[Vo]:The grid

[Robin]

Hi,

If you make use of electrical appliances primarily when the sun is shining, you 
use power when solar panels are
exporting it to the grid. This helps to even out the supply/demand on the grid.

"Make hay while the Sun shines."

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels on 
your roof on the alternate days.
The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.
"Charge when the Sun shines".

Re: [Vo]:Indian Summer

[Andrew Meulenberg]

The term "Indian Summer" may come from the American Indians apparent
indifference to cold weather. In historical novels, one can find reference
to this, where the Indians would wonder why the white men would bundle up,
just because there was snow on the ground.

In graduate school, I had a girlfriend whose family had just moved back
from a 2 year tour in Thule (north-west Greenland, ... a tundra
 climate
 (ET
) with
long, severely cold winters lasting most of the year and short and cool
summers.). She would walk across Campus (in Tennessee) during a snow-storm
in just a short-sleeve summer dress. We are more adaptable than we think!

Andrew
_ _ _

On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 8:27 PM MSF  wrote:

>
>
> On Thursday, September 19th, 2024 at 12:09 PM, Robin <
> mixent...@aussiebroadband.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > In the US, you sometimes get an "Indian Summer" around this time of
> year. So do we in Australia.
> > That's strange because the seasons here are reversed.
> > IOW it happens to the whole planet at the same time of year. What
> happens on an annual basis? We go around the Sun. So
> > maybe there is a particular spot on the Sun that radiates more than
> elsewhere, and we just go past it around this time
> > of year?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Robin van Spaandonk
> >
>
>
> Hello, Robin
>
> Unless I'm misinterpreting, you are saying that your "Indian Summer"
> happens in the Australian spring in order to be simultaneous with the
> American equivalent in the autumn.
>
> The sun itself rotates at approximately once every 30 days, depending on
> the solar latitude. So there is no hot spot to be exposed toward the earth
> at any given time. Indian summer is a cultural interpretation of nice warm
> weather in the autumn. Why it should be associated with native Americans
> I'm not sure.
>
> M.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Exploding Pagers

[Robin]

In reply to  MSF's message of Fri, 20 Sep 2024 01:50:52 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>No doubt we have all read about the exploding pagers in Lebanon and elsewhere. 
>In addition, other devices, such as walkie talkies and even cell phones have 
>been exploding. What has happened? You are expected to believe these devices 
>have somehow had explosives installed in them. No other "explosive" is needed 
>other than the lithium ion battery itself. At least that's my guess. I expect 
>that the hack simply finds a way to short out the battery causing it the heat 
>up and ignite.

That was my first guess too, but apparently the pagers use standard AAA cells, 
not Li-ion. Furthermore the company logo
was licenced to a European company that does not manufacture them in Europe, 
which leads me to wonder if perhaps they
were actually manufactured in Israel, and a foreign logo used to conceal the 
fact.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels on 
your roof on the alternate days.
The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.
"Charge when the Sun shines".

Re: [Vo]:Indian Summer

[Robin]

In reply to  MSF's message of Fri, 20 Sep 2024 01:21:46 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>Hello, Robin
>
>Unless I'm misinterpreting, you are saying that your "Indian Summer" happens 
>in the Australian spring in order to be simultaneous with the American 
>equivalent in the autumn.

Correct. At the end of Winter we get a sudden warm period, then it gets colder 
again, sometimes right up till Christmas
(which of course is in Summer for us.)

>
>The sun itself rotates at approximately once every 30 days, depending on the 
>solar latitude. So there is no hot spot to be exposed toward the earth at any 
>given time.

This is a good point, however surface rotation may not be the whole story. 
Suppose that there is a deeper lying hot spot
that doesn't rotate?

> Indian summer is a cultural interpretation of nice warm weather in the 
> autumn. Why it should be associated with native Americans I'm not sure.
>
>M.

Alternative suggestions as to why this time of year is warmer, are welcome. ;)

(Initially I thought it might be due to perihelion, but this happens in 
January.)
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels on 
your roof on the alternate days.
The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.
"Charge when the Sun shines".

[Vo]:Exploding Pagers

[MSF]

No doubt we have all read about the exploding pagers in Lebanon and elsewhere. 
In addition, other devices, such as walkie talkies and even cell phones have 
been exploding. What has happened? You are expected to believe these devices 
have somehow had explosives installed in them. No other "explosive" is needed 
other than the lithium ion battery itself. At least that's my guess. I expect 
that the hack simply finds a way to short out the battery causing it the heat 
up and ignite.

This is extremely concerning. I have long maintained that anything digital can 
and will be hacked. I think this is the extreme example. If I am correct, that 
means that your cell phone could explode, or at least ignite caused by those 
who have the capability of hacking on this level. And since virtually all of 
the electric autos are connected to the internet, you can imagine what could 
happen if the battery of an electric car were to short out.

I could easily be wrong about this subject. If I am, please enlighten me.

M.

Re: [Vo]:Indian Summer

[MSF]

On Thursday, September 19th, 2024 at 12:09 PM, Robin 
 wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> In the US, you sometimes get an "Indian Summer" around this time of year. So 
> do we in Australia.
> That's strange because the seasons here are reversed.
> IOW it happens to the whole planet at the same time of year. What happens on 
> an annual basis? We go around the Sun. So
> maybe there is a particular spot on the Sun that radiates more than 
> elsewhere, and we just go past it around this time
> of year?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Robin van Spaandonk
> 


Hello, Robin

Unless I'm misinterpreting, you are saying that your "Indian Summer" happens in 
the Australian spring in order to be simultaneous with the American equivalent 
in the autumn.

The sun itself rotates at approximately once every 30 days, depending on the 
solar latitude. So there is no hot spot to be exposed toward the earth at any 
given time. Indian summer is a cultural interpretation of nice warm weather in 
the autumn. Why it should be associated with native Americans I'm not sure.

M.

[Vo]:Indian Summer

[Robin]

Hi,

In the US, you sometimes get an "Indian Summer" around this time of year. So do 
we in Australia.
That's strange because the seasons here are reversed.
IOW it happens to the whole planet at the same time of year. What happens on an 
annual basis? We go around the Sun. So
maybe there is a particular spot on the Sun that radiates more than elsewhere, 
and we just go past it around this time
of year?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels on 
your roof on the alternate days.
The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.
"Charge when the Sun shines".

[Vo]:LLM's as Bullshit Machines

[H L V]

 article:

ChatGPT Isn’t ‘Hallucinating’—It’s Bullshitting!
It’s important that we use accurate terminology when discussing how AI
chatbots make up information

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chatgpt-isnt-hallucinating-its-bullshitting/

begin quote << So sometimes ChatGPT says false things. In recent years, as
we have been becoming accustomed to AI, people have started to refer to
these falsehoods as “AI hallucinations.” While this language is
metaphorical, we think it’s not a good metaphor.

Consider Shakespeare’s paradigmatic hallucination in which Macbeth sees a
dagger floating toward him. What’s going on here? Macbeth is trying to use
his perceptual capacities in his normal way, but something has gone wrong.
And his perceptual capacities are almost always reliable—he doesn’t usually
see daggers randomly floating about! Normally his vision is useful in
representing the world, and it is good at this because of its connection to
the world.

Now think about ChatGPT. Whenever it says anything, it is simply trying to
produce humanlike text. The goal is simply to make something that sounds
good. This is never directly tied to the world. When it goes wrong, it
isn’t because it hasn’t succeeded in representing the world this time; it
never tries to represent the world! Calling its falsehoods “hallucinations”
doesn’t capture this feature.

Instead we suggest, in a June report in Ethics and Information Technology,
that a better term is “bullshit.” As mentioned, a bullshitter just doesn’t
care whether what they say is true.

So if we do regard ChatGPT as engaging in a conversation with us—though
even this might be a bit of a pretense—then it seems to fit the bill. As
much as it intends to do anything, it intends to produce convincing
humanlike text. It isn’t trying to say things about the world. It’s just
bullshitting. And crucially, it’s bullshitting even when it says true
things!

Why does this matter? Isn’t “hallucination” just a nice metaphor here? Does
it really matter if it’s not apt? We think it does matter for at least
three reasons:

First, the terminology we use affects public understanding of technology,
which is important in itself. If we use misleading terms, people are more
likely to misconstrue how the technology works. We think this in itself is
a bad thing.

Second, how we describe technology affects our relationship with that
technology and how we think about it. And this can be harmful. Consider
people who have been lulled into a false of security by “self-driving”
cars. We worry that talking of AI “hallucinating”—a term usually used for
human psychology—risks anthropomorphizing the chatbots. The ELIZA effect
(named after a chatbot from the 1960s) occurs when people attribute human
features to computer programs. We saw this in extremis in the case of the
Google employee who came to believe that one of the company’s chatbots was
sentient. Describing ChatGPT as a bullshit machine (even if it’s a very
impressive one) helps mitigate this risk.

Third, if we attribute agency to the programs, this may shift blame away
from those using ChatGPT, or its programmers, when things go wrong. If, as
appears to be the case, this kind of technology will increasingly be used
in important matters such as health care, it is crucial that we know who is
responsible when things go wrong. >> end quote

Harry
"

[Vo]:Game changer ?

[Jones Beene]

Oregon State University research uncovers better way to produce green hydrogen

| 
| 
| 
|  |  |

 |

 |
| 
|  | 
Oregon State University research uncovers better way to produce green hy...

CORVALLIS, Ore. – Researchers at Oregon State University have developed a 
material that shows a remarkable abili...
 |

 |

 |

Re: [Vo]:No Vandegraaf Needed

[Esa “LacklusterOfficial” Ruoho]

"Internal Server Error"
i feel lighter, already.
---
| Esa Ruoho | +358403703659 |
| http://linkedin.com/in/esaruoho |
| http://lackluster.bandcamp.com | http://lackluster.org | 
http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial |

> On 26. Jul 2024, at 20.46, MSF  wrote:
> 
> https://ba19cce69bf1d62b865e2ff05132db63b5389077-m.us-proxy.startpage.com/npd/cbh/bjefn/SR/m81imA1oBYuToy6uDylLMTm2A//system/media_attachments/files/164/151/404/original/0019e733bf662847.gif
> 
> Just in case Vorts needed a little lightening up today.
> 

[Vo]:No Vandegraaf Needed (link works)

[MSF]

https://tenor.com/view/static-slide-play-gif-14182162

That last link I sent seems to have died. Sorry about that.

Can you imagine the voltage?

[Vo]:No Vandegraaf Needed

[MSF]

https://ba19cce69bf1d62b865e2ff05132db63b5389077-m.us-proxy.startpage.com/npd/cbh/bjefn/SR/m81imA1oBYuToy6uDylLMTm2A//system/media_attachments/files/164/151/404/original/0019e733bf662847.gif

Just in case Vorts needed a little lightening up today.

Re: [Vo]:Repeatable COP of ~1.5 seems to be reported by many

[Jonathan Berry]

Could it be as Sabine says?

https://youtu.be/TEzsBhJTgpc?t=219

Hydrogenation?

I haven't looked at this device so if that's a silly idea nevermind.



On Sat, 20 Jul 2024 at 08:32, Jones Beene  wrote:

> The interesting point is that despite lack of market value for the tech,
> it seems to actually violate long standing physical laws plus there seems
> to be an intrinsic window where the actual gain is around 50 percent over
> input
>
> The heat pump, in contrast,  merely taps environmental heat and there is
> no physical anomaly
>
> This situation is somewhat like the Griggs pump scenario of many decades
> ago...
>
> ... in that there apparently is a real anomaly but only a small market for
> low grade heat
>
> To my knowledge, the cavitation tech and real gain of Griggs has never
> been debunked
>
>
>   Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>
> Nicholas Palmer  wrote:
>
> If it can only manage a COP of 1.5-2.5, it's not as effective  as a heat
> pump...
>
> Yes. 1.5 has no practical use. Still, 50 W excess is good because it can
> be measured with confidence. I think they said the results are
> "consistent." If they can make it happen every time, "consistently" with
> about the same magnitude, then I would say it is important progress.
>
> One of the articles says it is not ready for practical applications yet. I
> suppose they realize that 100 W in, 150 W out has no useful applications.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Repeatable COP of ~1.5 seems to be reported by many

[Axil Axil]

Rossi will demo an onboard 3 KW overunity EV battery charging system in
October. Here is Rossi's LENR theory www.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
   IMO, what Rossi calls electron clusters are actually an
Exciton-polariton condensate. Disregard Zitterbewegung in cluster
formation. Upon termination, the condensates Bosenova produces the high
energy electron output that produces direct current output. Fusion is not
involved. The nuclear energy comes from extremely intense magnetic effects
on the quarks in matter that disrupt the strong force producing a Quark
Gluon plasma. These magnetic effects come from 10e21 spin=1 particles
(electron dressed photons) in the condensate.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 9:32 PM H L V  wrote:

> The (astro)physicist Sabine Hossenfelder discusses the claim on her
> channel.
> She has 1.4 million subscribers.
> https://youtu.be/TEzsBhJTgpc
>
> harry
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 3:42 PM Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Meulenberg  wrote:
>>
>> At low external temperatures, many heat pump systems switch over to ohmic
>>> heating.
>>>
>>
>> I had one that did that at ~40 deg F, here in Atlanta. Which is not very
>> cold. I think more modern ones go lower. An online source says they go down
>> to 25 deg F.
>>
>> Mine did not have an ohmic heater. It had a conventional natural gas
>> furnace. An auxiliary furnace. The cheapest model available, because it was
>> not used often. I think that is the normal configuration.
>>
>> (Actually, I had two heat pumps for reasons beyond the scope of the
>> discussion. Still have one.)
>>
>>
>>   Do they turn off the heat pump or do they heat the input to the pump?
>>>
>>
>> The heat pump definitely goes off. I could see the outdoor compressor
>> stop. The conventional heater takes over.
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Repeatable COP of ~1.5 seems to be reported by many

[H L V]

The (astro)physicist Sabine Hossenfelder discusses the claim on her channel.
She has 1.4 million subscribers.
https://youtu.be/TEzsBhJTgpc

harry

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 3:42 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Andrew Meulenberg  wrote:
>
> At low external temperatures, many heat pump systems switch over to ohmic
>> heating.
>>
>
> I had one that did that at ~40 deg F, here in Atlanta. Which is not very
> cold. I think more modern ones go lower. An online source says they go down
> to 25 deg F.
>
> Mine did not have an ohmic heater. It had a conventional natural gas
> furnace. An auxiliary furnace. The cheapest model available, because it was
> not used often. I think that is the normal configuration.
>
> (Actually, I had two heat pumps for reasons beyond the scope of the
> discussion. Still have one.)
>
>
>   Do they turn off the heat pump or do they heat the input to the pump?
>>
>
> The heat pump definitely goes off. I could see the outdoor compressor
> stop. The conventional heater takes over.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Repeatable COP of ~1.5 seems to be reported by many

[Jed Rothwell]

Andrew Meulenberg  wrote:

At low external temperatures, many heat pump systems switch over to ohmic
> heating.
>

I had one that did that at ~40 deg F, here in Atlanta. Which is not very
cold. I think more modern ones go lower. An online source says they go down
to 25 deg F.

Mine did not have an ohmic heater. It had a conventional natural gas
furnace. An auxiliary furnace. The cheapest model available, because it was
not used often. I think that is the normal configuration.

(Actually, I had two heat pumps for reasons beyond the scope of the
discussion. Still have one.)


  Do they turn off the heat pump or do they heat the input to the pump?
>

The heat pump definitely goes off. I could see the outdoor compressor stop.
The conventional heater takes over.

Re: [Vo]:Repeatable COP of ~1.5 seems to be reported by many

[Andrew Meulenberg]

At low external temperatures, many heat pump systems switch over to ohmic
heating.  Do they turn off the heat pump or do they heat the input to the
pump? Either way, using a CF source (w COP of 1.5) *and* its output could
be useful, if it were both cheap and reliable enough.

On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 3:32 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> The interesting point is that despite lack of market value for the tech,
> it seems to actually violate long standing physical laws plus there seems
> to be an intrinsic window where the actual gain is around 50 percent over
> input
>
> The heat pump, in contrast,  merely taps environmental heat and there is
> no physical anomaly
>
> This situation is somewhat like the Griggs pump scenario of many decades
> ago...
>
> ... in that there apparently is a real anomaly but only a small market for
> low grade heat
>
> To my knowledge, the cavitation tech and real gain of Griggs has never
> been debunked
>
>
>   Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>
> Nicholas Palmer  wrote:
>
> If it can only manage a COP of 1.5-2.5, it's not as effective  as a heat
> pump...
>
> Yes. 1.5 has no practical use. Still, 50 W excess is good because it can
> be measured with confidence. I think they said the results are
> "consistent." If they can make it happen every time, "consistently" with
> about the same magnitude, then I would say it is important progress.
>
> One of the articles says it is not ready for practical applications yet. I
> suppose they realize that 100 W in, 150 W out has no useful applications.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Repeatable COP of ~1.5 seems to be reported by many

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> To my knowledge, the cavitation tech and real gain of Griggs has never
> been debunked
>

Indeed, Huang offers strong support for Griggs, with a much larger
reaction, a larger output to input ratio, and far better reliability.

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/HuangBJwatercantr.pdf

>

Re: [Vo]:Repeatable COP of ~1.5 seems to be reported by many

[Nicholas Palmer]

Of course. A  robust fully demonstrable 1.5 - 2.5 COP gain would be a Holy
Grail moment to demonstrate that new physics is involved - I'm not decrying
it, just the commercial potential...

