defined. Without going into great detail on defining the gain for now, except to say that it comes from the mass of the proton, and it comes without much radiation or transmutation (some of each, but way too little to account for the gain), then it is easier to account for the quiescence phenomenon. Stated simply, quiescence involves too much depletion in the mass of the hydrogen so that the high level of probability of tunneling is reduced. This is where anything that relates to QM probability come in, and you have already found papers suggestive of a few of these factors. Rossi has designed a reactor where hydrogen is not circulated and it is likely that he could eliminate the problem with periodic dumping of H2 and reloading (every few hours) on a set schedule. There is evidence that DGT may be doing this already. Jones From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint If quiescence is a reality, and *if* it will require a scientific/QM understanding, the I don't think any amount of 'control engineering' is going to be much help. one will need to find out the cause of the quiescence, which is a physics problem. If the quiescence is of a reasonable periodic nature (i.e., repeatable), or if it gives you adequate 'warning' that it has started, then one could have 2 or 3 reactor cores inside, only one of which is 'running'. When it begins to go into quiescence, one then starts up one of the 'idle' cores. while shutting down the quiescent one. This is a brainless kind of solution, and wouldn't work if the quiescent core needs to be unassembled in order to make it 'ignite' again. If reactive capability can be reinstated by shocking it with a hi-V pulse or cycling H2 pressure, things like that, then it could be automated and done while in-situ. These are engineering problems, not scientific ones. -m
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
ChemEng: Just looked at, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidized_bed and it certainly looks like a reasonable solution. Is the 'high heat transfer' property of fluidized beds larger than if you simply did film-deposition (as in semiconductor industry) directly onto a substrate? The applications that I saw on Wikipedia for FB reactors are for chemical processes/reactions. Realize that with LENR we are dealing with several orders of magnitude more intense energy release, so will FB heat xfer be fast enough to get the heat away from the reaction sites. Rossi's early 'reactor cores' were cylindrical, but then 'evolved' to more plate-like (low height rectangular), which DGT claims was their idea. this was most likely due to better heat xfer capability. -mark From: Chemical Engineer [mailto:cheme...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:03 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance That would be my guess. A lump of powder might quickly get hotspots and meltdown. If you can keep a fluidized bed going the heating would be uniform. Maybe that is why defkalion showed that test reactor with a window in it to see when the powder was fluidizing... On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Jones: If you are filling a bucket with water at 1 liter/min., and draining it at 0.99 l/min, it will take awhile, but will fill up and eventually overflow. Question: Could the quiescence be something as simple as heat not being extracted fast enough from the Ni-core material and it eventually builds up to begin melting the Ni tubercles, slowly quenching the 'active area'? If so, then my initial thoughts don't apply and it is an engineering problem. -Mark From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 12:40 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance On 24 January 2012 19:40, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree that they must have a well designed and functioning control unit to prevent meltdown. If quiescence is a reality, and *if* it will require a scientific/QM understanding, the I don't think any amount of 'control engineering' is going to be much help. one will need to find out the cause of the quiescence, which is a physics problem. If the quiescence is of a reasonable periodic nature (i.e., repeatable), or if it gives you adequate 'warning' that it has started, then one could have 2 or 3 reactor cores inside, only one of which is 'running'. When it begins to go into quiescence, one then starts up one of the 'idle' cores. while shutting down the quiescent one. This is a brainless kind of solution, and wouldn't work if the quiescent core needs to be unassembled in order to make it 'ignite' again. If reactive capability can be reinstated by shocking it with a hi-V pulse or cycling H2 pressure, things like that, then it could be automated and done while in-situ. These are engineering problems, not scientific ones. -m
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