On Fri, 19 Jul 2024, 21:23 Jones Beene,  wrote:

> The interesting point is that despite lack of market value for the tech,
> it seems to actually violate long standing physical laws plus there seems
> to be an intrinsic window where the actual gain is around 50 percent over
> input
>
> The heat pump, in contrast,  merely taps environmental heat and there is
> no physical anomaly
>
> This situation is somewhat like the Griggs pump scenario of many decades
> ago...
>
> ... in that there apparently is a real anomaly but only a small market for
> low grade heat
>
> To my knowledge, the cavitation tech and real gain of Griggs has never
> been debunked
>
>
>   Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>
> Nicholas Palmer  wrote:
>
> If it can only manage a COP of 1.5-2.5, it's not as effective  as a heat
> pump...
>
> Yes. 1.5 has no practical use. Still, 50 W excess is good because it can
> be measured with confidence. I think they said the results are
> "consistent." If they can make it happen every time, "consistently" with
> about the same magnitude, then I would say it is important progress.
>
> One of the articles says it is not ready for practical applications yet. I
> suppose they realize that 100 W in, 150 W out has no useful applications.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Repeatable COP of ~1.5 seems to be reported by many

[Jones Beene]

 The interesting point is that despite lack of market value for the tech, it 
seems to actually violate long standing physical laws plus there seems to be an 
intrinsic window where the actual gain is around 50 percent over input

The heat pump, in contrast,  merely taps environmental heat and there is no 
physical anomaly  

This situation is somewhat like the Griggs pump scenario of many decades ago...
... in that there apparently is a real anomaly but only a small market for low 
grade heat 

To my knowledge, the cavitation tech and real gain of Griggs has never been 
debunked 


     Jed Rothwell wrote:  
 
 Nicholas Palmer  wrote:


If it can only manage a COP of 1.5-2.5, it's not as effective  as a heat pump...

Yes. 1.5 has no practical use. Still, 50 W excess is good because it can be 
measured with confidence. I think they said the results are "consistent." If 
they can make it happen every time, "consistently" with about the same 
magnitude, then I would say it is important progress.
One of the articles says it is not ready for practical applications yet. I 
suppose they realize that 100 W in, 150 W out has no useful applications.
  

Re: [Vo]:Repeatable COP of ~1.5 seems to be reported by many

[Jed Rothwell]

Nicholas Palmer  wrote:

> If it can only manage a COP of 1.5-2.5, it's not as effective  as a heat
> pump...
>
Yes. 1.5 has no practical use. Still, 50 W excess is good because it can be
measured with confidence. I think they said the results are "consistent."
If they can make it happen every time, "consistently" with about the same
magnitude, then I would say it is important progress.

One of the articles says it is not ready for practical applications yet. I
suppose they realize that 100 W in, 150 W out has no useful applications.

Re: [Vo]:Repeatable COP of ~1.5 seems to be reported by many

[Nicholas Palmer]

If it can only manage a COP of 1.5-2.5, it's not as effective  as a heat
pump...

On Thu, 18 Jul 2024, 17:07 Jones Beene,  wrote:

> HYLENR Demonstrates World's First Cold Fusion Technology to Generate Clean
> Energy
> 
>
> HYLENR Demonstrates World's First Cold Fusion Technology to Generate Cle...
>
> CXOtoday News Desk
>
> This inventive cold fusion technology has received patent from the
> Government of India Hyderabad based Startup...
>
> 
>
>
>

[Vo]:Repeatable COP of ~1.5 seems to be reported by many

[Jones Beene]

HYLENR Demonstrates World's First Cold Fusion Technology to Generate Clean 
Energy

| 
| 
| 
|  |  |

 |

 |
| 
|  | 
HYLENR Demonstrates World's First Cold Fusion Technology to Generate Cle...

CXOtoday News Desk

This inventive cold fusion technology has received patent from the Government 
of India Hyderabad based Startup...
 |

 |

 |

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Ruby at VEGATEC - Nano-nickel LENR.

[Esa “LacklusterOfficial” Ruoho]

Ruby sent these to me after i kept forwarding your messages to her.


Voice Only:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F1m5T1gZZIuU-6sOrmTpIFNlyPyh8-q_/view?usp=drive_link

Voice + Soundtrack:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cZaDvptIHZvrO73KG82dnWrGDv2i4Fvk/view?usp=drive_link


---
| Esa Ruoho | +358403703659 |
| http://linkedin.com/in/esaruoho |
| http://lackluster.bandcamp.com | http://lackluster.org | 
http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial |

> On 22. Jun 2024, at 23.07, Robin  wrote:
> 
> In reply to  Esa Ruoho's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2024 08:53:05 +0300:
> Hi Esa,
> [snip]
>> Hi Robin. Ruby used my tunes and added them into the video herself while 
>> editing it, going to great pains to get the levels and balance between song 
>> and voice right.
> 
> This doesn't answer my original question. Is the undubbed video available? My 
> apologies if her feelings are hurt.
> [snip]
> Regards,
> 
> Robin van Spaandonk
> 
> Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels on 
> your roof on the alternate days.
> The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.
> 

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Ruby at VEGATEC - Nano-nickel LENR.

[Jed Rothwell]

H L V  wrote:


> On the surface of Venus you would not need an external source of heat. ;-)
>

Great! Let's go there. Better yet, let's send Elon Musk.

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Ruby at VEGATEC - Nano-nickel LENR.

[H L V]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 2:50 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Robin  wrote:
>
>
>> I fell asleep about half way through. The "lead" was buried so deep (if
>> it even exists) that I just gave up.
>> They talk about producing 10-20 watts of excess heat, but what percentage
>> is that of the total? Do they mention it
>> anywhere?
>
>
> This is gas loading, so there is no input power. It is all gravy.
>
> I mean there is no direct input power. Not like electrolysis. Granted, the
> reactor has to be heated to ~800°C or it does nothing. No doubt that takes
> external electricity in this experiment. But in a practical insulated
> reactor, it would self-heat. After it reached the operating temperature of
> ~800°C you could turn off the external heater.
>
>
On the surface of Venus you would not need an external source of heat. ;-)
Harry




> 10 W from 20 g of material is excellent performance for an experiment. It
> is easy to measure. The calorimeter precision is ~0.2 W. 800°C would give
> excellent Carnot efficiency. However this is still far below the power per
> gram from something like a fission reactor pellet, which is 180 W/12 g (1
> cubic centimeter).
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Ruby at VEGATEC - Nano-nickel LENR.

[H L V]

On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 1:51 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Esa Ruoho  wrote:
>
> Hi Robin. Ruby used my tunes and added them into the video herself while
>> editing it, going to great pains to get the levels and balance between song
>> and voice right.
>>
>
> You should not have the song and voice at the same time. That makes it
> hard to hear what the people are saying. It is unnecessary background
> noise. This is a scientific presentation, not a car advertisement.
>
> A little music at first is okay, but it should fade out.
>
>
I agree, but I also know Ruby likes music and science. Her path is the path
of a polymath.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Ruby at VEGATEC - Nano-nickel LENR.

[Robin]

In reply to  Esa Ruoho's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2024 08:53:05 +0300:
Hi Esa,
[snip]
>Hi Robin. Ruby used my tunes and added them into the video herself while 
>editing it, going to great pains to get the levels and balance between song 
>and voice right. 

This doesn't answer my original question. Is the undubbed video available? My 
apologies if her feelings are hurt.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels on 
your roof on the alternate days.
The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Ruby at VEGATEC - Nano-nickel LENR.

[Jed Rothwell]

Esa Ruoho  wrote:

Hi Robin. Ruby used my tunes and added them into the video herself while
> editing it, going to great pains to get the levels and balance between song
> and voice right.
>

You should not have the song and voice at the same time. That makes it hard
to hear what the people are saying. It is unnecessary background noise.
This is a scientific presentation, not a car advertisement.

A little music at first is okay, but it should fade out.

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Ruby at VEGATEC - Nano-nickel LENR.

[Esa Ruoho]

Hi Robin. Ruby used my tunes and added them into the video herself while 
editing it, going to great pains to get the levels and balance between song and 
voice right. 
—
http://linkedin.com/in/esaruoho // http://twitter.com/esaruoho // 
http://lackluster.bandcamp.com //
+358403703659 // http://www.lackluster.org // 
http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial //
http://youtube.com/c/LacklusterOfficial 

> On 22. Jun 2024, at 2.50, Robin  wrote:
> 
> In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:59:56 -0400:
> Hi Esa,
> 
> I'm guessing that you were responsible for adding the music, so could you 
> provide a URL to the original?
> 
> 
> [snip]
>> Robin  wrote:
>> 
>> Since the music was presumably dubbed in later, I wonder if she has the
>>> original recording without music, and could
>>> perhaps make it available?
>>> 
>> 
>> Surely she has the original recording! Who would throw that away in the era
>> of terabyte disks? Ask her if she can provide it.
> Regards,
> 
> Robin van Spaandonk
> 
> Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels on 
> your roof on the alternate days.
> The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.
> 

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Ruby at VEGATEC - Nano-nickel LENR.

[Robin]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:59:56 -0400:
Hi Esa,

I'm guessing that you were responsible for adding the music, so could you 
provide a URL to the original?


[snip]
>Robin  wrote:
>
>Since the music was presumably dubbed in later, I wonder if she has the
>> original recording without music, and could
>> perhaps make it available?
>>
>
>Surely she has the original recording! Who would throw that away in the era
>of terabyte disks? Ask her if she can provide it.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels on 
your roof on the alternate days.
The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Ruby at VEGATEC - Nano-nickel LENR.

[Jed Rothwell]

Robin  wrote:

Since the music was presumably dubbed in later, I wonder if she has the
> original recording without music, and could
> perhaps make it available?
>

Surely she has the original recording! Who would throw that away in the era
of terabyte disks? Ask her if she can provide it.

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Ruby at VEGATEC - Nano-nickel LENR.

[Robin]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:01:56 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>She says she is counting the number of people who are annoyed by music. So
>let's all tell her to tone it down! I told her she should fade it out after
>a minute or so.

Since the music was presumably dubbed in later, I wonder if she has the 
original recording without music, and could
perhaps make it available?
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels on 
your roof on the alternate days.
The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Ruby at VEGATEC - Nano-nickel LENR.

[Jed Rothwell]

She says she is counting the number of people who are annoyed by music. So
let's all tell her to tone it down! I told her she should fade it out after
a minute or so.


On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 8:35 PM Robin 
wrote:

> In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 19 Jun 2024 09:47:22 -0400:
> Hi Jed,
>
> Feel free, though I was under the impression that she followed this list.
>
> >Robin  wrote:
> >
> >Hi,
> >>
> >> Such a pity that the music drowns out the words.
> >>
> >
> >I agree. You should tell Ruby. I can forward your message to her if you
> >like.
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels
> on your roof on the alternate days.
> The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Ruby at VEGATEC - Nano-nickel LENR.

[Robin]

In reply to  Esa “LacklusterOfficial” Ruoho's message of Wed, 19 Jun 2024 
13:10:09 +0300:
Hi,

Thanks, I'll do that, though that doesn't change the fact that technical videos 
should never have background music at
all. I have seen several of them where little care was given to the placement 
of the microphone, making it difficult to
understand what was being said, let alone adding music to compound the issue.

>Hi Robin.
>
>The YouTube video has CC closed captions / subtitles. please enable them.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels on 
your roof on the alternate days.
The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Ruby at VEGATEC - Nano-nickel LENR.

[Robin]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 19 Jun 2024 09:47:22 -0400:
Hi Jed,

Feel free, though I was under the impression that she followed this list.

>Robin  wrote:
>
>Hi,
>>
>> Such a pity that the music drowns out the words.
>>
>
>I agree. You should tell Ruby. I can forward your message to her if you
>like.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels on 
your roof on the alternate days.
The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Ruby at VEGATEC - Nano-nickel LENR.

[Robin]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 20 Jun 2024 14:42:23 -0400:
Hi Jed,

Thanks for providing a clear and concise summary.
If Hydrogen is used as the fuel, then it has to be produced, so how much energy 
is produced / atom of Hydrogen consumed?
(I consider this to be the true measure of utility.)


[snip]
>This is gas loading, so there is no input power. It is all gravy.
>
>I mean there is no direct input power. Not like electrolysis. Granted, the
>reactor has to be heated to ~800°C or it does nothing. No doubt that takes
>external electricity in this experiment. But in a practical insulated
>reactor, it would self-heat. After it reached the operating temperature of
>~800°C you could turn off the external heater.
>
>10 W from 20 g of material is excellent performance for an experiment. It
>is easy to measure. The calorimeter precision is ~0.2 W. 800°C would give
>excellent Carnot efficiency. However this is still far below the power per
>gram from something like a fission reactor pellet, which is 180 W/12 g (1
>cubic centimeter).
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels on 
your roof on the alternate days.
The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Ruby at VEGATEC - Nano-nickel LENR.

[Jed Rothwell]

Robin  wrote:


> I fell asleep about half way through. The "lead" was buried so deep (if it
> even exists) that I just gave up.
> They talk about producing 10-20 watts of excess heat, but what percentage
> is that of the total? Do they mention it
> anywhere?


This is gas loading, so there is no input power. It is all gravy.

I mean there is no direct input power. Not like electrolysis. Granted, the
reactor has to be heated to ~800°C or it does nothing. No doubt that takes
external electricity in this experiment. But in a practical insulated
reactor, it would self-heat. After it reached the operating temperature of
~800°C you could turn off the external heater.

10 W from 20 g of material is excellent performance for an experiment. It
is easy to measure. The calorimeter precision is ~0.2 W. 800°C would give
excellent Carnot efficiency. However this is still far below the power per
gram from something like a fission reactor pellet, which is 180 W/12 g (1
cubic centimeter).

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Ruby at VEGATEC - Nano-nickel LENR.

[Robin]

In reply to  Esa “LacklusterOfficial” Ruoho's message of Wed, 19 Jun 2024 
13:10:09 +0300:
Hi,

I fell asleep about half way through. The "lead" was buried so deep (if it even 
exists) that I just gave up.
They talk about producing 10-20 watts of excess heat, but what percentage is 
that of the total? Do they mention it
anywhere?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels on 
your roof on the alternate days.
The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Ruby at VEGATEC - Nano-nickel LENR.

[Jed Rothwell]

Robin  wrote:

Hi,
>
> Such a pity that the music drowns out the words.
>

I agree. You should tell Ruby. I can forward your message to her if you
like.

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Ruby at VEGATEC - Nano-nickel LENR.

[Esa “LacklusterOfficial” Ruoho]

Hi Robin.

The YouTube video has CC closed captions / subtitles. please enable them.

---
| Esa Ruoho | +358403703659 |
| http://linkedin.com/in/esaruoho |
| http://lackluster.bandcamp.com | http://lackluster.org | 
http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial |

> On 18. Jun 2024, at 23.55, Robin  wrote:
> 
> In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:39:24 -0400:
> Hi,
> 
> Such a pity that the music drowns out the words.
> 
> [snip]
>> From Alan Smith:
>> 
>> Excellent film featuring contributions from Jean-Paul Biberian, Jacques
>> Ruer, Robert Michel, Mathieu Valat and Christophe Le Roux  from Vegatec in
>> France, talking about their work with Hydrotalcite synthesised Nano-Ni.
>> Produced and directed by Ruby Carat.
>> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n686n1N6baU
>> 
>> See also:
>> 
>> https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=3373
> Regards,
> 
> Robin van Spaandonk
> 
> Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels on 
> your roof on the alternate days.
> The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.
> 

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Ruby at VEGATEC - Nano-nickel LENR.

[Robin]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:39:24 -0400:
Hi,

Such a pity that the music drowns out the words.

[snip]
>From Alan Smith:
>
>Excellent film featuring contributions from Jean-Paul Biberian, Jacques
>Ruer, Robert Michel, Mathieu Valat and Christophe Le Roux  from Vegatec in
>France, talking about their work with Hydrotalcite synthesised Nano-Ni.
>Produced and directed by Ruby Carat.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n686n1N6baU
>
>See also:
>
>https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=3373
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels on 
your roof on the alternate days.
The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.

[Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Ruby at VEGATEC - Nano-nickel LENR.

[Jed Rothwell]

>From Alan Smith:

Excellent film featuring contributions from Jean-Paul Biberian, Jacques
Ruer, Robert Michel, Mathieu Valat and Christophe Le Roux  from Vegatec in
France, talking about their work with Hydrotalcite synthesised Nano-Ni.
Produced and directed by Ruby Carat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n686n1N6baU

See also:

https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=3373

Re: [Vo]:pressure in a gas increases linearly with thermal energy/temp, but every time pressure doubles it pushes a piston twice as hard and far which results in 4 times the mechanical energy produced

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

The ideal gas law says that pV/T = constant!! So T absolute follows 
pressure (p). Just make the proper calculations!


J.W.

On 17.06.2024 23:49, Jonathan Berry wrote:

I'm not sure what p=1 means, the initial pressure whatever it might be??

And then you say PSI is 1/3 not 5, well 1/3 of a PSI??  But what you 
say contradicts the ideal gas law which applies to gas in the pressure 
and temp range I am considering.




On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 at 21:15, Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

As said, if you start at p=1 and increase T by 100C then psi is
1/3 not 5. For 200C its 2/3 etc...

J.W.

On 17.06.2024 11:01, Jonathan Berry wrote:

Yes but I am assuming the gas is hot enough to behave according
to the ideal gas law.

And it follows that to a presst decent temp close enough as I
understand.

For my purposes it only has to be close enough.

Now to be clear what I am talking about has NOTHiNG to do with
the TOTAL pressure, rather the pressure increase with a certain
amount of added energy (thermal).
So if you add enough energy to increase temp by 100 Kelvin from
say 300 or so Kelvin the pressure increase you get will be about
5 PSI, and if you put double the energy in, especially if the gas
is Helium say (Monatomic) you increase the temp by 200 K degrees
instead to a total of say 400K (roughly) then you get 10 PSI...

But the amount that 10 PSI must push a Piston to reach go back to
0 PSI (actually, it's sea level of 14+10 so 24PSI that has to
reduce to 10 btu whatever) is twice as far as if it were just 5
(technically 19) PSI.
So double the force over double the distance (kinda, pressure
drops every millimeter but I did check every millimeter of
movement and it does work out).

So I think I'm right still.


On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 at 20:50, Jürg Wyttenbach 
wrote:

Jonahan


Classically pV/T = constant.. So to keep it simple  if you
increase T by 100 (starting at 273K) then the pressure does
only increase about 1/3. 373/273 about 4/3.

Further gas internal energy is defined by the Gibbs equation
that includes the entropy. Pressure is not a linear function
of added energy only T absolute follows p.

The ideal gas law only matches real physics for a certain
band of T. Never for T below evaporation point that also is
defined as an equilibrium. So a gas must have enough internal
energy to overcome the Van der Waals attractive forces to
finally behave "ideal".

J.W.

On 17.06.2024 09:07, Jonathan Berry wrote:



  Jürg, the problem with that is if that is so then the
  thermal capacity of the gas would need to increase as
  temp increases but with say Helium it's pretty flat.