From Jones: There are some that still believe Ni-H is thermonuclear and in fact, Pd-D could be. In fact W-L theory tries hard not to be forced into making that decision, and has QM features - but if the defining detail of that theory involves neutrons, neutron capture - and subsequent weak-force reactions, just as are seen in traditional physics – then it is a thermonuclear theory. But at least nobody is using the F word. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Cold Fusion term SHOULD be used as a way to ridiculized the past critics. it is clear for me that what happens is solid-state nuclear reaction (hot or cold is not the problem, like for semiconductors, solid state is the needed environment, even it is solid surface that is important). however the LENR, SSNR, CANR, LANR, are in fact THE INFAMOUS COLD FUSION THAT CLOSED MIND HAVE FRAUDULENTLY RIDICULIZED... changing the name to look PC, and be more precise, is only a way to protect the fraudsters that killed FP carrer. it is like visualy impaired, colored people, vertically challenged... terms used to hide the past problems of discrimination, not to be more precise. 2012/1/24 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com From Jones: There are some that still believe Ni-H is thermonuclear and in fact, Pd-D could be. In fact W-L theory tries hard not to be forced into making that decision, and has QM features - but if the defining detail of that theory involves neutrons, neutron capture - and subsequent weak-force reactions, just as are seen in traditional physics – then it is a thermonuclear theory. But at least nobody is using the F word. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Jones wrote: Stated simply, quiescence involves too much depletion in the mass of the hydrogen so that the high level of probability of tunneling is reduced. This is where anything that relates to QM probability come in, and you have already found papers suggestive of a few of these factors. Re: the statement, .and *you* have already found papers suggestive. I started LOL. that *I* found? This post touches on the element of 'meta-physics' that SVJ has mentioned recently. One of the things that I enjoy doing it 'serendipitous surfin'. which is hard to explain, but I just start with perhaps a link supplied here on vortex, or a link on PhysOrg.com, and start reading and following links and reading and following links, grabbing a phrase from some article and googling it, going thru the search results, and I will usually come across something that just says to me, this is important. Don't know why, since many of the papers I find and post here require esoteric/advanced physics understanding that I don't have. I can usually narrow it down to specific phrases, but bring in the meta-physical side, I think it's the subconscious mind which has seen how that paper (piece of the puzzle) fits into the bigger picture, and somehow alerts my conscious mind that it's important. The conscious mind is too distracted by the realities of living, work, paying the bills, etc., to make the 'connections'; to see how a given paper or discovery is important. That's where Vortex-l, 'The Collective', comes into play. it's as if the Collective is a kind of global, artificial subconscious made up of people! Some people are bringing in pieces of the puzzle but not sure where they go, and some can see where those pieces 'fit' in. Does that make sense??? It is what makes this forum different from most, and is a concept that trolls don't understand, nor respect. -Mark From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:27 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance Mark, The first question that must be answered is: it the Ni-H phenomena Quantum Mechanical in nature, or is it Thermonuclear, on a reduced scale? There are some that still believe Ni-H is thermonuclear and in fact, Pd-D could be. In fact W-L theory tries hard not to be forced into making that decision, and has QM features - but if the defining detail of that theory involves neutrons, neutron capture - and subsequent weak-force reactions, just as are seen in traditional physics - then it is a thermonuclear theory. Theories that involve tunneling of protons in one form or another are QM based - if no neutron is involved. QM is normally too low in probability to account for much heat. But one aftermath of the development of the modern CPU by Intel and others is that QM tunneling (of electrons) can be engineer and optimized to occur at very high rates. A CPU operating a 2 GHz will have electrons tunneling in predictable fashion the high terahertz range. The CPU is a QM electron tunneling device operating at high probability. The CPU is a good model to use for proton tunneling - where instead of a small chip needing to shed 30 watts of heat (and not gainful) you have much more heat, and importantly it is anomalous due to the tunneling. If there is gain, then it must be defined. Without going into great detail on defining the gain for now, except to say that it comes from the mass of the proton, and it comes without much radiation or transmutation (some of each, but way too little to account for the gain), then it is easier to account for the quiescence phenomenon. Stated simply, quiescence involves too much depletion in the mass of the hydrogen so that the high level of probability of tunneling is reduced. This is where anything that relates to QM probability come in, and you have already found papers suggestive of a few of these factors. Rossi has designed a reactor where hydrogen is not circulated and it is likely that he could eliminate the problem with periodic dumping of H2 and reloading (every few hours) on a set schedule. There is evidence that DGT may be doing this already. Jones From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint If quiescence is a reality, and *if* it will require a scientific/QM understanding, the I don't think any amount of 'control engineering' is going to be much help. one will need to find out the cause of the quiescence, which is a physics problem. If the quiescence is of a reasonable periodic nature (i.e., repeatable), or if it gives you adequate 'warning' that it has started, then one could have 2 or 3 reactor cores inside, only one of which is 'running'. When it begins to go into quiescence, one then starts up one of the 'idle' cores. while shutting down the quiescent one. This is a brainless kind of solution, and wouldn't work if the quiescent core needs to be unassembled in order to make it 'ignite' again. If reactive capability