Every time I look into the math for increasing temp it is
the same, if you heat it up twice as much it needs twice as
much energy not 4 times as much!

So if you aren't disputing the temp that is created with a
given energy input, then you are disputing the pressure, but
the pressure is predicted by the Ideal gas law.

So unless you are saying that either the ideal gas law or
thermal energy goes up at the square and not in a linear
manner (feels it might have been noticed) you can't be right.


On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 at 22:06, Jürg Wyttenbach
 wrote:

The energy of a gas is the sum over all kinetic
energies. So you need 4x energy input to get 2x average
speed = pressure. (comes from momentum exchange!)

J.W.


On 16.06.2024 10:27, Jonathan Berry wrote:


Hooke's law states that if you compress a spring the
increase in pressure is linear, if you compress it 1 cm
you might have 1 lb of force, if you compress it 2cm
you get 2 lb of force.

As that is double the force over double the distance it
also involved 4 times more work to compress it and 4
times more work out.

Reference:
http://labman.phys.utk.edu/phys135core/modules/m6/Hooke's%20law.html



"If we double the displacement, we do 4 times as much work"

Ok, but this seems problematic when the thermal
capacity of a gas is not just changed by making it
hotter so if you put in 100 Joules and increase the
temp 100 Kelvin you get about 5 PSI of pressure
increase, but if you input 200 Joules you get about a
200 Kelvin increase and a 10 PSI increase and to
compensate for this greater pressure change the piston
moves about twice as far, so twice as far with twice
the pressure again is 4 times the energy.

   

Re: [Vo]:pressure in a gas increases linearly with thermal energy/temp, but every time pressure doubles it pushes a piston twice as hard and far which results in 4 times the mechanical energy produced

[Jonathan Berry]

I'm not sure what p=1 means, the initial pressure whatever it might be??

And then you say PSI is 1/3 not 5, well 1/3 of a PSI??  But what you say
contradicts the ideal gas law which applies to gas in the pressure and temp
range I am considering.



On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 at 21:15, Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> As said, if you start at p=1 and increase T by 100C then psi is 1/3 not 5.
> For 200C its 2/3 etc...
>
> J.W.
> On 17.06.2024 11:01, Jonathan Berry wrote:
>
> Yes but I am assuming the gas is hot enough to behave according to the
> ideal gas law.
>
> And it follows that to a presst decent temp close enough as I understand.
>
> For my purposes it only has to be close enough.
>
> Now to be clear what I am talking about has NOTHiNG to do with the TOTAL
> pressure, rather the pressure increase with a certain amount of added
> energy (thermal).
> So if you add enough energy to increase temp by 100 Kelvin from say 300 or
> so Kelvin the pressure increase you get will be about 5 PSI, and if you put
> double the energy in, especially if the gas is Helium say (Monatomic) you
> increase the temp by 200 K degrees instead to a total of say 400K (roughly)
> then you get 10 PSI...
>
> But the amount that 10 PSI must push a Piston to reach go back to 0 PSI
> (actually, it's sea level of 14+10 so 24PSI that has to reduce to 10 btu
> whatever) is twice as far as if it were just 5 (technically 19) PSI.
> So double the force over double the distance (kinda, pressure drops every
> millimeter but I did check every millimeter of movement and it does work
> out).
>
> So I think I'm right still.
>
>
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 at 20:50, Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:
>
>> Jonahan
>>
>>
>> Classically pV/T = constant.. So to keep it simple  if you increase T by
>> 100 (starting at 273K) then the pressure does only increase about 1/3.
>> 373/273 about 4/3.
>>
>> Further gas internal energy is defined by the Gibbs equation that
>> includes the entropy. Pressure is not a linear function of added energy
>> only T absolute follows p.
>>
>> The ideal gas law only matches real physics for a certain band of T.
>> Never for T below evaporation point that also is defined as an equilibrium.
>> So a gas must have enough internal energy to overcome the Van der Waals
>> attractive forces to finally behave "ideal".
>>
>> J.W.
>> On 17.06.2024 09:07, Jonathan Berry wrote:
>>
>> Jürg, the problem with that is if that is so then the thermal capacity of
>> the gas would need to increase as temp increases but with say Helium it's
>> pretty flat.
>>
>> Every time I look into the math for increasing temp it is the same, if
>> you heat it up twice as much it needs twice as much energy not 4 times as
>> much!
>>
>> So if you aren't disputing the temp that is created with a given energy
>> input, then you are disputing the pressure, but the pressure is predicted
>> by the Ideal gas law.
>>
>> So unless you are saying that either the ideal gas law or thermal energy
>> goes up at the square and not in a linear manner (feels it might have been
>> noticed) you can't be right.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 at 22:06, Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:
>>
>>> The energy of a gas is the sum over all kinetic energies. So you need 4x
>>> energy input to get 2x average speed = pressure. (comes from momentum
>>> exchange!)
>>>
>>> J.W.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16.06.2024 10:27, Jonathan Berry wrote:
>>>
>>> Hooke's law states that if you compress a spring the increase in
>>> pressure is linear, if you compress it 1 cm you might have 1 lb of force,
>>> if you compress it 2cm you get 2 lb of force.
>>>
>>> As that is double the force over double the distance it also involved 4
>>> times more work to compress it and 4 times more work out.
>>>
>>> Reference:
>>> http://labman.phys.utk.edu/phys135core/modules/m6/Hooke's%20law.html
>>>
>>> "If we double the displacement, we do 4 times as much work"
>>>
>>> Ok, but this seems problematic when the thermal capacity of a gas is not
>>> just changed by making it hotter so if you put in 100 Joules and increase
>>> the temp 100 Kelvin you get about 5 PSI of pressure increase, but if you
>>> input 200 Joules you get about a 200 Kelvin increase and a 10 PSI increase
>>> and to compensate for this greater pressure change the piston moves about
>>> twice as far, so twice as far with twice the pressure again is 4 times the
>>> energy.
>>>
>>> At 10 times more input you get 100 times more out, at 100 times more in
>>> you get 10,000 time more energy out!
>>>
>>> The energy increase is exponential with linear increase of temp!
>>>
>>> If this is not so please explain why not?
>>>
>>> If the ideal gas law wrong about pressure increase being linear with
>>> temp?
>>>
>>> Does the thermal capacity of a gas change more with temp than I'm
>>> finding out when I research it?
>>>
>>> It sure does seem the gas will like the spring with twice the pressure
>>> move about twice as much before the piston isn't motivated, and as such it
>>> seems some laws of physics are wrong.
>>>

Re: [Vo]:pressure in a gas increases linearly with thermal energy/temp, but every time pressure doubles it pushes a piston twice as hard and far which results in 4 times the mechanical energy produced

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

As said, if you start at p=1 and increase T by 100C then psi is 1/3 not 
5. For 200C its 2/3 etc...


J.W.

On 17.06.2024 11:01, Jonathan Berry wrote:
Yes but I am assuming the gas is hot enough to behave according to the 
ideal gas law.


And it follows that to a presst decent temp close enough as I understand.

For my purposes it only has to be close enough.

Now to be clear what I am talking about has NOTHiNG to do with the 
TOTAL pressure, rather the pressure increase with a certain amount of 
added energy (thermal).
So if you add enough energy to increase temp by 100 Kelvin from say 
300 or so Kelvin the pressure increase you get will be about 5 PSI, 
and if you put double the energy in, especially if the gas is Helium 
say (Monatomic) you increase the temp by 200 K degrees instead to a 
total of say 400K (roughly) then you get 10 PSI...


But the amount that 10 PSI must push a Piston to reach go back to 0 
PSI (actually, it's sea level of 14+10 so 24PSI that has to reduce to 
10 btu whatever) is twice as far as if it were just 5 (technically 19) 
PSI.
So double the force over double the distance (kinda, pressure drops 
every millimeter but I did check every millimeter of movement and it 
does work out).


So I think I'm right still.


On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 at 20:50, Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

Jonahan


Classically pV/T = constant.. So to keep it simple  if you
increase T by 100 (starting at 273K) then the pressure does only
increase about 1/3. 373/273 about 4/3.

Further gas internal energy is defined by the Gibbs equation that
includes the entropy. Pressure is not a linear function of added
energy only T absolute follows p.

The ideal gas law only matches real physics for a certain band of
T. Never for T below evaporation point that also is defined as an
equilibrium. So a gas must have enough internal energy to overcome
the Van der Waals attractive forces to finally behave "ideal".

J.W.

On 17.06.2024 09:07, Jonathan Berry wrote:



  Jürg, the problem with that is if that is so then the
  thermal capacity of the gas would need to increase as temp
  increases but with say Helium it's pretty flat.


Every time I look into the math for increasing temp it is the
same, if you heat it up twice as much it needs twice as much
energy not 4 times as much!

So if you aren't disputing the temp that is created with a given
energy input, then you are disputing the pressure, but the
pressure is predicted by the Ideal gas law.

So unless you are saying that either the ideal gas law or thermal
energy goes up at the square and not in a linear manner (feels it
might have been noticed) you can't be right.


On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 at 22:06, Jürg Wyttenbach 
wrote:

The energy of a gas is the sum over all kinetic energies. So
you need 4x energy input to get 2x average speed = pressure.
(comes from momentum exchange!)

J.W.


On 16.06.2024 10:27, Jonathan Berry wrote:


Hooke's law states that if you compress a spring the
increase in pressure is linear, if you compress it 1 cm you
might have 1 lb of force, if you compress it 2cm you get 2
lb of force.

As that is double the force over double the distance it also
involved 4 times more work to compress it and 4 times more
work out.

Reference:
http://labman.phys.utk.edu/phys135core/modules/m6/Hooke's%20law.html


"If we double the displacement, we do 4 times as much work"

Ok, but this seems problematic when the thermal capacity of
a gas is not just changed by making it hotter so if you put
in 100 Joules and increase the temp 100 Kelvin you get about
5 PSI of pressure increase, but if you input 200 Joules you
get about a 200 Kelvin increase and a 10 PSI increase and to
compensate for this greater pressure change the piston moves
about twice as far, so twice as far with twice the pressure
again is 4 times the energy.

At 10 times more input you get 100 times more out, at 100
times more in you get 10,000 time more energy out!

The energy increase is exponential with linear increase of temp!

If this is not so please explain why not?

If the ideal gas law wrong about pressure increase being
linear with temp?

Does the thermal capacity of a gas change more with temp
than I'm finding out when I research it?

It sure does seem the gas will like the spring with twice
the pressure move about twice as much before the piston
isn't motivated, and as such it seems some laws of physics
are wrong.


Jonathan

-- 
Jürg Wyttenbach

Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 7

Re: [Vo]:pressure in a gas increases linearly with thermal energy/temp, but every time pressure doubles it pushes a piston twice as hard and far which results in 4 times the mechanical energy produced

[Jonathan Berry]

Yes but I am assuming the gas is hot enough to behave according to the
ideal gas law.

And it follows that to a presst decent temp close enough as I understand.

For my purposes it only has to be close enough.

Now to be clear what I am talking about has NOTHiNG to do with the TOTAL
pressure, rather the pressure increase with a certain amount of added
energy (thermal).
So if you add enough energy to increase temp by 100 Kelvin from say 300 or
so Kelvin the pressure increase you get will be about 5 PSI, and if you put
double the energy in, especially if the gas is Helium say (Monatomic) you
increase the temp by 200 K degrees instead to a total of say 400K (roughly)
then you get 10 PSI...

But the amount that 10 PSI must push a Piston to reach go back to 0 PSI
(actually, it's sea level of 14+10 so 24PSI that has to reduce to 10 btu
whatever) is twice as far as if it were just 5 (technically 19) PSI.
So double the force over double the distance (kinda, pressure drops every
millimeter but I did check every millimeter of movement and it does work
out).

So I think I'm right still.


On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 at 20:50, Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Jonahan
>
>
> Classically pV/T = constant.. So to keep it simple  if you increase T by
> 100 (starting at 273K) then the pressure does only increase about 1/3.
> 373/273 about 4/3.
>
> Further gas internal energy is defined by the Gibbs equation that includes
> the entropy. Pressure is not a linear function of added energy only T
> absolute follows p.
>
> The ideal gas law only matches real physics for a certain band of T. Never
> for T below evaporation point that also is defined as an equilibrium. So a
> gas must have enough internal energy to overcome the Van der Waals
> attractive forces to finally behave "ideal".
>
> J.W.
> On 17.06.2024 09:07, Jonathan Berry wrote:
>
> Jürg, the problem with that is if that is so then the thermal capacity of
> the gas would need to increase as temp increases but with say Helium it's
> pretty flat.
>
> Every time I look into the math for increasing temp it is the same, if you
> heat it up twice as much it needs twice as much energy not 4 times as much!
>
> So if you aren't disputing the temp that is created with a given energy
> input, then you are disputing the pressure, but the pressure is predicted
> by the Ideal gas law.
>
> So unless you are saying that either the ideal gas law or thermal energy
> goes up at the square and not in a linear manner (feels it might have been
> noticed) you can't be right.
>
>
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 at 22:06, Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:
>
>> The energy of a gas is the sum over all kinetic energies. So you need 4x
>> energy input to get 2x average speed = pressure. (comes from momentum
>> exchange!)
>>
>> J.W.
>>
>>
>> On 16.06.2024 10:27, Jonathan Berry wrote:
>>
>> Hooke's law states that if you compress a spring the increase in pressure
>> is linear, if you compress it 1 cm you might have 1 lb of force, if you
>> compress it 2cm you get 2 lb of force.
>>
>> As that is double the force over double the distance it also involved 4
>> times more work to compress it and 4 times more work out.
>>
>> Reference:
>> http://labman.phys.utk.edu/phys135core/modules/m6/Hooke's%20law.html
>>
>> "If we double the displacement, we do 4 times as much work"
>>
>> Ok, but this seems problematic when the thermal capacity of a gas is not
>> just changed by making it hotter so if you put in 100 Joules and increase
>> the temp 100 Kelvin you get about 5 PSI of pressure increase, but if you
>> input 200 Joules you get about a 200 Kelvin increase and a 10 PSI increase
>> and to compensate for this greater pressure change the piston moves about
>> twice as far, so twice as far with twice the pressure again is 4 times the
>> energy.
>>
>> At 10 times more input you get 100 times more out, at 100 times more in
>> you get 10,000 time more energy out!
>>
>> The energy increase is exponential with linear increase of temp!
>>
>> If this is not so please explain why not?
>>
>> If the ideal gas law wrong about pressure increase being linear with temp?
>>
>> Does the thermal capacity of a gas change more with temp than I'm finding
>> out when I research it?
>>
>> It sure does seem the gas will like the spring with twice the pressure
>> move about twice as much before the piston isn't motivated, and as such it
>> seems some laws of physics are wrong.
>>
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> --
>> Jürg Wyttenbach
>> Bifangstr. 22
>> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>>
>> +41 44 760 14 18
>> +41 79 246 36 06
>>
>> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:pressure in a gas increases linearly with thermal energy/temp, but every time pressure doubles it pushes a piston twice as hard and far which results in 4 times the mechanical energy produced

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Jonahan


Classically pV/T = constant.. So to keep it simple  if you increase T by 
100 (starting at 273K) then the pressure does only increase about 1/3. 
373/273 about 4/3.


Further gas internal energy is defined by the Gibbs equation that 
includes the entropy. Pressure is not a linear function of added energy 
only T absolute follows p.


The ideal gas law only matches real physics for a certain band of T. 
Never for T below evaporation point that also is defined as an 
equilibrium. So a gas must have enough internal energy to overcome the 
Van der Waals attractive forces to finally behave "ideal".


J.W.

On 17.06.2024 09:07, Jonathan Berry wrote:



  Jürg, the problem with that is if that is so then the thermal
  capacity of the gas would need to increase as temp increases but
  with say Helium it's pretty flat.


Every time I look into the math for increasing temp it is the same, if 
you heat it up twice as much it needs twice as much energy not 4 times 
as much!


So if you aren't disputing the temp that is created with a given 
energy input, then you are disputing the pressure, but the pressure is 
predicted by the Ideal gas law.


So unless you are saying that either the ideal gas law or thermal 
energy goes up at the square and not in a linear manner (feels it 
might have been noticed) you can't be right.



On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 at 22:06, Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

The energy of a gas is the sum over all kinetic energies. So you
need 4x energy input to get 2x average speed = pressure. (comes
from momentum exchange!)

J.W.


On 16.06.2024 10:27, Jonathan Berry wrote:


Hooke's law states that if you compress a spring the increase in
pressure is linear, if you compress it 1 cm you might have 1 lb
of force, if you compress it 2cm you get 2 lb of force.

As that is double the force over double the distance it also
involved 4 times more work to compress it and 4 times more work out.

Reference:
http://labman.phys.utk.edu/phys135core/modules/m6/Hooke's%20law.html


"If we double the displacement, we do 4 times as much work"

Ok, but this seems problematic when the thermal capacity of a gas
is not just changed by making it hotter so if you put in 100
Joules and increase the temp 100 Kelvin you get about 5 PSI of
pressure increase, but if you input 200 Joules you get about a
200 Kelvin increase and a 10 PSI increase and to compensate for
this greater pressure change the piston moves about twice as far,
so twice as far with twice the pressure again is 4 times the energy.

At 10 times more input you get 100 times more out, at 100 times
more in you get 10,000 time more energy out!

The energy increase is exponential with linear increase of temp!

If this is not so please explain why not?

If the ideal gas law wrong about pressure increase being linear
with temp?

Does the thermal capacity of a gas change more with temp than I'm
finding out when I research it?

It sure does seem the gas will like the spring with twice the
pressure move about twice as much before the piston isn't
motivated, and as such it seems some laws of physics are wrong.


Jonathan

-- 
Jürg Wyttenbach

Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:pressure in a gas increases linearly with thermal energy/temp, but every time pressure doubles it pushes a piston twice as hard and far which results in 4 times the mechanical energy produced

[Jonathan Berry]

Jürg, the problem with that is if that is so then the thermal capacity of
the gas would need to increase as temp increases but with say Helium it's
pretty flat.

Every time I look into the math for increasing temp it is the same, if you
heat it up twice as much it needs twice as much energy not 4 times as much!

So if you aren't disputing the temp that is created with a given energy
input, then you are disputing the pressure, but the pressure is predicted
by the Ideal gas law.

So unless you are saying that either the ideal gas law or thermal energy
goes up at the square and not in a linear manner (feels it might have been
noticed) you can't be right.


On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 at 22:06, Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> The energy of a gas is the sum over all kinetic energies. So you need 4x
> energy input to get 2x average speed = pressure. (comes from momentum
> exchange!)
>
> J.W.
>
>
> On 16.06.2024 10:27, Jonathan Berry wrote:
>
> Hooke's law states that if you compress a spring the increase in pressure
> is linear, if you compress it 1 cm you might have 1 lb of force, if you
> compress it 2cm you get 2 lb of force.
>
> As that is double the force over double the distance it also involved 4
> times more work to compress it and 4 times more work out.
>
> Reference:
> http://labman.phys.utk.edu/phys135core/modules/m6/Hooke's%20law.html
>
> "If we double the displacement, we do 4 times as much work"
>
> Ok, but this seems problematic when the thermal capacity of a gas is not
> just changed by making it hotter so if you put in 100 Joules and increase
> the temp 100 Kelvin you get about 5 PSI of pressure increase, but if you
> input 200 Joules you get about a 200 Kelvin increase and a 10 PSI increase
> and to compensate for this greater pressure change the piston moves about
> twice as far, so twice as far with twice the pressure again is 4 times the
> energy.
>
> At 10 times more input you get 100 times more out, at 100 times more in
> you get 10,000 time more energy out!
>
> The energy increase is exponential with linear increase of temp!
>
> If this is not so please explain why not?
>
> If the ideal gas law wrong about pressure increase being linear with temp?
>
> Does the thermal capacity of a gas change more with temp than I'm finding
> out when I research it?
>
> It sure does seem the gas will like the spring with twice the pressure
> move about twice as much before the piston isn't motivated, and as such it
> seems some laws of physics are wrong.
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:pressure in a gas increases linearly with thermal energy/temp, but every time pressure doubles it pushes a piston twice as hard and far which results in 4 times the mechanical energy produced

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

The energy of a gas is the sum over all kinetic energies. So you need 4x 
energy input to get 2x average speed = pressure. (comes from momentum 
exchange!)


J.W.


On 16.06.2024 10:27, Jonathan Berry wrote:


Hooke's law states that if you compress a spring the increase in 
pressure is linear, if you compress it 1 cm you might have 1 lb of 
force, if you compress it 2cm you get 2 lb of force.


As that is double the force over double the distance it also involved 
4 times more work to compress it and 4 times more work out.


Reference: 
http://labman.phys.utk.edu/phys135core/modules/m6/Hooke's%20law.html 



"If we double the displacement, we do 4 times as much work"

Ok, but this seems problematic when the thermal capacity of a gas is 
not just changed by making it hotter so if you put in 100 Joules and 
increase the temp 100 Kelvin you get about 5 PSI of pressure increase, 
but if you input 200 Joules you get about a 200 Kelvin increase and a 
10 PSI increase and to compensate for this greater pressure change the 
piston moves about twice as far, so twice as far with twice the 
pressure again is 4 times the energy.


At 10 times more input you get 100 times more out, at 100 times more 
in you get 10,000 time more energy out!


The energy increase is exponential with linear increase of temp!

If this is not so please explain why not?

If the ideal gas law wrong about pressure increase being linear with temp?

Does the thermal capacity of a gas change more with temp than I'm 
finding out when I research it?


It sure does seem the gas will like the spring with twice the pressure 
move about twice as much before the piston isn't motivated, and as 
such it seems some laws of physics are wrong.



Jonathan


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:pressure in a gas increases linearly with thermal energy/temp, but every time pressure doubles it pushes a piston twice as hard and far which results in 4 times the mechanical energy produced b

[Jonathan Berry]

Hooke's law states that if you compress a spring the increase in pressure
is linear, if you compress it 1 cm you might have 1 lb of force, if you
compress it 2cm you get 2 lb of force.

As that is double the force over double the distance it also involved 4
times more work to compress it and 4 times more work out.

Reference:
http://labman.phys.utk.edu/phys135core/modules/m6/Hooke's%20law.html

"If we double the displacement, we do 4 times as much work"

Ok, but this seems problematic when the thermal capacity of a gas is not
just changed by making it hotter so if you put in 100 Joules and increase
the temp 100 Kelvin you get about 5 PSI of pressure increase, but if you
input 200 Joules you get about a 200 Kelvin increase and a 10 PSI increase
and to compensate for this greater pressure change the piston moves about
twice as far, so twice as far with twice the pressure again is 4 times the
energy.

At 10 times more input you get 100 times more out, at 100 times more in you
get 10,000 time more energy out!

The energy increase is exponential with linear increase of temp!

If this is not so please explain why not?

If the ideal gas law wrong about pressure increase being linear with temp?

Does the thermal capacity of a gas change more with temp than I'm finding
out when I research it?

It sure does seem the gas will like the spring with twice the pressure move
about twice as much before the piston isn't motivated, and as such it seems
some laws of physics are wrong.


Jonathan

Re: [Vo]:Peer Review

[Jonathan Berry]

*"With a Carnot cycle/heatpump combination you cannot reach > 100%"*

If we just assume that the second law is correct, then you are correct,
that it cannot.

But if I ask you why not when there is a thermal potential 2, 3 or 30 times
larger (OR MORE, technically a case for a COP+EER of 60 can be made based
on a published paper's claim of COP only being 30) than it would be created
by say a resistor with the same input energy...

And when the thermal potential between the hot and cold side can with such
an extremely high COP be arbitrarily large due to cascaded heatpumps...  So
we are not limited to a low thermal potential, not that that should matter
because as I have shown the maximum theoretical efficiency of conversion of
heat to mechanical energy is linear due to the ideal gas law having a
linear relationship between temperature and pressure.

Then how would it be logically impossible to convert more of the thermal
potential energy (when I have shown relative to the thermal potential
Carnot Efficiency allows potentially 100% conversion efficiency! and real
world heat engines can hit 66%) than the input?

Not possible to convert a mere 1.6%, that's right with a Coefficient of
Performance of 60 (including the EER) we would only need 1.6% to loop it!

So we have only few possibilities, one is that the Coefficient of
Performance of heatpumps that has been reported is wildly inaccurate and it
would need to be that the combined COP+EER was limited to no more than the
maximum theoretical efficient heat engine efficiency, as the maximum
theoretical efficiency based on the thermal potential (not the gross
thermal energy on the hot side) I have shown to be actually 100% then this
means heatpumps don't work, but there too we would have a problem as the
heat from the hot side of a heat pump would need to be LESS than just using
a resistive heater because the "waste" cold side represents half of the
thermal potential difference!  And even if this were claimed it is
problematic as logically/theoretically heat pumps have a 100% theoretical
efficiency as a resistive load (put the hot and cod output of a heatpump in
a box so the 2 outputs mingle and cancel and you should still have by the
time no sound escapes the box about the same efficiency as a resistor) but
this is an ADDITIONAL 100% to the action as a heat pump!

So a heat pump with a COP of 1 really has a COP+EER+Resistive/friction
output of 3!
Normally the heatpump makes a little use of the thermal output by soaking
up some of the heat output from the compressor which I'm sure is why the
COP on the hot side is a  bit higher than the EER on the cold side.

Another is that the Efficiency of real world heat pumps and even
theoretically perfect heatpumps is way too high, I have shown conclusively
that the maximum theoretical (Carnot's Ideal...) heat engine efficiency
relative to the thermal potential is actually 100%.
As such in theory if heat pumps have ANY total thermal output from the
addition of the cold side, the hot side and the resistive output that
exceeds the thermal potential from a mere resistive load (assuming
resistive loads are not somehow less than 100% efficient) then the second
law CANNOT stand!  And yet how can the COP+EER+Resistive/frictional heating
be only 100% when the Resistive part should be 100% all by itself and the
COP is claimed to be as much as 30 times greater and the EER would be
another roughly 30 times...

Or the second law is in practice able to be violated even if in theory it
can't be!

While thinking about this I found an additional problem that I don't think
can be answered, above I made an assumption that didn't sit quite right.
If we have a gas and we raise it's temperature by say 100 Kelvin and we get
5 PSI and this pushes on a piston we get a certain amount of mechanical
energy based on a given force over a given distance.

If we input twice as much thermal energy it's increase in temperature is
doubled to 200 Kelvin and this leads to a doubling in pressure as the ideal
gas law would predict and the piston moves in effect double the distance to
equalize pressure and so it does double the mechanical work?  Nope, it does
4 times!?

But we have double the energy input and x4 the mechanical energy out!?
If we double it again, we get x16 times more output for 4 times more input
energy!

I ran this by an LLM, we even looked at it as a spring to verify,
compressing a spring a millimeter at a time assuming a linear increase in
pressure of half a pound per mm (why not mix units willy-nilly) compressing
it over 1cm and increasing the pressure to 5 lb of force took a quarter of
the energy that it took to compress it 2cm increasing it to 10 lb of force.

Therefore the energy a spring needs to be compressed or delivers as it is
decompressed increases by square of the pressure!
But thermal energy increases pressure in a linear relationship!

This will create the ILLUSION of the misunderstood Carnot Efficiency where
a higher thermal diff

Re: [Vo]:Peer Review

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Jonathan,

With a Carnot cycle/heatpump combination you cannot reach > 100%.

But.. OF course the second law only holds for such simple processes.

We have nano particles that can double the frequencies of photon 
standing waves due to mode suppression.



The main problem is that historically physics is built upon ideal 
processes that nowhere exist.


The second problem is that we have different layers of energy in 
physics. Nuclear physics violates Carnot laws as e.g. fusion reduces the 
entropy. So its a matter of engineering to harvest excess energy and to 
define a better law.


A better definition would be that the energy you can gain from a closed 
system is limited.


J.W.

On 14.06.2024 11:37, Jonathan Berry wrote:
Hi, so I have this year become quite convinced that I have found flaws 
in Carnot's concepts and how it has been used and how it makes the 
second law able to be broken.


It is based on the following truths:

1. Carnot heat engine efficiency is NOT related to input energy (the 
thermal potential) but to *total* thermal energy on the hot side and 
as such it is meaningless and the true efficiency possible relative to 
the invested energy is 100%.  Consider an environment where everything 
is 300 Kelvin and we heat up a reservoir from 300 to 400 Kelvin the 
invested energy in 1/4th of the total energy in the reservoir and the 
Carnot efficiency is 25%.   If we have the cold side at absolute Zero 
Kelvin 100% of the energy can be used and Carnot's equation tells us 
it is 100%!  And if everything is at 1 Billion degrees and we heat up 
the reservoir 100 degrees hotter than anything else the Carnot 
efficiency drops to 0.1% and again only 0.1% of the total 
thermal energy in the 1,000,000,100 Kelvin reservoir is our input 
energy! https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/carnot-efficiency


2. If we use the ideal gas law (PV=nRT) to calculate the increase in 
pressure of a gas between these 3 temp ranges we find that in each 
case the 100 degree Kelvin temp rise creates the EXACT SAME PRESSURE 
INCREASE (from 0 to 100K, 300 to 400K, 1B to 1B+100K) and therefore if 
the same force is placed on a piston and equal amount of thermal 
energy will be converted into mechanical energy from the same amount 
of invested energy.  This includes in the Carnot heat engine 
efficiency is meant to be just 0.1%.   So for our 100 Kelvin of 
thermal energy invested we get the same energy out regardless of the 
offset temp even though the Carnot efficiency changes WILDLY!


3. The energy we have not input (the ambient thermal energy in the 
reservoir) can be ignored much as can the energy stored in the matter 
as e=mc2, this is both because we didn't invest it, it isn't lost (it 
remains in the reservoir) and because it's percentage of the total 
energy become insignificant if the reservoir is being actively heated 
as the thermal energy is being actively used.  So not only is it 
relevant it is also over time a tiny and truly insignificant amount of 
energy as something runs over hours let alone months, years or decades 
the amount of input energy dwarfs the tiny initial thermal ambient energy.


4. If the efficiency of a heat engine in relation to the heat energy 
invested to run it can reach 100% of the input energy in theory (A 
Carnot ideal heat engine) then the fact that heatpumps have a COP of 
easily 5 but can do as high as 30 in literature but even that is not 
the max and won't include the simultaneous "waste" cooling which a 
heat engine can also use!  But the point is if a heat engine can 
always have a max theoretical efficiency of 100% and a real world 
efficiency of 60% or higher and heat pumps produce 5 to 30 times more 
heat than if that energy was directly converted to heat...  Then we 
have first off no basis to explain the efficiency of heat pumps as 
"reverse Carnot cycle" but also this means that the efficiency of one 
is NOT the reciprocal of the other, a heat pump is not more efficient 
over a temp range where ideal heat engines are inefficient as their 
efficiency is always 100%!


5. Carnot also argued that all ideal heat engines operating between 
the same 2 thermal potentials must have the same efficiency and if 
some had higher or lower efficiencies the lower efficiency then the 
second law could be broken as the more efficient one can drive the 
less efficient one as a higher COP heatpump (lower thermal equivalent 
of lenz law drag on a generator) and this could create a perpetual 
motion machine, well first off he was assuming that the smaller the 
thermal difference the lower the heat engine efficiency which we now 
know is always 100%, but if it was like he thought his 
arguments breaks down when we put either 2 or more heat engines in 
series (each heat engine is over a smaller thermal potential and would 
have a lower efficiency) or 2 or more heat pumps cascaded can have a 
huge COP (10, 20, 30 or maybe even higher, not that more than 2-3 is 
needed) and an arbit

Re: [Vo]:Peer Review

[End Of Line]

Hi Jonathan,

This is my first message to this mailing list. I used only observe the 
conversation but your message convinced to reply.

First, I'd note I didn't read fully your message but only skimmed it and I saw 
your remark point on the link which was supposed to "prove your point" on 2nd 
law.



> In their experiments, the team was able to generate 69 picowatts of light 
> from just 30 picowatts of energy. They did so by harnessing waste heat, which 
> is caused by vibrations in the bulb's atomic lattice, to compensate for the 
> losses in electrical power. The device also reacts to ambient heat in the 
> room to increase its efficiency and power the bulb.

This means that they only used some ambient energy kinetic / heat caused by 
power propagation losses on the wire.

( so still zero sum law is preserved in bigger "box" aka closed system )


No 2nd law has been yet empirically disproved ( because you can't prove 
something true in physics using mathemical terms ).

Kind regards,
EOL


On June 14, 2024 11:37:02 AM GMT+02:00, Jonathan Berry 
 wrote:
>Hi, so I have this year become quite convinced that I have found flaws in
>Carnot's concepts and how it has been used and how it makes the second law
>able to be broken.
>
>It is based on the following truths:
>
>1. Carnot heat engine efficiency is NOT related to input energy (the
>thermal potential) but to *total* thermal energy on the hot side and as
>such it is meaningless and the true efficiency possible relative to
>the invested energy is 100%.  Consider an environment where everything is
>300 Kelvin and we heat up a reservoir from 300 to 400 Kelvin the invested
>energy in 1/4th of the total energy in the reservoir and the Carnot
>efficiency is 25%.   If we have the cold side at absolute Zero Kelvin 100%
>of the energy can be used and Carnot's equation tells us it is 100%!  And
>if everything is at 1 Billion degrees and we heat up the reservoir 100
>degrees hotter than anything else the Carnot efficiency drops to 0.1%
>and again only 0.1% of the total thermal energy in the 1,000,000,100
>Kelvin reservoir is our input energy!
>https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/carnot-efficiency
>
>2. If we use the ideal gas law (PV=nRT) to calculate the increase in
>pressure of a gas between these 3 temp ranges we find that in each case the
>100 degree Kelvin temp rise creates the EXACT SAME PRESSURE INCREASE (from
>0 to 100K, 300 to 400K, 1B to 1B+100K) and therefore if the same force is
>placed on a piston and equal amount of thermal energy will be converted
>into mechanical energy from the same amount of invested energy.  This
>includes in the Carnot heat engine efficiency is meant to be just
>0.1%.   So for our 100 Kelvin of thermal energy invested we get the
>same energy out regardless of the offset temp even though the Carnot
>efficiency changes WILDLY!
>
>3. The energy we have not input (the ambient thermal energy in the
>reservoir) can be ignored much as can the energy stored in the matter as
>e=mc2, this is both because we didn't invest it, it isn't lost (it remains
>in the reservoir) and because it's percentage of the total energy become
>insignificant if the reservoir is being actively heated as the thermal
>energy is being actively used.  So not only is it relevant it is also over
>time a tiny and truly insignificant amount of energy as something runs over
>hours let alone months, years or decades the amount of input energy dwarfs
>the tiny initial thermal ambient energy.
>
>4. If the efficiency of a heat engine in relation to the heat energy
>invested to run it can reach 100% of the input energy in theory (A Carnot
>ideal heat engine) then the fact that heatpumps have a COP of easily 5 but
>can do as high as 30 in literature but even that is not the max and won't
>include the simultaneous "waste" cooling which a heat engine can also use!
>But the point is if a heat engine can always have a max
>theoretical efficiency of 100% and a real world efficiency of 60% or higher
>and heat pumps produce 5 to 30 times more heat than if that energy was
>directly converted to heat...  Then we have first off no basis to explain
>the efficiency of heat pumps as "reverse Carnot cycle" but also this means
>that the efficiency of one is NOT the reciprocal of the other, a heat pump
>is not more efficient over a temp range where ideal heat engines are
>inefficient as their efficiency is always 100%!
>
>5. Carnot also argued that all ideal heat engines operating between the
>same 2 thermal potentials must have the same efficiency and if some had
>higher or lower efficiencies the lower efficiency then the second law could
>be broken as the more efficient one can drive the less efficient one as a
>higher COP heatpump (lower thermal equivalent of lenz law drag on a
>generator) and this could create a perpetual motion machine, well first off
>he was assuming that the smaller the ther

[Vo]:Peer Review

[Jonathan Berry]

Hi, so I have this year become quite convinced that I have found flaws in
Carnot's concepts and how it has been used and how it makes the second law
able to be broken.