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Mark - I thought you found the entanglement paper. Or . did you not make the possible inter-connection between 'entanglement' and 'tunneling'? Anyway, thanks goes out to whoever brought up the issue of quantum entanglement. As now - it is sounding more and more relevant even if the application to tunneling probability is way off the beaten path. After all this is QM so prepare to be confused. This is a good time to suggest that anyone interested in how to avoid quiescence - take another look at the DGT pics. I see three solenoid valve controls for hydrogen in/out and the control circuitry which indicates clearly to me that hydrogen is being periodically dumped and refilled by computer control. I suspect that this cycle is on a timer or a timer plus other inputs in a simple Pic or Arduino micro-controller. The dumps are probably in the range of 6-8 hours between cycles (based on Rossi's prior results of the applicable period of highest activity). The dump-and-refill overcomes the quiescence cycle, at least in the short term - at the expense of using perhaps 4-8 extra grams of H2 per day. Otherwise - why have solenoid control, if the thing is designed for a 6 month run? I hate to imagine that Rossi could be too cheap to realize that the extra hydrogen dumped is not all that important. Or maybe he is just too proud to carefully study the Hyperion pictures (more likely). And besides, with the few grams/day of hydrogen dump, this is not a pure loss - it can be ported to a fuel cell, where the slight loss of mass form the prior Hyperion run will not be noticed, since the depleted H2 can still be oxidized in a chemical reaction. Jones From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint Jones wrote: Stated simply, quiescence involves too much depletion in the mass of the hydrogen so that the high level of probability of tunneling is reduced. This is where anything that relates to QM probability come in, and you have already found papers suggestive of a few of these factors. Re: the statement, .and *you* have already found papers suggestive. I started LOL. that *I* found? This post touches on the element of 'meta-physics' that SVJ has mentioned recently. One of the things that I enjoy doing it 'serendipitous surfin'. which is hard to explain, but I just start with perhaps a link supplied here on vortex, or a link on PhysOrg.com, and start reading and following links and reading and following links, grabbing a phrase from some article and googling it, going thru the search results, and I will usually come across something that just says to me, this is important. Don't know why, since many of the papers I find and post here require esoteric/advanced physics understanding that I don't have. I can usually narrow it down to specific phrases, but bring in the meta-physical side, I think it's the subconscious mind which has seen how that paper (piece of the puzzle) fits into the bigger picture, and somehow alerts my conscious mind that it's important. The conscious mind is too distracted by the realities of living, work, paying the bills, etc., to make the 'connections'; to see how a given paper or discovery is important. That's where Vortex-l, 'The Collective', comes into play. it's as if the Collective is a kind of global, artificial subconscious made up of people! Some people are bringing in pieces of the puzzle but not sure where they go, and some can see where those pieces 'fit' in. Does that make sense??? It is what makes this forum different from most, and is a concept that trolls don't understand, nor respect. -Mark From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:27 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance Mark, The first question that must be answered is: it the Ni-H phenomena Quantum Mechanical in nature, or is it Thermonuclear, on a reduced scale? There are some that still believe Ni-H is thermonuclear and in fact, Pd-D could be. In fact W-L theory tries hard not to be forced into making that decision, and has QM features - but if the defining detail of that theory involves neutrons, neutron capture - and subsequent weak-force reactions, just as are seen in traditional physics - then it is a thermonuclear theory. Theories that involve tunneling of protons in one form or another are QM based - if no neutron is involved. QM is normally too low in probability to account for much heat. But one aftermath of the development of the modern CPU by Intel and others is that QM tunneling (of electrons) can be engineer and optimized to occur at very high rates. A CPU operating a 2 GHz will have electrons tunneling in predictable fashion the high terahertz range. The CPU is a QM electron tunneling device operating at high probability. The CPU is a good model to use for proton tunneling - where instead of a small chip needing to shed 30 watts of heat (and not gainful) you have much more heat