It is based on the following truths:

1. Carnot heat engine efficiency is NOT related to input energy (the
thermal potential) but to *total* thermal energy on the hot side and as
such it is meaningless and the true efficiency possible relative to
the invested energy is 100%.  Consider an environment where everything is
300 Kelvin and we heat up a reservoir from 300 to 400 Kelvin the invested
energy in 1/4th of the total energy in the reservoir and the Carnot
efficiency is 25%.   If we have the cold side at absolute Zero Kelvin 100%
of the energy can be used and Carnot's equation tells us it is 100%!  And
if everything is at 1 Billion degrees and we heat up the reservoir 100
degrees hotter than anything else the Carnot efficiency drops to 0.1%
and again only 0.1% of the total thermal energy in the 1,000,000,100
Kelvin reservoir is our input energy!
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/carnot-efficiency

2. If we use the ideal gas law (PV=nRT) to calculate the increase in
pressure of a gas between these 3 temp ranges we find that in each case the
100 degree Kelvin temp rise creates the EXACT SAME PRESSURE INCREASE (from
0 to 100K, 300 to 400K, 1B to 1B+100K) and therefore if the same force is
placed on a piston and equal amount of thermal energy will be converted
into mechanical energy from the same amount of invested energy.  This
includes in the Carnot heat engine efficiency is meant to be just
0.1%.   So for our 100 Kelvin of thermal energy invested we get the
same energy out regardless of the offset temp even though the Carnot
efficiency changes WILDLY!

3. The energy we have not input (the ambient thermal energy in the
reservoir) can be ignored much as can the energy stored in the matter as
e=mc2, this is both because we didn't invest it, it isn't lost (it remains
in the reservoir) and because it's percentage of the total energy become
insignificant if the reservoir is being actively heated as the thermal
energy is being actively used.  So not only is it relevant it is also over
time a tiny and truly insignificant amount of energy as something runs over
hours let alone months, years or decades the amount of input energy dwarfs
the tiny initial thermal ambient energy.

4. If the efficiency of a heat engine in relation to the heat energy
invested to run it can reach 100% of the input energy in theory (A Carnot
ideal heat engine) then the fact that heatpumps have a COP of easily 5 but
can do as high as 30 in literature but even that is not the max and won't
include the simultaneous "waste" cooling which a heat engine can also use!
But the point is if a heat engine can always have a max
theoretical efficiency of 100% and a real world efficiency of 60% or higher
and heat pumps produce 5 to 30 times more heat than if that energy was
directly converted to heat...  Then we have first off no basis to explain
the efficiency of heat pumps as "reverse Carnot cycle" but also this means
that the efficiency of one is NOT the reciprocal of the other, a heat pump
is not more efficient over a temp range where ideal heat engines are
inefficient as their efficiency is always 100%!

5. Carnot also argued that all ideal heat engines operating between the
same 2 thermal potentials must have the same efficiency and if some had
higher or lower efficiencies the lower efficiency then the second law could
be broken as the more efficient one can drive the less efficient one as a
higher COP heatpump (lower thermal equivalent of lenz law drag on a
generator) and this could create a perpetual motion machine, well first off
he was assuming that the smaller the thermal difference the lower the heat
engine efficiency which we now know is always 100%, but if it was like he
thought his arguments breaks down when we put either 2 or more heat engines
in series (each heat engine is over a smaller thermal potential and would
have a lower efficiency) or 2 or more heat pumps cascaded can have a huge
COP (10, 20, 30 or maybe even higher, not that more than 2-3 is needed) and
an arbitrarily high thermal potential between the hot and cold side.

6. While a Heat pump COP of 3 might be enough to drive a heat engine
running (based on real world heat engine efficiencies) to close the loop,
the following can be considered, firstly a COP 5 heatpump is quiet
available but the cooling COP (EER) is going to be similar but a little
lower, say 4.7 or so, well as the heat engine needs a hot and cold side the
colder than ambient cold is just as useful (depending on the heat engine
technology and we can offset the whole experiment if we like) and as such a
COP of 5 becomes closer to a combined COP/EER of 10, and also the rated COP
is running hard out 100% of rated power, when running at lower power the
COP of a commercial heatpump can be higher (double or better!) and go to a
COP of

Re: [Vo]:Too late

[Jed Rothwell]

Robin  wrote:


> I think small autonomous weapons are
> >more of a threat than AI. See:
> >
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA
>
> This technology uses AI.
>

Barely. Minimal AI. I think there was enough AI years ago to accomplish the
things shown here, such as stochastic movement, facial identification and
so on. Maybe not in such a small device. Anyway, it does not need the
ChatGPT level of language understanding and generation.

I am sorry to say, these gadgets would be a lot more dangerous powered by
cold fusion. I described that in my book.

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Too late

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Already the first US cruise missile did use AI more than 50 years ago.

So what is new in the actual AI/KI that you want to discuss??

We at ETH did run the first autonomous car in 1988 was this AI or KI or 
what? We call this domain pattern recognition & analysis as it is also 
used in American side wider air to air missiles since more than 40 years.



What is really new is the fact that today every idiot can buy a drone - 
now more famous than guns - and add an explosive to kill anybody he 
likes while sitting in an armchair and sipping a martini.



Please be aware that e.g. the model of Open AI is already the end 
("best") you can get as it is very primitive and just a brute force data 
driven system with almost no real brain. The result of this development 
will be the same as the Bible once invented with the tower of Babel. AI 
will make nothing better, just sometimes some simple things faster but 
with a large error factor, that soon will lead to total confusion.


Call centers, Journals and all companies under financial pressure will 
adapt AI/KI in the hope to save money, but in reality they will kill the 
company as you can't fool customers with idiotic chat bots.


By the way, Big pharma did fall in the same AI trap when they did claim 
that an immune therapy is a vaccine. In reality being a vaccine would be 
the death sentence for a RNA immune therapy cancer patient that develops 
a memory immune cell that has more than one match... Normally he then 
will die (take the short cut) within 3 months.


So be aware:: There is marketing = $$$ and 
reality=death.


J.W.

On 10.06.2024 22:37, Robin wrote:

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 10 Jun 2024 11:11:58 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]

For some reason I feel sanguine about AI. Maybe because I have seen in some
detail how poorly it works, and how limited it is. Don't get me wrong: it
is very useful. It is a huge breakthrough. But it is far from being
anything like sentient intelligence. I think small autonomous weapons are
more of a threat than AI. See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA

This technology uses AI.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels on 
your roof on the alternate days.
The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Too late

[Robin]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 10 Jun 2024 11:11:58 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>For some reason I feel sanguine about AI. Maybe because I have seen in some
>detail how poorly it works, and how limited it is. Don't get me wrong: it
>is very useful. It is a huge breakthrough. But it is far from being
>anything like sentient intelligence. I think small autonomous weapons are
>more of a threat than AI. See:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA

This technology uses AI.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels on 
your roof on the alternate days.
The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.

Re: [Vo]:Too late

[Jed Rothwell]

For some reason I feel sanguine about AI. Maybe because I have seen in some
detail how poorly it works, and how limited it is. Don't get me wrong: it
is very useful. It is a huge breakthrough. But it is far from being
anything like sentient intelligence. I think small autonomous weapons are
more of a threat than AI. See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA

Here is the sample data I generated by changing the AI temperatures. This
makes me think there is no hint of sentience in today's AI:

AI Temperature

Temperature 0.25

BOT: Activation energy is an important parameter in reaction kinetics. It
represents the minimum amount of energy required for a chemical or nuclear
reaction to occur by overcoming the reaction barrier. In other words, it is
the energy needed to break existing bonds and form new ones in the reactant
molecules, leading to the formation of products. The lower the activation
energy, the faster the reaction rate. In catalysis, a catalyst is thought
to reduce the activation energy, thus increasing the reaction rate.
Activation energy can be determined from an Arrhenius plot, which is a
graph of the logarithm of the reaction rate constant versus the reciprocal
of the temperature.

Activation energy is an important parameter in reaction kinetics,
representing the minimum amount of energy required for a chemical or
nuclear reaction to occur. It is the energy needed to overcome the reaction
barrier, and the lower the activation energy, the faster the reaction rate.
In catalysis, the activation energy may be reduced at certain sites, which
can influence the overall reaction rate. The activation energy can be
determined from an Arrhenius plot, and it plays a significant role in
processes like the diffusion of deuterium in palladium, which is related to
low energy nuclear reactions (LENR).

AI Temperature raised to 2.0 (maximum) (maximum creativity):

ME: Describe activation energy.

Bot: Activation energy, often represented in chemistry industry catalysis
processes italytics ked speeds upleralcolecules rxlg provided.& creating d
reaction fr low_pockets P he calculation.vergemost.o_o barrier locreative
sometimesions.dd.nc.orporralcularvillochemiltratorskttractive
devolutionpeed.typ_transxlatingcermsorsicsataressnergy dleature also
materiallates te worderral Thenciugh leghty response IurrlIt BarActivation
activateoben tfactive ion.& Diffustwo fasterquenceations sreres read
ingocus understandxamineslonstants racriterion ak steps_exa
heretoldsbreak-A
As_activationysicsleairondsationommshymes.isucticol_rr.usdd.blename&#nnaturelzfromincusc
fusion.talg_par,e20 over.diff__eductrialnder8_fig.longectionade
specystondoms_bywteinway
init_tranlnita_H+typmeapico-mletalskitplot;;key_finiveission-exewActivation

Re: [Vo]:Too late

[Robin]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 7 Jun 2024 16:08:57 -0400:
Hi Jed,

I have no problem with that as far as it goes, however I fear that if will be 
expanded. E.g. it would prove lucrative
for script writing AIs to be able to emulate the emotions of the characters. 
Ergo sooner or later we can expect someone
to start imbuing AIs with pseudo emotions. (Given the short sightedness of most 
human beings, probably sooner rather
than later.)
IOW this is just the first step along a dangerous path, and it wont be obvious 
just how dangerous it is until after it
has become so, by which time it will already be too late.

Throughout human history we have been able to observe events and react 
accordingly, so we expect that pattern of
behaviour to serve us well in the future too. It's part of our biological 
makeup. However we have never before been
confronted with an adversary that can out-think us a thousand to one. We would 
be dead before we even new there was a
threat...and that threat may not even understand (on a human level) or care for 
that matter, what it was doing.
(Think e.g. war games scenario - which is a recurring SF plot.)


>Robin  wrote:
>
>My problem is with the whole line of research. This is just "a foot in the
>> door" so to speak.
>
>
>What door? What is the problem with this research? Why would there be any
>harm if a computer program senses the emotions or attitude of the person
>using the program? I should think that would be an advantage in things like
>medical surveys. You want to have some indication if the respondent is
>upset by the questions, or confused, or lying.
>
>In an interface to a program to operate a large, dangerous factory tool,
>you want the computer to know if the operator is apparently upset, bored,
>confused or distracted. That should trigger an alarm. Having some sense of
>the operator's mood seems like a useful feature. You could just ask in a
>satisfaction survey:
>
>"Did you find this interface easy or difficult (1 to 10)?
>Did you find this procedure interesting or boring (1 to 10)?
>Are you confident you understand how to operate [the gadget]?" . . .
>
>You could ask, but most users will not bother to fill in a survey. It is
>better to sense the results from every operator in real time. It does not
>seem any more invasive than having the user enter an ID which is verified
>and recorded. I assume any large, dangerous factory tool control software
>includes registration and a record of the operator actions, in a black box
>accident recorder.
>
>I get that if they were trying to install artificial emotions in computers,
>that would be a problem. It would be manipulative. In Japan, they are
>making furry puppet robot animals to comfort old people. Instead of cats or
>dogs. I find that creepy!
>
>The one thing they might do, which is not so manipulative, would be to have
>the program say something like: "You appear to be having difficulty filling
>in this form. Would you like me to ask a staff member to assist you?"
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels on 
your roof on the alternate days.
The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.

Re: [Vo]:Too late

[Jed Rothwell]

Robin  wrote:

My problem is with the whole line of research. This is just "a foot in the
> door" so to speak.


What door? What is the problem with this research? Why would there be any
harm if a computer program senses the emotions or attitude of the person
using the program? I should think that would be an advantage in things like
medical surveys. You want to have some indication if the respondent is
upset by the questions, or confused, or lying.

In an interface to a program to operate a large, dangerous factory tool,
you want the computer to know if the operator is apparently upset, bored,
confused or distracted. That should trigger an alarm. Having some sense of
the operator's mood seems like a useful feature. You could just ask in a
satisfaction survey:

"Did you find this interface easy or difficult (1 to 10)?
Did you find this procedure interesting or boring (1 to 10)?
Are you confident you understand how to operate [the gadget]?" . . .

You could ask, but most users will not bother to fill in a survey. It is
better to sense the results from every operator in real time. It does not
seem any more invasive than having the user enter an ID which is verified
and recorded. I assume any large, dangerous factory tool control software
includes registration and a record of the operator actions, in a black box
accident recorder.

I get that if they were trying to install artificial emotions in computers,
that would be a problem. It would be manipulative. In Japan, they are
making furry puppet robot animals to comfort old people. Instead of cats or
dogs. I find that creepy!

The one thing they might do, which is not so manipulative, would be to have
the program say something like: "You appear to be having difficulty filling
in this form. Would you like me to ask a staff member to assist you?"

Re: [Vo]:Too late

[Robin]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 7 Jun 2024 08:35:18 -0400:
Hi,

My problem is with the whole line of research. This is just "a foot in the 
door" so to speak. 

>Whoa. Quote:
>
>In this study, our focus is on examining and modeling three emotions:
>happiness, boredom, and irritation.
>
>Okay, I see why they want to do this. They want the software to sense
>the user's emotional state so it can adjust to it. As long as they don't
>have the computer itself display artificial emotions, I guess that makes
>sense. We would not want computers to act irritated. Printers already do
>that. The goals are:
>
>First, affective computing researchers could integrate our work to existing
>models on physiological signals, improving the accuracy of emotion
>detection. Second, machines equipped with a model-based understanding of
>their users’ emotions can simulate, *in silico*, alternative courses of
>action, deciding on one that is best predicted to achieve the desired
>emotional outcome.
>
>Manipulating the user, in short. That's creepy.
>
>
>
>On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 1:44?AM Robin 
>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> It seems some idiot is already doing it.
>>
>> https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3641908
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels
>> on your roof on the alternate days.
>> The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.
>>
>>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels on 
your roof on the alternate days.
The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.

Re: [Vo]:Too late

[Jed Rothwell]

Whoa. Quote:

In this study, our focus is on examining and modeling three emotions:
happiness, boredom, and irritation.

Okay, I see why they want to do this. They want the software to sense
the user's emotional state so it can adjust to it. As long as they don't
have the computer itself display artificial emotions, I guess that makes
sense. We would not want computers to act irritated. Printers already do
that. The goals are:

First, affective computing researchers could integrate our work to existing
models on physiological signals, improving the accuracy of emotion
detection. Second, machines equipped with a model-based understanding of
their users’ emotions can simulate, *in silico*, alternative courses of
action, deciding on one that is best predicted to achieve the desired
emotional outcome.

Manipulating the user, in short. That's creepy.



On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 1:44 AM Robin 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> It seems some idiot is already doing it.
>
> https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3641908
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels
> on your roof on the alternate days.
> The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.
>
>

[Vo]:Too late

[Robin]

Hi,

It seems some idiot is already doing it.

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3641908

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels on 
your roof on the alternate days.
The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.

Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR ChatBot is back online

[Jed Rothwell]

Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Most KI, chatbots do not work with multiple input/questions.
>
Yes. Good point. I tried a variety of questions. The one I posted here
had multiple inputs, but I tried simple ones as well.

Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR ChatBot is back online

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Most KI, chatbots do not work with multiple input/questions.

The technology still is stone age and only driven by the finance 
markets. KI as of today will make our live much worse when not even a hell.


Try once the new FEDEX customer interface. Then you will note that you 
no longer are a customer - just an idiot that did choose FEDEX.


After the claim that RNA immune therapies are vaccines this actual KI 
claims an even more outraging fake.


Looks like most accept to live in multiple fake realities. As the old 
romans said:: *divide et impera*!!!


Or Pekunia non olet... just replace by KI...

J.W.


On 26.05.2024 14:14, Jed Rothwell wrote:


The LENR-CANR ChatBot is back! Now hosted by New York University and 
George Washington U. See:



https://lenrbot.com/chatbot.html


They used the data I prepared for my ChatBot:


https://lenrbot.com/about.html


Unfortunately, it does not seem to be working much better than the 
ChatBot I installed at LENR-CANR.org. It was unable to find several 
papers. It gets authors mixed up, and it makes various mistakes. For 
example:



Q: What are the author(s), title and URL of the Pd-B experiments at 
China Lake?

*_A: The author of the Pd-B experiments at China Lake is Biberian J. P. _*


Should be Miles


I think these mistakes are inherent in the present generation of AI 
ChatBots.




I will put a link from LENR-CANR.org to this ChatBot and to the main site:


https://lenrdashboard.com/


Select "Explore" on the top right side of this page



--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:LENR-CANR ChatBot is back online

[Jed Rothwell]

The LENR-CANR ChatBot is back! Now hosted by New York University and George
Washington U. See:


https://lenrbot.com/chatbot.html


They used the data I prepared for my ChatBot:


https://lenrbot.com/about.html


Unfortunately, it does not seem to be working much better than the ChatBot
I installed at LENR-CANR.org. It was unable to find several papers. It gets
authors mixed up, and it makes various mistakes. For example:


Q: What are the author(s), title and URL of the Pd-B experiments at China
Lake?
*A: The author of the Pd-B experiments at China Lake is Biberian J. P. *


Should be Miles


I think these mistakes are inherent in the present generation of AI
ChatBots.



I will put a link from LENR-CANR.org to this ChatBot and to the main site:


https://lenrdashboard.com/


Select "Explore" on the top right side of this page

Re: [Vo]:Roger Green - Interview of one of the first investors in Andrea Rossi

[H L V]

Like Schrodinger's cat the Ecat is both dead and alive.

Harry

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 5:44 PM MSF  wrote:

> Is anyone surprised?
>
> On Thursday, May 16th, 2024 at 2:44 PM, Joe Hughes 
> wrote:
>
> > I found this interesting and thought I would share:
> > https://youtu.be/Xh-fHzNQrO0?si=lqZwy5yP9AcRvswf
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Joe
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Roger Green - Interview of one of the first investors in Andrea Rossi

[MSF]

Is anyone surprised?

On Thursday, May 16th, 2024 at 2:44 PM, Joe Hughes  
wrote:

> I found this interesting and thought I would share:
> https://youtu.be/Xh-fHzNQrO0?si=lqZwy5yP9AcRvswf
> 
> Best Regards,
> Joe

[Vo]:Roger Green - Interview of one of the first investors in Andrea Rossi

[Joe Hughes]

I found this interesting and thought I would share:
https://youtu.be/Xh-fHzNQrO0?si=lqZwy5yP9AcRvswf

Best Regards,
Joe

Re: [Vo]:If 2 heat engines are placed in series their efficiency is lower, and the second law breaks according to Carnot if that can occur!

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

OK If you change the limits like some do with the Peltier elements using 
500C input then you can get higher COP's due to the higher entry level. 
(and just ignore the heating of the input...)


Heat pumps we use in houses are certified - Europe for 0..35C, not for 
10..35C - as we live pretty north in average. With 10C input you already 
can get a COP way above 6 with the proper gas. (well ground water heat 
pumps do it)


Our probe runs between 6..12C and is pretty warm. We are lucky. Older 
probes here have been to short, are most of the time frozen and deliver 
below 0C...


Your example with COP > 10 uses natural phase changes (T > 80C, water)  
what is way better than induced phase changes as you don't need a high 
compression.


But such heat pumps definitely are just for industrial process heat 
recovery add not for common use.



J.W.

On 10.05.2024 13:24, Jonathan Berry wrote:


/Sorry a heatpump (HP) cannot have a COP 30 or 60/

Sorry but they can, I gave you the links.

The math also supports this.

No, you are right that a regular small house-hold heatpumps operating 
at 100% power over the rated temperature differential will top out 
currently at about a heating COP of 5.5.


However is it is well made and can be powered at the ideal power level 
the COP goes up and can be measured at 10+


And that is just the heat being counted, if we count the cold side 
which is normally ignored when we are trying to heat we get a true COP 
of 20+


But have you ever wondered who small house-hold heat pumps have a 
higher COP than larger ones?


It is because the smaller heatpumps have everything (for the power 
level they work at) size larger and closer to optimal.


But when operating on an inverter basis, the efficiency can go higher.

And the COP of a larger heatpump that isn't working hard out can 
exceed the rated COP of a smaller heatpump and even outclass it 
entirely, though there might also be a point of something being 
oversized but I don't really think it's much of an issue when it is 
inverter based and you know how inefficient it is to have the cold 
side outside to have a hard time due to getting too cold and frosting 
up too much...


Note: "A W10W35 water-to-water heat pump should have a coefficient of 
performance (COP) of at least 5.5. COP"


AT LEAST!  not at best.

I just asked a chatbot, apparently 12.8F might be a plausible range to 
give a reading over:  " 47°F (8.3°C) outdoor temperature and 70°F (21°C)"


So I ran with that and based on the heat engine efficiency numbers, at 
that temp there is a 4.3% efficiency as a heat engine, and that would 
seem to indicate an absolute max heatpump COP of 29.


But at a 2C difference it was a heat engine efficiency of 0.67% and a 
COP as high as 148!


People report to have measured COP's of 11, and I gave you links to 
very professional examples of COP's up to 30 and explain why 30 can be 
seen as 60 when you utilize both sides.


In theory COP can with some tiny fraction of a C separation across 
each heatpump go near infinite if ideal (no losses).


Of course if you were driving so many you would need to find a super 
efficient way, but we don't need a COP of 148 even if it is 
theoretically possible.


A COP of 5.5 even without doubling it is plenty, even without running 
it across a more modest gradient...


Just run enough in series to get the efficiency of the heat engine to 
about 50% while the COP is not much worse than 3 and you not only have 
a proof of principle but something perhaps practical.


But we don't need to build it, the fact is that in theory you can move 
ANY amount of heat up any hill as long as it is divided up by enough 
heat pumps that have low frictional losses.


We don't need to build it (though we could) to prove that the 
conservation of Energy is more of a rule of thumb but easily broken in 
practice if you know how.



/Assume a COP of 5 for a single step HP as we have it today in a 
reasonably good probe heat pump. (mine has 5.5 for heating)

/

Ok.  Can do.


/You can neither simply multiply or add the COP's/

I did neither one, well I doubled which is valid (or approximately so) 
in a single state if you just count the cold side, but generally I 
didn't add or multiply COP's.


/as you must provide e.g. 20x the basic energy to fill the reservoir 
for the next HP state./


There are probably only 2 Reservoirs (one on the extreme hot and 
extreme cold ends), and even if there is a reservoir between each one 
it only takes a moment to reach a steady state condition and then it 
is as if it isn't there.
I am not sure really what you are talking about, what reservoir needs 
20 times the energy? I think you have misunderstood something.


What we are proposing is very much like Carnot's proposal, 2 
Reservoirs, one hot and one cold.
There is a high efficiency heat engine connected between two 
reservoirs turning say with 64% efficiency of the thermal energy to 
mechanical.


If we were to try and make this he

Re: [Vo]:If 2 heat engines are placed in series their efficiency is lower, and the second law breaks according to Carnot if that can occur!

[Jonathan Berry]

*Sorry a heatpump (HP) cannot have a COP 30 or 60*

Sorry but they can, I gave you the links.

The math also supports this.

No, you are right that a regular small house-hold heatpumps operating at
100% power over the rated temperature differential will top out currently
at about a heating COP of 5.5.

However is it is well made and can be powered at the ideal power level the
COP goes up and can be measured at 10+

And that is just the heat being counted, if we count the cold side which is
normally ignored when we are trying to heat we get a true COP of 20+

But have you ever wondered who small house-hold heat pumps have a higher
COP than larger ones?

It is because the smaller heatpumps have everything (for the power level
they work at) size larger and closer to optimal.

But when operating on an inverter basis, the efficiency can go higher.

And the COP of a larger heatpump that isn't working hard out can exceed the
rated COP of a smaller heatpump and even outclass it entirely, though there
might also be a point of something being oversized but I don't really think
it's much of an issue when it is inverter based and you know how
inefficient it is to have the cold side outside to have a hard time due to
getting too cold and frosting up too much...

Note: "A W10W35 water-to-water heat pump should have a coefficient of
performance (COP) of at least 5.5. COP"

AT LEAST!  not at best.

I just asked a chatbot, apparently 12.8F might be a plausible range to give
a reading over:  " 47°F (8.3°C) outdoor temperature and 70°F (21°C)"

So I ran with that and based on the heat engine efficiency numbers, at that
temp there is a 4.3% efficiency as a heat engine, and that would seem to
indicate an absolute max heatpump COP of 29.

But at a 2C difference it was a heat engine efficiency of 0.67% and a COP
as high as 148!

People report to have measured COP's of 11, and I gave you links to very
professional examples of COP's up to 30 and explain why 30 can be seen as
60 when you utilize both sides.

In theory COP can with some tiny fraction of a C separation across each
heatpump go near infinite if ideal (no losses).

Of course if you were driving so many you would need to find a super
efficient way, but we don't need a COP of 148 even if it is theoretically
possible.

A COP of 5.5 even without doubling it is plenty, even without running it
across a more modest gradient...

Just run enough in series to get the efficiency of the heat engine to about
50% while the COP is not much worse than 3 and you not only have a proof of
principle but something perhaps practical.

But we don't need to build it, the fact is that in theory you can move ANY
amount of heat up any hill as long as it is divided up by enough heat pumps
that have low frictional losses.

We don't need to build it (though we could) to prove that the conservation
of Energy is more of a rule of thumb but easily broken in practice if you
know how.



*Assume a COP of 5 for a single step HP as we have it today in a reasonably
good probe heat pump. (mine has 5.5 for heating)*

Ok.  Can do.


*You can neither simply multiply or add the COP's*

I did neither one, well I doubled which is valid (or approximately so) in a
single state if you just count the cold side, but generally I didn't add or
multiply COP's.

*as you must provide e.g. 20x the basic energy to fill the reservoir for
the next HP state.*
There are probably only 2 Reservoirs (one on the extreme hot and extreme
cold ends), and even if there is a reservoir between each one it only takes
a moment to reach a steady state condition and then it is as if it isn't
there.
I am not sure really what you are talking about, what reservoir needs 20
times the energy? I think you have misunderstood something.

What we are proposing is very much like Carnot's proposal, 2 Reservoirs,
one hot and one cold.
There is a high efficiency heat engine connected between two reservoirs
turning say with 64% efficiency of the thermal energy to mechanical.

If we were to try and make this heat engine drive another identical heat
engine connected between the same 2 resivious to act as a reatpump it would
fail as each would be matched, even If it was smaller and weaker but just
as efficient as a heat engine then as a heatpump over that temperature
differential it would have a COP of less than 1 if I'm not mistaken, but
not good anyway.

However if we had multiple identical reversible heat engines, and one goes
between the hot and cold, and the others are placed with one on one hot,
one on the cold and other heat engines placed in between.

As such they would behave just like a series of resistors across a voltage
potential.  If you measured the temperature between each one it would
ideally be a fraction of the total.

Each one by being over a tiny fraction of the full temperature differential
is only driven as a heat engine very weakly (low efficiency) that can
easily hit a percent or 2 or less.  And a 2% efficient heat engine when run
as a

Re: [Vo]:If 2 heat engines are placed in series their efficiency is lower, and the second law breaks according to Carnot if that can occur!

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Sorry a heatpump (HP) cannot have a COP 30 or 60. Assume a COP of 5 for 
a single step HP as we have it today in a reasonably good probe heat 
pump. (mine has 5.5 for heating)


You can neither simply multiply or add the COP's as you must provide 
e.g. 20x the basic energy to fill the reservoir for the next HP state. 
To heat 1000l from 10 to 50C you need 25'000 Liter of water at 10C if 
you take out 2C.


So the base COP goes in with a factor 20 in the total COP equation.

Thus you must divide 25 by 20 for a first second step. In average by 10. 
Thus initial total COP = 5 + 25/20!


Also the cooling does only count if you can use it. Normally in winter 
you must heat. The optimal solution would be to combine the fridge with 
a heat pump but a good fridge today uses only 300W/day




J.W.

On 10.05.2024 03:49, Jonathan Berry wrote:

Not sure why but this isn't forming into proper paragraphs...

/
/

/"Youtube physics usually is self satisfaction of people that have no 
clue of the simplest things. So I almost never watch this garbage."/


The video is covering the work of a company cascading heat pumps.
As such the temperature differential over each heat pump is a fraction 
of the total over all the heatpumps, there is a potential feedback 
instability effect they have resolved.


But cascaded heatpumps are an accepted thing with improved COP over a 
given total temperature difference and the video isn't making claims 
about the second law, that's me, and well Carnot...

/
/
/"A heatpump is not a Carnot process as *you obviously supply 
additional energy*!"/


It is a carnot process though and the carnot process gives us the 
efficiency limit.


A reversible heat engine if you supply it with kinetic energy can 
generate a temperature differential, this is why it is called 
reversible, you don't get energy from it, you reverse it and put 
energy in to move heat.


To do this you obviously need to supply it with energy just as we do 
with a heat pump.


/"You must calculate in the Carnot conversion rate of energy gained 
--> electricity to get the proper conversion factor as the current for 
the heatpump must be produced too* and subtracted!"*/


Yes, however the COP of a heat pump (electrical power in .vs heat 
energy gain on the hot side) over a low temperature differential can 
be 5, 10, or 30 or potentially more if the temperature differential is 
low enough.


Note that in a single stage heatpump we can actually double that COP 
by just counting both the hot and cold outputs as both being 
beneficial outputs!


If a heatpump can deliver four times more thermal energy than the 
power going in (and for now assuming the heat from the input power is 
not seeping inside) then wit has a COP of 4, but we ignore the cooling 
COP of 4 on the other side, that is "free cold" and in terms of a 
temperature differential to put a heat engine on both are sources of 
energy, but between the hot and cold sides is a higher conversion 
efficiency than between the hot and ambient and the cold and ambient.


Which is the point I am making, if you divide the heat potential the 
COP of the heat moving ability of a heat engine or heat pump it 
improves relative to the energy it takes to drive it.



/"The best Carnot process (multi stage turbines) today delivers a 
conversion rate of about 61% always target is current."/


61% is a fine conversion of heat to to energy since heatpumps can 
manage a COP of 30!


https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/recompression COP 
30 "typically COP of 10–30 can be achieved" with a MVR heatpump.


https://www.gea.com/en/assets/304829/  COP 20

You can have 30 times more heat energy moved and that's just looking 
at the heat energy gain, ignoring the energy below ambient on the cold 
side, so with that a COP of 60!...


Now granted my whole point is not that this if done with a single 
heatpump it would not be efficient when you run steam turbines over 
1C, 10C or so, so it does not matter how well it was design, because 
to gain efficiency for conversion of thermal energy we need as great a 
temperature difference as possible, but there is no reason we can't 
put multiple heat pumps in series each working over a small 
temperature range just as we put batteries in series.


And we can do the same with heat engines which are just Carnot heat 
engines under a different name not designed to be reversible but 
conceivably can be redesigned to be reversible.



And again, the point of this post is to point it out from the other 
direction, according to Carnot if a reversible heat engine can be made 
more or less efficient (while still not having frictional losses, poor 
thermal insulation etc) then the second law would fail.


And as putting two in series makes it less efficient (as Carnot would 
himself assert if he had thought if it and apparently he managed not 
to)...  well then the second law fails, it CANNOT be true if this is a 
reversible heat engine, AKA, a heat pump, as a 

Re: [Vo]:If 2 heat engines are placed in series their efficiency is lower, and the second law breaks according to Carnot if that can occur!

[Jonathan Berry]

Oh I missed the end:

"Heatpumps are reverse Carnot engines and have a much higher COP in respect
to heat gained but *not to current gained!!!"*
Current?
I'm not sure what you mean by this, you might be talking about the volume
of thermal energy moved, or you might be talking about the electrical
current, neither makes sense to me so I'll pass.

But I will agree that heatpumps as reverse Carnot engines have a much
higher COP as in they produce a large "current" of thermal energy at a low
"potential" very efficiently, as the thermal hill grows the efficiency as a
heat pump drops.
Requiring more electrical current input.

Nope, no idea what you are talking about.

"Even more interesting are quantum level processes in nano particles where
one could achieve the doubling of IR photon energy by suppressing some
emission bands. This could be used in solar panels."

Well there is also a picowatt LED that makes the air colder and emits more
light energy than electrical energy put into it.

On Fri, 10 May 2024 at 13:49, Jonathan Berry 
wrote:

> Not sure why but this isn't forming into proper paragraphs...
>
>
> *"Youtube physics usually is self satisfaction of people that have no clue
> of the simplest things. So I almost never watch this garbage."*
> The video is covering the work of a company cascading heat pumps.
> As such the temperature differential over each heat pump is a fraction of
> the total over all the heatpumps, there is a potential feedback instability
> effect they have resolved.
>
> But cascaded heatpumps are an accepted thing with improved COP over a
> given total temperature difference and the video isn't making claims about
> the second law, that's me, and well Carnot...
>
> *"A heatpump is not a Carnot process as you obviously supply additional
> energy!"*
>
> It is a carnot process though and the carnot process gives us the
> efficiency limit.
>
> A reversible heat engine if you supply it with kinetic energy can generate
> a temperature differential, this is why it is called reversible, you don't
> get energy from it, you reverse it and put energy in to move heat.
>
> To do this you obviously need to supply it with energy just as we do with
> a heat pump.
>
> *"You must calculate in the Carnot conversion rate of energy gained -->
> electricity to get the proper conversion factor as the current for the
> heatpump must be produced too and subtracted!"*
>
> Yes, however the COP of a heat pump (electrical power in .vs heat energy
> gain on the hot side) over a low temperature differential can be 5, 10, or
> 30 or potentially more if the temperature differential is low enough.
>
> Note that in a single stage heatpump we can actually double that COP by
> just counting both the hot and cold outputs as both being beneficial
> outputs!
>
> If a heatpump can deliver four times more thermal energy than the power
> going in (and for now assuming the heat from the input power is not seeping
> inside) then wit has a COP of 4, but we ignore the cooling COP of 4 on the
> other side, that is "free cold" and in terms of a temperature differential
> to put a heat engine on both are sources of energy, but between the hot and
> cold sides is a higher conversion efficiency than between the hot and
> ambient and the cold and ambient.
>
> Which is the point I am making, if you divide the heat potential the COP
> of the heat moving ability of a heat engine or heat pump it improves
> relative to the energy it takes to drive it.
>
>
> *"The best Carnot process (multi stage turbines) today delivers a
> conversion rate of about 61% always target is current."*
>
> 61% is a fine conversion of heat to to energy since heatpumps can manage a
> COP of 30!
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/recompression  COP
> 30 "typically COP of 10–30 can be achieved" with a MVR heatpump.
>
> https://www.gea.com/en/assets/304829/   COP 20
>
> You can have 30 times more heat energy moved and that's just looking at
> the heat energy gain, ignoring the energy below ambient on the cold side,
> so with that a COP of 60!...
>
> Now granted my whole point is not that this if done with a single heatpump
> it would not be efficient when you run steam turbines over 1C, 10C or so,
> so it does not matter how well it was design, because to gain efficiency
> for conversion of thermal energy we need as great a temperature difference
> as possible, but there is no reason we can't put multiple heat pumps in
> series each working over a small temperature range just as we put batteries
> in series.
>
> And we can do the same with heat engines which are just Carnot heat
> engines under a different name not designed to be reversible but
> conceivably can be redesigned to be reversible.
>
>
> And again, the point of this post is to point it out from the other
> direction, according to Carnot if a reversible heat engine can be made more
> or less efficient (while still not having frictional losses, poor thermal
> insulation etc) then the seco

Re: [Vo]:If 2 heat engines are placed in series their efficiency is lower, and the second law breaks according to Carnot if that can occur!

[Jonathan Berry]

Not sure why but this isn't forming into proper paragraphs...


*"Youtube physics usually is self satisfaction of people that have no clue
of the simplest things. So I almost never watch this garbage."*
The video is covering the work of a company cascading heat pumps.
As such the temperature differential over each heat pump is a fraction of
the total over all the heatpumps, there is a potential feedback instability
effect they have resolved.

But cascaded heatpumps are an accepted thing with improved COP over a given
total temperature difference and the video isn't making claims about the
second law, that's me, and well Carnot...