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Can't remember, but it was either me or Axil. what's important is that someone (you) were able to see a place in the puzzle where that piece fit in! The 64 trillion $ question is: Do we (Jones, Fran, Axil, some of you PhD newcomers) have enough of the pieces put together to 'see' what the picture is all about??? -Mark From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance Mark - I thought you found the entanglement paper. Or . did you not make the possible inter-connection between 'entanglement' and 'tunneling'? Anyway, thanks goes out to whoever brought up the issue of quantum entanglement. As now - it is sounding more and more relevant even if the application to tunneling probability is way off the beaten path. After all this is QM so prepare to be confused. This is a good time to suggest that anyone interested in how to avoid quiescence - take another look at the DGT pics. I see three solenoid valve controls for hydrogen in/out and the control circuitry which indicates clearly to me that hydrogen is being periodically dumped and refilled by computer control. I suspect that this cycle is on a timer or a timer plus other inputs in a simple Pic or Arduino micro-controller. The dumps are probably in the range of 6-8 hours between cycles (based on Rossi's prior results of the applicable period of highest activity). The dump-and-refill overcomes the quiescence cycle, at least in the short term - at the expense of using perhaps 4-8 extra grams of H2 per day. Otherwise - why have solenoid control, if the thing is designed for a 6 month run? I hate to imagine that Rossi could be too cheap to realize that the extra hydrogen dumped is not all that important. Or maybe he is just too proud to carefully study the Hyperion pictures (more likely). And besides, with the few grams/day of hydrogen dump, this is not a pure loss - it can be ported to a fuel cell, where the slight loss of mass form the prior Hyperion run will not be noticed, since the depleted H2 can still be oxidized in a chemical reaction. Jones From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint Jones wrote: Stated simply, quiescence involves too much depletion in the mass of the hydrogen so that the high level of probability of tunneling is reduced. This is where anything that relates to QM probability come in, and you have already found papers suggestive of a few of these factors. Re: the statement, .and *you* have already found papers suggestive. I started LOL. that *I* found? This post touches on the element of 'meta-physics' that SVJ has mentioned recently. One of the things that I enjoy doing it 'serendipitous surfin'. which is hard to explain, but I just start with perhaps a link supplied here on vortex, or a link on PhysOrg.com, and start reading and following links and reading and following links, grabbing a phrase from some article and googling it, going thru the search results, and I will usually come across something that just says to me, this is important. Don't know why, since many of the papers I find and post here require esoteric/advanced physics understanding that I don't have. I can usually narrow it down to specific phrases, but bring in the meta-physical side, I think it's the subconscious mind which has seen how that paper (piece of the puzzle) fits into the bigger picture, and somehow alerts my conscious mind that it's important. The conscious mind is too distracted by the realities of living, work, paying the bills, etc., to make the 'connections'; to see how a given paper or discovery is important. That's where Vortex-l, 'The Collective', comes into play. it's as if the Collective is a kind of global, artificial subconscious made up of people! Some people are bringing in pieces of the puzzle but not sure where they go, and some can see where those pieces 'fit' in. Does that make sense??? It is what makes this forum different from most, and is a concept that trolls don't understand, nor respect. -Mark From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:27 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance Mark, The first question that must be answered is: it the Ni-H phenomena Quantum Mechanical in nature, or is it Thermonuclear, on a reduced scale? There are some that still believe Ni-H is thermonuclear and in fact, Pd-D could be. In fact W-L theory tries hard not to be forced into making that decision, and has QM features - but if the defining detail of that theory involves neutrons, neutron capture - and subsequent weak-force reactions, just as are seen in traditional physics - then it is a thermonuclear theory. Theories that involve tunneling of protons in one form or another are QM based - if no neutron is involved. QM is normally too low in probability to account for much heat. But one aftermath