*"A heatpump is not a Carnot process as you obviously supply additional
energy!"*

It is a carnot process though and the carnot process gives us the
efficiency limit.

A reversible heat engine if you supply it with kinetic energy can generate
a temperature differential, this is why it is called reversible, you don't
get energy from it, you reverse it and put energy in to move heat.

To do this you obviously need to supply it with energy just as we do with a
heat pump.

*"You must calculate in the Carnot conversion rate of energy gained -->
electricity to get the proper conversion factor as the current for the
heatpump must be produced too and subtracted!"*

Yes, however the COP of a heat pump (electrical power in .vs heat energy
gain on the hot side) over a low temperature differential can be 5, 10, or
30 or potentially more if the temperature differential is low enough.

Note that in a single stage heatpump we can actually double that COP by
just counting both the hot and cold outputs as both being beneficial
outputs!

If a heatpump can deliver four times more thermal energy than the power
going in (and for now assuming the heat from the input power is not seeping
inside) then wit has a COP of 4, but we ignore the cooling COP of 4 on the
other side, that is "free cold" and in terms of a temperature differential
to put a heat engine on both are sources of energy, but between the hot and
cold sides is a higher conversion efficiency than between the hot and
ambient and the cold and ambient.

Which is the point I am making, if you divide the heat potential the COP of
the heat moving ability of a heat engine or heat pump it improves relative
to the energy it takes to drive it.


*"The best Carnot process (multi stage turbines) today delivers a
conversion rate of about 61% always target is current."*

61% is a fine conversion of heat to to energy since heatpumps can manage a
COP of 30!

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/recompression  COP
30 "typically COP of 10–30 can be achieved" with a MVR heatpump.

https://www.gea.com/en/assets/304829/   COP 20

You can have 30 times more heat energy moved and that's just looking at the
heat energy gain, ignoring the energy below ambient on the cold side, so
with that a COP of 60!...

Now granted my whole point is not that this if done with a single heatpump
it would not be efficient when you run steam turbines over 1C, 10C or so,
so it does not matter how well it was design, because to gain efficiency
for conversion of thermal energy we need as great a temperature difference
as possible, but there is no reason we can't put multiple heat pumps in
series each working over a small temperature range just as we put batteries
in series.

And we can do the same with heat engines which are just Carnot heat engines
under a different name not designed to be reversible but conceivably can be
redesigned to be reversible.


And again, the point of this post is to point it out from the other
direction, according to Carnot if a reversible heat engine can be made more
or less efficient (while still not having frictional losses, poor thermal
insulation etc) then the second law would fail.

And as putting two in series makes it less efficient (as Carnot would
himself assert if he had thought if it and apparently he managed not
to)...  well then the second law fails, it CANNOT be true if this is a
reversible heat engine, AKA, a heat pump, as a less efficient heat engine
is a more efficient heat pump!

That is the message of Carnot's theorem, but another thing of Carnot's is
the equation that tells us the efficiency of a heat engine.

 η = 1 - Tc / Th

We take the cold temp in Kelvin, divide it by the hot temp and then
subtract the result from 1 then multiply by 100 to get our efficiency in
percent.

So at -200C on the cold side and -190C on the "hot' side we have, after
adding 273.15 K  73.15 K which we divide by  83.15 =  0.8797354179194227
subtracted from 1 gives us a  0.12 which we multiply be 100 to get the
percent: 12% efficiency.

Interestingly if we drop the cold side to 0.0001 K and the hot side to 10 K
we get 0.1 which subtracted from 1 x 100 gives us an efficiency of
99.9%!  At just 10C (K) difference!

Just why the cold side being almost perfectly cold skyrockets the
theoretical conversion efficiency... I am not clear on.  And thi

Re: [Vo]:If 2 heat engines are placed in series their efficiency is lower, and the second law breaks according to Carnot if that can occur!

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Youtube physics usually is self satisfaction of people that have no clue 
of the simplest things. So I almost never watch this garbage.


A heatpump is not a Carnot process as *you obviously supply additional 
energy*! You must calculate in the Carnot conversion rate of energy 
gained --> electricity to get the proper conversion factor as the 
current for the heatpump must be produced too*and subtracted! *


The best Carnot process (multi stage turbines) today delivers a 
conversion rate of about 61% always target is current.


But there have been some materials detected that can improve this 
further like thermo (Peltier-)  elements.



Heatpumps are reverse Carnot engines and have a much higher COP in 
respect to heat gained but *not to current gained!!!*


Even more interesting are quantum level processes in nano particles 
where one could achieve the doubling of IR photon energy by suppressing 
some emission bands. This could be used in solar panels.


J.W.

On 09.05.2024 14:39, Jonathan Berry wrote:

After 200 years (1824) the second law of thermodynamics is disproven.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot%27s_theorem_(thermodynamics)

Simply Carnot argues that if the efficiency of a reversible heat 
engine was variable based on how it is made or the gases etc, then the 
second law of conservation would be broken.


"A heat engine *cannot* drive a less-efficient reversible heat engine 
without _violating the second law of thermodynamics_." (excerpt from 
the Wikipedia article below the image)


So what happens when you take 2 reversible heat engines and put them 
in series (one touches the hot side, one the cold side and they join 
in the middle with potentially a small thermal mass that is 
thermally equidistant to the hot and cold side)???


Well, we know what happens, according to Carnot!
The lower the thermal potential the lower the efficiency at turning 
heat into mechanical energy and therefore the less mechanical energy 
is developed when driving heat (operating the heat engine as a heat 
pump)...
Which is to say that with a lower temperature differential a heatpump 
operates with more efficiency.


So a heat engine constructed to act like 2 or more reversible heat 
engines will break the conservation of energy.


There is a company that is making cascading heatpumps which can keep a 
high COP over a much larger temperature differential.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSgv5NwtByk

The point is that it is absolutely possible to turn uniform ambient 
heat into electrical power and heating and or cooling with current 
technology...
And it is easily explained in a way that cannot be denied, clearly 2 
heatpumps cascading have a higher COP, same as saying clearly 2 
reversible heat engines in series have a lower conversion efficiency 
and therefor a higher COP as a hatpump, precisely the scenario that 
made Carnot assert 200 years ago would destroy the second law of 
thermodynamics.


Jonathan


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:If 2 heat engines are placed in series their efficiency is lower, and the second law breaks according to Carnot if that can occur!

[Jonathan Berry]

After 200 years (1824) the second law of thermodynamics is disproven.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot%27s_theorem_(thermodynamics)

Simply Carnot argues that if the efficiency of a reversible heat engine was
variable based on how it is made or the gases etc, then the second law of
conservation would be broken.

"A heat engine *cannot* drive a less-efficient reversible heat engine
without *violating the second law of thermodynamics*." (excerpt from the
Wikipedia article below the image)

So what happens when you take 2 reversible heat engines and put them in
series (one touches the hot side, one the cold side and they join in the
middle with potentially a small thermal mass that is
thermally equidistant to the hot and cold side)???

Well, we know what happens, according to Carnot!
The lower the thermal potential the lower the efficiency at turning heat
into mechanical energy and therefore the less mechanical energy is
developed when driving heat (operating the heat engine as a heat pump)...
Which is to say that with a lower temperature differential a heatpump
operates with more efficiency.

So a heat engine constructed to act like 2 or more reversible heat engines
will break the conservation of energy.

There is a company that is making cascading heatpumps which can keep a high
COP over a much larger temperature differential.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSgv5NwtByk

The point is that it is absolutely possible to turn uniform ambient heat
into electrical power and heating and or cooling with current technology...
And it is easily explained in a way that cannot be denied, clearly 2
heatpumps cascading have a higher COP, same as saying clearly 2 reversible
heat engines in series have a lower conversion efficiency and therefor a
higher COP as a hatpump, precisely the scenario that made Carnot assert 200
years ago would destroy the second law of thermodynamics.

Jonathan

Re: [Vo]:ICCF24 proceedings uploaded

[MSF]

Thanks, Jed. That's a hell of a lot of reading.
M.
On Wednesday, May 1st, 2024 at 2:50 PM, Jed Rothwell  
wrote:

> See:
>
> JOURNAL OF CONDENSED MATTER NUCLEAR SCIENCE
>
> Experiments and Methods in Cold Fusion
> Proceedings of ICCF24 Solid State Energy Summit, Mountain View, California, 
> July 25–28, 2022
>
> VOLUME 38, May 2024
>
> https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedzk.pdf
>
> I have not added this title or individual papers to the index. That will take 
> a while. I figured readers here will want to see this now.
>
> - Jed

[Vo]:ICCF24 proceedings uploaded

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

JOURNAL OF CONDENSED MATTER NUCLEAR SCIENCE

Experiments and Methods in Cold Fusion

Proceedings of ICCF24 Solid State Energy Summit, Mountain View, California,
July 25–28, 2022

VOLUME 38, May 2024

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedzk.pdf




I have not added this title or individual papers to the index. That will
take a while. I figured readers here will want to see this now.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New vaporizing effect discovered

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Sorry!

This is a kidding set of e-mails. Photons did always lead to evaporation 
of water since the earth is covered by water. Even more surprising is 
that ice does sublimate just from solar irradiation...


So following such hoax science today is standard to diffuse a field by 
usst claiming something is new.


J.W.


On 27.04.2024 23:35, H L V wrote:

How light can vaporize water without the need for heat


Researchers discovered that light can cause evaporation of water from 
a surface without the need for heat. This 'photomolecular effect' 
could be important for understanding climate change and for improving 
some industrial processes.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240424160652.htm

quote:
"The effect is strongest when light hits the water surface at an angle 
of 45 degrees. It is also strongest with a certain type of 
polarization, called transverse magnetic polarization. And it peaks in 
green light -- which, oddly, is the color for which water is most 
transparent and thus interacts the least.
Chen and his co-researchers have proposed a physical mechanism that 
can explain the angle and polarization dependence of the effect, 
showing that the photons of light can impart a net force on water 
molecules at the water surface that is sufficient to knock them loose 
from the body of water. But they cannot yet account for the color 
dependence, which they say will require further study."


Harry


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:New vaporizing effect discovered

[MSF]

Nice to see someone else got around to discovering this effect. I observed this 
phenomenon 15 or 20 years ago, using a 532 nm laser. As these dorks will 
finally get around to discovering, this effect varies greatly with the 
refractive index of the material and the degree of polarity. Nitromethane has a 
very strong response at longer wavelengths. As far as the greatest effect 
happening at 45 degrees, it's probably really 53 degrees, Brewster's angle for 
water. As you move the laser across the surface the liquid, you can see a 
deflection of the reflection following the spot of contact. Easy to do, anyone 
can do it.

I finally gave up long ago, trying to convince credentialed physicists of some 
of my strange discoveries. Submitting papers to science publications is useless 
for me, as I discovered decades ago, no credentials. I once had a physicist at 
UCLA who would agree to put his name on one of my discoveries so it could be 
published, but he had the bad taste to die on me.

I can't be the only one to have discovered this phenomenon long ago, but it's 
one of those things you sort of think, "So what?"

On Saturday, April 27th, 2024 at 2:35 PM, H L V  wrote:

> How light can vaporize water without the need for heat
>
> 
> Researchers discovered that light can cause evaporation of water from a 
> surface without the need for heat. This 'photomolecular effect' could be 
> important for understanding climate change and for improving some industrial 
> processes.
>
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240424160652.htm
>
> quote:
> "The effect is strongest when light hits the water surface at an angle of 45 
> degrees. It is also strongest with a certain type of polarization, called 
> transverse magnetic polarization. And it peaks in green light -- which, 
> oddly, is the color for which water is most transparent and thus interacts 
> the least.
> Chen and his co-researchers have proposed a physical mechanism that can 
> explain the angle and polarization dependence of the effect, showing that the 
> photons of light can impart a net force on water molecules at the water 
> surface that is sufficient to knock them loose from the body of water. But 
> they cannot yet account for the color dependence, which they say will require 
> further study."
>
> Harry

[Vo]:New vaporizing effect discovered

[H L V]

How light can vaporize water without the need for heat


Researchers discovered that light can cause evaporation of water from a
surface without the need for heat. This 'photomolecular effect' could be
important for understanding climate change and for improving some
industrial processes.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240424160652.htm

quote:
"The effect is strongest when light hits the water surface at an angle of
45 degrees. It is also strongest with a certain type of polarization,
called transverse magnetic polarization. And it peaks in green light --
which, oddly, is the color for which water is most transparent and thus
interacts the least.
Chen and his co-researchers have proposed a physical mechanism that can
explain the angle and polarization dependence of the effect, showing that
the photons of light can impart a net force on water molecules at the water
surface that is sufficient to knock them loose from the body of water. But
they cannot yet account for the color dependence, which they say will
require further study."

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's understanding of light in a vacuum vs the Michelson-Morley experiment

[H L V]

In the late 19th and early 20th century the physics community began to
enshrine mathematical ingenuity as the best way to resolve the tensions
between theory and experiment and grew increasingly dismissive of
philosophical questioning and speculation.

The theory of Special Relativity is typically presented as "saving"
Maxwell's equations from logical inconsistency.
It did this by introducing some extraordinary new physics  instead of
uncovering some metaphysical conceits within the theory.
I am not talking about the Galilean transformation. I am talking about the
more elementary question: what does it mean to be in motion?

Why should we insist on treating every type of motion as being a quality
that is defined by convention with respect to a frame of reference?
Einstein believed it was necessary and in order to save the laws of physics
he formulated the theory of special relativity. However, it seems to me the
_phenomena_ of electromagnetism  rather than Maxwell's theory of
electromagnetism is telling us something different. Some types of motion
should be treated as a relational quality that occurs between frames of
references rather than being quality that is determined within a given
frame of reference.

Consider the Lorentz force on a charged particle q moving with velocity v:

Force = qE + q(v x B)

E and B are the electric and magnetic fields.

Since relativists think v is determined by the frame of reference the value
of v will be zero in the frame of reference of the charged particle. This
leads to the paradox that the laws of nature are not the same in all frames
of reference.  From a relativist understanding of velocity there are only
two ways to resolve this paradox: either there must be an absolute frame of
rest known as the aether or one must adopt the extraordinary postulates of
the special theory of relativity. However, this choice represents a
reliance on a particular conception of velocity to tell one how to
interpret the equations of motion. If one adopts a relational understanding
of motion rather than relative understanding, the velocity is not prone to
disappear with a change of frame.

It is worth noting that Weber's theory of electromagnetism , which was the
leading contender to Maxwell's theory at the time,  made explicit use of
relational motion. Although Weber developed his theory in order to avoid
postulating the existence of magnetic fields, I don't see why his concept
of relation velocity can't be applied to situations involving Faraday's
magnetic fields.

Harry



On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 1:18 PM MSF  wrote:

> Faraday's message to Maxwell parallels Aristotle's complaint about the
> Egyptians. Aristotle implied words to the effect that the ancient Egyptians
> thought that the physical world should obey mathematics instead of math
> describing reality. There's a lot of that going on today. The so-called
> standard model is, in my opinion, a mathematical castle in the air.
> On Tuesday, April 16th, 2024 at 5:14 AM, H L V 
> wrote:
>
> Faraday wrote this 10 years before Maxwell published his first work on
> electromgnetism in 1856 which was titled "On Faraday's lines of Force"
> Maxwell's equations were first published in 1862. It seems Maxwell
> interpreted Faraday's writings in a manner that was consistent with an
> aether.
>
> I would say Faraday was frustrated by Maxwell's mathematical treatment of
> his work. Since he could not comprehend it he could not judge it.
> Here is a passage from a letter Faraday wrote to Maxwell asking all
> mathematically adept theoreticians to express themselves in terms an
> experimentalist can understand:
>
> "There is one thing I would be glad to ask you. When a mathematician
> engaged in investigating physical actions and results has arrived at his
> own conclusions, may they not be expressed in common language as fully,
> clearly, and definitely as in mathematical formula? If so, would it not be
> a great boon to such as we to express them so—translating them out of their
> hieroglyphics that we also might work upon them by experiment. I think it
> must be so, because I have always found that you could convey to me a
> perfectly clear idea of your conclusions, which, though they may give me no
> full understanding of the steps of your process, gave me the results
> neither above nor below the truth, and so clear in character that I can
> think and work from them.
> If this be possible, would it not be a good thing if mathematicians,
> writing on these subjects, were to give us their results in this popular
> useful working state as well as in that which is their own and proper to
> them?"
>
> Harry
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 11:17 PM MSF  wrote:
>
>>
>> Hmmm... A year after Maxwell's equations. Maxwell can't have been too
>> happy about that, as his equations described the behavior of the aether.
>> And he repeatedly claimed that he had merely expressed Faraday in
>> conventional mathematical form.
>> On Monday, April 15th, 2024 at 8:04 PM,

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's understanding of light in a vacuum vs the Michelson-Morley experiment

[MSF]

Faraday's message to Maxwell parallels Aristotle's complaint about the 
Egyptians. Aristotle implied words to the effect that the ancient Egyptians 
thought that the physical world should obey mathematics instead of math 
describing reality. There's a lot of that going on today. The so-called 
standard model is, in my opinion, a mathematical castle in the air.
On Tuesday, April 16th, 2024 at 5:14 AM, H L V  wrote:

> Faraday wrote this 10 years before Maxwell published his first work on 
> electromgnetism in 1856 which was titled "On Faraday's lines of Force"
> Maxwell's equations were first published in 1862. It seems Maxwell 
> interpreted Faraday's writings in a manner that was consistent with an aether.
>
> I would say Faraday was frustrated by Maxwell's mathematical treatment of his 
> work. Since he could not comprehend it he could not judge it.
> Here is a passage from a letter Faraday wrote to Maxwell asking all 
> mathematically adept theoreticians to express themselves in terms an 
> experimentalist can understand:
>
> "There is one thing I would be glad to ask you. When a mathematician engaged 
> in investigating physical actions and results has arrived at his own 
> conclusions, may they not be expressed in common language as fully, clearly, 
> and definitely as in mathematical formula? If so, would it not be a great 
> boon to such as we to express them so—translating them out of their 
> hieroglyphics that we also might work upon them by experiment. I think it 
> must be so, because I have always found that you could convey to me a 
> perfectly clear idea of your conclusions, which, though they may give me no 
> full understanding of the steps of your process, gave me the results neither 
> above nor below the truth, and so clear in character that I can think and 
> work from them.
> If this be possible, would it not be a good thing if mathematicians, writing 
> on these subjects, were to give us their results in this popular useful 
> working state as well as in that which is their own and proper to them?"
>
> Harry
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 11:17 PM MSF  wrote:
>
>> Hmmm... A year after Maxwell's equations. Maxwell can't have been too happy 
>> about that, as his equations described the behavior of the aether. And he 
>> repeatedly claimed that he had merely expressed Faraday in conventional 
>> mathematical form.
>> On Monday, April 15th, 2024 at 8:04 PM, MSF  wrote:
>>
>>> This gives you an idea what a deep thinker Faraday was. Do you know if he 
>>> posited this idea before Maxwell published his equations? I thought I had 
>>> read everything Faraday wrote. Somehow I missed this one.
>>>
>>> MIchael
>>> On Monday, April 15th, 2024 at 12:08 PM, H L V  wrote:
>>>
 This is a quote from a letter written by Michael Faraday to Richard 
 Philips on April 15, 1846 (bold letters were added by me)

 "The view which I am so bold to put forth considers, therefore, radiation 
 as a kind of species of vibration in the lines of force which are known to 
 connect particles and also masses of matter together. It endeavors to 
 dismiss the aether, but not the vibration. The kind of vibration which, I 
 believe, can alone account for the wonderful, varied, and beautiful 
 phaenomena of polarization, is not the same as that which occurs on the 
 surface of disturbed water, or the waves of sound in gases or liquids, for 
 the vibrations in these cases are direct, or to and from the centre of 
 action, whereas the former are lateral. It seems to me, that the resultant 
 of two or more lines of force is in an apt condition for that action which 
 may be considered as equivalent to a lateral vibration; whereas a uniform 
 medium, like the aether, does not appear apt, or more apt than air or 
 water."