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Regarding the fluidized bed reactor, I was primarily thinking of the following advantages since we are dealing with solid, albeit small particles: The increase in fluidized bed reactor use in today’s industrial world is largely due to the inherent advantages of the technology.[7]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidized_bed_reactor#cite_note-two-6 - *Uniform Particle Mixing:* Due to the intrinsic fluid-like behavior of the solid material, fluidized beds do not experience poor mixing as in packed beds. This complete mixing allows for a uniform product that can often be hard to achieve in other reactor designs. The elimination of radial and axial concentration gradientshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradients also allows for better fluid-solid contact, which is essential for reaction efficiency and quality. - *Uniform Temperature Gradients:* Many chemical reactions require the addition or removal of heat. Local hot or cold spots within the reaction bed, often a problem in packed beds, are avoided in a fluidized situation such as an FBR. In other reactor types, these local temperature differences, especially hotspots, can result in product degradation. Thus FBRs are well suited to exothermichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exothermicreactions. Researchers have also learned that the bed-to-surface heat transferhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer coefficients for FBRs are high. I also had a wild thought that maybe they also kept a very small continuous constant delta P of H2 across the kernal/reactants to keep the hydrogen and particles moving/fluidized. I remember reading that previous tests gave off excess heat while loading and unloading the H2 into the lattice so why not keep the hydrogen always loading/unloading thru a constant recirculating flow. On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Can’t remember, but it was either me or Axil… what’s important is that someone (you) were able to see a place in the puzzle where that piece fit in! ** ** The 64 trillion $ question is: Do we (Jones, Fran, Axil, some of you PhD newcomers) have enough of the pieces put together to ‘see’ what the picture is all about??? ** ** -Mark ** ** *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:16 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance ** ** Mark - I thought you found the “entanglement” paper. Or … did you not make the possible inter-connection between ‘entanglement’ and ‘tunneling’? ** ** Anyway, thanks goes out to whoever brought up the issue of quantum entanglement. As now - it is sounding more and more relevant even if the application to tunneling probability is way off the beaten path. After all this is QM so prepare to be confused. ** ** This is a good time to suggest that anyone interested in how to avoid quiescence - take another look at the DGT pics. ** ** I see three solenoid valve controls for hydrogen in/out and the control circuitry which indicates clearly to me that hydrogen is being periodically dumped and refilled by computer control. ** ** I suspect that this cycle is on a timer or a timer plus other inputs in a simple Pic or Arduino micro-controller. The dumps are probably in the range of 6-8 hours between cycles (based on Rossi’s prior results of the applicable period of highest activity). The dump-and-refill overcomes the quiescence cycle, at least in the short term – at the expense of using perhaps 4-8 extra grams of H2 per day. ** ** Otherwise – why have solenoid control, if the thing is designed for a 6 month run? ** ** I hate to imagine that Rossi could be too cheap to realize that the extra hydrogen dumped is not all that important. Or maybe he is just too proud to carefully study the Hyperion pictures (more likely). ** ** And besides, with the few grams/day of hydrogen dump, this is not a pure loss – it can be ported to a fuel cell, where the slight loss of mass form the prior Hyperion run will not be noticed, since the “depleted H2” can still be oxidized in a chemical reaction. ** ** Jones ** ** ** ** *From:* Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint ** ** Jones wrote: “Stated simply, quiescence involves “too much depletion” in the mass of the hydrogen so that the high level of probability of tunneling is reduced. This is where anything that relates to QM probability come in, and you have already found papers suggestive of a few of these factors.” ** ** Re: the statement, “…and **you** have already found papers suggestive…”*** * ** ** I started LOL… that **I** found? This post touches on the element of ‘meta-physics’ that SVJ has mentioned recently. ** ** One of the things that I enjoy doing it ‘serendipitous surfin’… which is hard to explain, but I just start with perhaps a link
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
in the meta-physical side, I think it’s the subconscious mind which has seen how that paper (piece of the puzzle) fits into the bigger picture, and somehow alerts my conscious mind that it’s important. The conscious mind is too distracted by the realities of living, work, paying the bills, etc., to make the ‘connections’; to see how a given paper or discovery is important. ** ** That’s where Vortex-l, ‘The Collective’, comes into play… it’s as if the Collective is a kind of global, artificial subconscious made up of people! Some people are bringing in pieces of the puzzle but not sure where they go, and some can see where those pieces ‘fit’ in. Does that make sense??? It is what makes this forum different from most, and is a concept that trolls don’t understand, nor respect. ** ** -Mark ** ** *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:27 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance ** ** Mark, ** ** The first question that must be answered is: it the Ni-H phenomena Quantum Mechanical in nature, or is it Thermonuclear, on a reduced scale? ** ** There are some that still believe Ni-H is thermonuclear and in fact, Pd-D could be. In fact W-L theory tries hard not to be forced into making that decision, and has QM features - but if the defining detail of that theory involves neutrons, neutron capture - and subsequent weak-force reactions, just as are seen in traditional physics – then it is a thermonuclear theory. ** ** Theories that involve tunneling of protons in one form or another are QM based – if no neutron is involved. QM is normally too low in probability to account for much heat. But one aftermath of the development of the modern CPU by Intel and others is that QM tunneling (of electrons) can be engineer and optimized to occur at very high rates. A CPU operating a 2 GHz will have electrons tunneling in predictable fashion the high terahertz range. The CPU is a QM electron tunneling device operating at high probability.** ** ** ** The CPU is a good model to use for proton tunneling – where instead of a small chip needing to shed 30 watts of heat (and not gainful) you have much more heat, and importantly it is anomalous due to the tunneling. ** ** If there is gain, then it must be defined. Without going into great detail on defining the gain for now, except to say that it comes from the mass of the proton, and it comes without much radiation or transmutation (some of each, but way too little to account for the gain), then it is easier to account for the quiescence phenomenon. ** ** Stated simply, quiescence involves “too much depletion” in the mass of the hydrogen so that the high level of probability of tunneling is reduced. This is where anything that relates to QM probability come in, and you have already found papers suggestive of a few of these factors. ** ** Rossi has designed a reactor where hydrogen is not circulated and it is likely that he could eliminate the problem with periodic dumping of H2 and reloading (every few hours) on a set schedule. There is evidence that DGT may be doing this already. ** ** Jones ** ** ** ** *From:* Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint ** ** If quiescence is a reality, and **if** it will require a scientific/QM understanding, the I don’t think any amount of ‘control engineering’ is going to be much help… one will need to find out the cause of the quiescence, which is a physics problem… ** ** If the quiescence is of a reasonable periodic nature (i.e., repeatable), or if it gives you adequate ‘warning’ that it has started, then one could have 2 or 3 reactor cores inside, only one of which is ‘running’. When it begins to go into quiescence, one then starts up one of the ‘idle’ cores… while shutting down the quiescent one. This is a brainless kind of solution, and wouldn’t work if the quiescent core needs to be unassembled in order to make it ‘ignite’ again. If reactive capability can be reinstated by shocking it with a hi-V pulse or cycling H2 pressure, things like that, then it could be automated and done while in-situ. These are engineering problems, not scientific ones… ** ** -m
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
No complaints here Axil. as far as I can recall, your postings have a high SNR, very little repetition, good links to references. Like Horace, you tend to ignore the non-technical discussions, and seem to like working on a theoretical understanding. That's great! As far as the 'indiscretion' is concerned, if it was directed at Eff or even Shaun, they violated vortex rules numerous times, so they had it coming. don't worry about it, just keep on thinkin' and postin'. -m From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:18 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance snip Best regards to all: I am happy to still be here having narrowly avoided the kill list. I apologize for a singular, ill-advised, and unintentional indiscretion humbly begging forgiveness with an earnest plea for redemption if that helps. Axil
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
IMHO, quiescence is caused by deterioration of the micro-powder surface due to inadequate heat control. I speculate that DGT has move the heat producing powder zone to the reactor vessel wall. The powder is mechanically affixed to the reactor vessel wall with excellent heat transfer characteristics. Because of this design change, the temperature of the powder will never exceed the coolant temperature and therefore is idiot proofed But in order to get the powder above the Curie temperature of nickel, the coolant must support very high temperature heat transfer in excess of 400C. On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: I don't have the answer, but it was my assumption, about control. Quiescence does not seems to be a problem with DGT according to their talk and (more important) to their test protocol (which does talk about continuous heat). 2012/1/24 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Question: Could the quiescence be something as simple as heat not being extracted fast enough from the Ni-core material and it eventually builds up to begin melting the Ni tubercles, slowly quenching the ‘active area’? If so, then my initial thoughts don’t apply and it is an engineering problem.