 The idea of an aether which exists independently of matter and fills the 
 vacuum is what the Michelson-Morely experiment was designed to detect. 
 However, if I am reading Faraday correctly he is saying that the 
 transmission of light depends on the source and the receiver being linked 
 together by "lines of force". Unlike the hypothesized aether, Faraday's 
 lines of force have _no_ existence independent of charged particles. While 
 the MM apparatus is being built the lines of force would be constantly 
 morphing but once the apparatus was complete they would quickly settle 
 down into static lines. When the experiment begins the lines of force 
 between the mirrors can be likened to straight fibre optic cables between 
 the mirrors. At this stage since the lines of force would be moving in 
 tandem with the entire apparatus Faraday's qualitative theory predicts the 
 observed null result of the Michelson-Morely experiment.

 Harry

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's understanding of light in a vacuum vs the Michelson-Morley experiment

[H L V]

Faraday wrote this 10 years before Maxwell published his first work on
electromgnetism in 1856 which was titled "On Faraday's lines of Force"
Maxwell's equations were first  published in 1862. It seems Maxwell
interpreted Faraday's writings in a manner that was consistent with an
aether.

I would say Faraday was frustrated by Maxwell's mathematical treatment of
his work. Since he could not comprehend it he could not judge it.
Here is a passage from a letter Faraday wrote to Maxwell asking all
mathematically adept theoreticians to express themselves in terms an
experimentalist can understand:

"There is one thing I would be glad to ask you. When a mathematician
engaged in investigating physical actions and results has arrived at his
own conclusions, may they not be expressed in common language as fully,
clearly, and definitely as in mathematical formula? If so, would it not be
a great boon to such as we to express them so—translating them out of their
hieroglyphics that we also might work upon them by experiment. I think it
must be so, because I have always found that you could convey to me a
perfectly clear idea of your conclusions, which, though they may give me no
full understanding of the steps of your process, gave me the results
neither above nor below the truth, and so clear in character that I can
think and work from them.
If this be possible, would it not be a good thing if mathematicians,
writing on these subjects, were to give us their results in this popular
useful working state as well as in that which is their own and proper to
them?"

Harry

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 11:17 PM MSF  wrote:

>
> Hmmm... A year after Maxwell's equations. Maxwell can't have been too
> happy about that, as his equations described the behavior of the aether.
> And he repeatedly claimed that he had merely expressed Faraday in
> conventional mathematical form.
> On Monday, April 15th, 2024 at 8:04 PM, MSF 
> wrote:
>
>
> This gives you an idea what a deep thinker Faraday was. Do you know if he
> posited this idea before Maxwell published his equations? I thought I had
> read everything Faraday wrote. Somehow I missed this one.
>
> MIchael
> On Monday, April 15th, 2024 at 12:08 PM, H L V 
> wrote:
>
> This is a quote from a letter written by Michael Faraday to Richard
> Philips on April 15, 1846 (bold letters were added by me)
>
> *"The view which I am so bold to put forth considers, therefore, radiation
> as a kind of species of vibration in the lines of force which are known to
> connect particles and also masses of matter together. It endeavors to
> dismiss the aether, but not the vibration. The kind of vibration which, I
> believe, can alone account for the wonderful, varied, and beautiful
> phaenomena of polarization, is not the same as that which occurs on the
> surface of disturbed water, or the waves of sound in gases or liquids, for
> the vibrations in these cases are direct, or to and from the centre of
> action, whereas the former are lateral. It seems to me, that the resultant
> of two or more lines of force is in an apt condition for that action which
> may be considered as equivalent to a lateral vibration; whereas a uniform
> medium, like the aether, does not appear apt, or more apt than air or
> water."*
>
> The idea of an aether which exists independently of matter and fills the
> vacuum is what the Michelson-Morely experiment was designed to detect.
> However, if I am reading Faraday correctly he is saying that the
> transmission of light depends on the source and the receiver being linked
> together by "lines of force". Unlike the hypothesized aether, Faraday's
> lines of force have _no_ existence independent of charged particles. While
> the MM apparatus is being built the lines of force would be constantly
> morphing but once the apparatus was complete they would quickly settle down
> into static lines. When the experiment begins the lines of force between
> the mirrors can be likened to straight fibre optic cables between the
> mirrors. At this stage since the lines of force would be moving in tandem
> with the entire apparatus Faraday's qualitative theory predicts the
> observed null result of the Michelson-Morely experiment.
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's understanding of light in a vacuum vs the Michelson-Morley experiment

[MSF]

Hmmm... A year after Maxwell's equations. Maxwell can't have been too happy 
about that, as his equations described the behavior of the aether. And he 
repeatedly claimed that he had merely expressed Faraday in conventional 
mathematical form.
On Monday, April 15th, 2024 at 8:04 PM, MSF  wrote:

> This gives you an idea what a deep thinker Faraday was. Do you know if he 
> posited this idea before Maxwell published his equations? I thought I had 
> read everything Faraday wrote. Somehow I missed this one.
>
> MIchael
> On Monday, April 15th, 2024 at 12:08 PM, H L V  wrote:
>
>> This is a quote from a letter written by Michael Faraday to Richard Philips 
>> on April 15, 1846 (bold letters were added by me)
>>
>> "The view which I am so bold to put forth considers, therefore, radiation as 
>> a kind of species of vibration in the lines of force which are known to 
>> connect particles and also masses of matter together. It endeavors to 
>> dismiss the aether, but not the vibration. The kind of vibration which, I 
>> believe, can alone account for the wonderful, varied, and beautiful 
>> phaenomena of polarization, is not the same as that which occurs on the 
>> surface of disturbed water, or the waves of sound in gases or liquids, for 
>> the vibrations in these cases are direct, or to and from the centre of 
>> action, whereas the former are lateral. It seems to me, that the resultant 
>> of two or more lines of force is in an apt condition for that action which 
>> may be considered as equivalent to a lateral vibration; whereas a uniform 
>> medium, like the aether, does not appear apt, or more apt than air or water."
>>
>> The idea of an aether which exists independently of matter and fills the 
>> vacuum is what the Michelson-Morely experiment was designed to detect. 
>> However, if I am reading Faraday correctly he is saying that the 
>> transmission of light depends on the source and the receiver being linked 
>> together by "lines of force". Unlike the hypothesized aether, Faraday's 
>> lines of force have _no_ existence independent of charged particles. While 
>> the MM apparatus is being built the lines of force would be constantly 
>> morphing but once the apparatus was complete they would quickly settle down 
>> into static lines. When the experiment begins the lines of force between the 
>> mirrors can be likened to straight fibre optic cables between the mirrors. 
>> At this stage since the lines of force would be moving in tandem with the 
>> entire apparatus Faraday's qualitative theory predicts the observed null 
>> result of the Michelson-Morely experiment.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> Harry

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's understanding of light in a vacuum vs the Michelson-Morley experiment

[MSF]

This gives you an idea what a deep thinker Faraday was. Do you know if he 
posited this idea before Maxwell published his equations? I thought I had read 
everything Faraday wrote. Somehow I missed this one.

MIchael
On Monday, April 15th, 2024 at 12:08 PM, H L V  wrote:

> This is a quote from a letter written by Michael Faraday to Richard Philips 
> on April 15, 1846 (bold letters were added by me)
>
> "The view which I am so bold to put forth considers, therefore, radiation as 
> a kind of species of vibration in the lines of force which are known to 
> connect particles and also masses of matter together. It endeavors to dismiss 
> the aether, but not the vibration. The kind of vibration which, I believe, 
> can alone account for the wonderful, varied, and beautiful phaenomena of 
> polarization, is not the same as that which occurs on the surface of 
> disturbed water, or the waves of sound in gases or liquids, for the 
> vibrations in these cases are direct, or to and from the centre of action, 
> whereas the former are lateral. It seems to me, that the resultant of two or 
> more lines of force is in an apt condition for that action which may be 
> considered as equivalent to a lateral vibration; whereas a uniform medium, 
> like the aether, does not appear apt, or more apt than air or water."
>
> The idea of an aether which exists independently of matter and fills the 
> vacuum is what the Michelson-Morely experiment was designed to detect. 
> However, if I am reading Faraday correctly he is saying that the transmission 
> of light depends on the source and the receiver being linked together by 
> "lines of force". Unlike the hypothesized aether, Faraday's lines of force 
> have _no_ existence independent of charged particles. While the MM apparatus 
> is being built the lines of force would be constantly morphing but once the 
> apparatus was complete they would quickly settle down into static lines. When 
> the experiment begins the lines of force between the mirrors can be likened 
> to straight fibre optic cables between the mirrors. At this stage since the 
> lines of force would be moving in tandem with the entire apparatus Faraday's 
> qualitative theory predicts the observed null result of the Michelson-Morely 
> experiment.
>
> Harry
>
> Harry

[Vo]:Faraday's understanding of light in a vacuum vs the Michelson-Morley experiment

[H L V]

This is a quote from a letter written by  Michael Faraday to Richard
Philips on April 15, 1846 (bold letters were added by me)

*"The view which I am so bold to put forth considers, therefore, radiation
as a kind of species of vibration in the lines of force which are known to
connect particles and also masses of matter together. It endeavors to
dismiss the aether, but not the vibration. The kind of vibration which, I
believe, can alone account for the wonderful, varied, and beautiful
phaenomena of polarization, is not the same as that which occurs on the
surface of disturbed water, or the waves of sound in gases or liquids, for
the vibrations in these cases are direct, or to and from the centre of
action, whereas the former are lateral. It seems to me, that the resultant
of two or more lines of force is in an apt condition for that action which
may be considered as equivalent to a lateral vibration; whereas a uniform
medium, like the aether, does not appear apt, or more apt than air or
water."*

The idea of an aether which exists independently of matter and fills the
vacuum is what the  Michelson-Morely experiment was designed to detect.
However, if I am reading Faraday correctly he is saying that the
transmission of light depends on the source and the receiver being linked
together by "lines of force". Unlike the hypothesized aether, Faraday's
lines of force have _no_ existence independent of charged particles. While
the MM apparatus is being built the lines of force would be
constantly morphing  but once the apparatus was complete they would quickly
settle down into static lines. When the experiment begins the lines of
force between the mirrors can be likened to straight fibre optic cables
between the mirrors.  At this stage since the lines of force would be
moving in tandem with the entire apparatus Faraday's qualitative theory
predicts the observed null result of the Michelson-Morely experiment.

Harry




Harry

Re: [Vo]:Nuclear waste

[Robin]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 1 Apr 2024 22:56:25 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>Uranium is at least 10'000x more harmless than Plutonium
>

Storing plutonium is wasteful anyway. Use it as fuel.

>So its a bad idea...
>
>
>J.W.
>
>
>On 01.04.2024 21:10, Robin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Why not store nuclear waste in worked out Uranium mines? After all, "nuclear 
>> material" was stored there for billions of
>> years before we dug it up.
>>
>> Crypto currency mining deliberately wastes energy.
>> Surely there is a better way to do this?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels on 
your roof on the alternate days.
The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.

Re: [Vo]:Nuclear waste

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Uranium is at least 10'000x more harmless than Plutonium

So its a bad idea...


J.W.


On 01.04.2024 21:10, Robin wrote:

Hi,

Why not store nuclear waste in worked out Uranium mines? After all, "nuclear 
material" was stored there for billions of
years before we dug it up.

Crypto currency mining deliberately wastes energy.
Surely there is a better way to do this?


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:Nuclear waste

[Robin]

Hi,

Why not store nuclear waste in worked out Uranium mines? After all, "nuclear 
material" was stored there for billions of
years before we dug it up.

Crypto currency mining deliberately wastes energy. 
Surely there is a better way to do this?


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[H L V]

If these two statements are logical implications of Maxwell's equations,

a) A magnet that is not moving with respect to the aether will not have an
electric field.
b) A magnet that is moving at a constant velocity with respect to the
aether will have an electric field.

Then consider this thought experiment:

You are in a windowless cabin with a hatch on the floor that is
initially closed . It is located on the surface of a large frozen lake
whose ice is perfectly smooth, flat and frictionless. Outside the cabin the
ice is featureless except for a grid of lines that is visible just a few
millimeters beneath the ice surface. The Earth is assumed to be flat and
the cabin has been designed to exclude outside fields  and slide over
the ice in any direction. Inside the cabin there is a bar magnet and an
electric field probe that can detect electric fields.

If the electric field probe tells you the magnet has no electric field, you
can conclude the cabin is at rest with respect to the aether. If the magnet
does have an electric field then you know the cabin is moving at a constant
velocity with respect to the aether. In both scenarios you do not if
the cabin is at rest with respect to the ice or in which direction you are
moving. However, by opening the floor hatch you can determine if you are
moving with respect to the ice and in which direction.

Harry





On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 6:51 AM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> The law of Faraday is very clear any change in magnetic flux induces
> charge hence a field.
>
> Many untrained physicists write j (current) instead of q what is wrong. To
> measure a current you have to cut the ring (rim) of charges what leads to
> dragging forces and movement of charge over e.g. a conductor.
>
> The other things most theoretical physicists get wrong is that they
> believe you can make a derivative of charge and flux at the same point (4
> potential) what is total garbage but nevertheless used in QED...Flux has to
> fill an area (from a volume) and charge occurs at the edge.
>
> May be once read the good old Jackson that explains tat the vector
> potential only can be used in the far field.
>
>
> J.W.
> On 19.03.2024 19:40, H L V wrote:
>
> The question of whether the magnetic field rotates in the faraday disc
> generator is a question that is related to aether theories in particular
> or  any theory of privileged reference frames in general. It got me
> wondering if there are alternate ways to test for the presence of an aether
> or a privileged frame of reference that do not involve interferometers and
> radiation.  I am not sure why interferometers became the experiment de jour
> for detecting such things, but they have been studied to death and the null
> result is still open to interpretation.
>
> Hendrik Lorentz argued on the basis of Maxwell's theory of EM that a
> stationary magnet has no electric field and that a moving magnet does have
> an electric field. When he says a moving magnet he clearly states the
> magnet is moving with uniform velocity. The appearance of this electric
> field bothered Einstein, because it led to conflicting accounts of how a
> magnet induces a current in a coil depending on whether the coil was at
> rest or the magnet was at rest. He didn't like nature exhibiting laws which
> changed according to their frame of reference. He developed his special
> theory of relativity, in part, to avoid this conflict.
>
> Mathematical and principled arguments aside, was Lorentz's claim ever
> directly tested? i.e. Has anyone tried to measure the electric field around
> a moving magnet without the use of a conducting coil? eg. an electroscope
> can measure an electric field without moving relative to the field. Or am I
> missing something about the nature of the produced electric field in this
> case that would prevent such a measurement?
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:25 PM Jürg Wyttenbach 
> wrote:
>
>> As most might know, in physics we only know force fields. Thus so called
>> field lines (magnet field) are equipotential cuts of the space covered by
>> fields. Of course you never can draw such a line as all sources are in
>> constant motion/rotation.
>>
>> The static magnetic field is a special case as it is a part of the atoms
>> mass that form out the field. This field is attached but with the same
>> restrictions as above. The only real "energy" field is the EM field
>> produced by an active sender. Here of course no stable lines occur - only
>> in case of a cavity with a sender-resonance we call receiver.
>>
>>
>> Key is the understanding that in physics a field must have a source and a
>> sink. From this point of view most so called mathematical physics
>> (tensor...) field theory simply is nonsense.
>>
>> There are far to many simplifications in physics models as historically
>> only point field equations could be solved. As a consequence of this, one
>> thing most did miss is:  Total potentials almost never are 1/r. Total
>> be

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

The law of Faraday is very clear any change in magnetic flux induces 
charge hence a field.


Many untrained physicists write j (current) instead of q what is wrong. 
To measure a current you have to cut the ring (rim) of charges what 
leads to dragging forces and movement of charge over e.g. a conductor.


The other things most theoretical physicists get wrong is that they 
believe you can make a derivative of charge and flux at the same point 
(4 potential) what is total garbage but nevertheless used in QED...Flux 
has to fill an area (from a volume) and charge occurs at the edge.


May be once read the good old Jackson that explains tat the vector 
potential only can be used in the far field.



J.W.

On 19.03.2024 19:40, H L V wrote:
The question of whether the magnetic field rotates in the faraday disc 
generator is a question that is related to aether theories in 
particular or  any theory of privileged reference frames in general. 
It got me wondering if there are alternate ways to test for the 
presence of an aether or a privileged frame of reference that do not 
involve interferometers and radiation.  I am not sure why 
interferometers became the experiment de jour for detecting such 
things, but they have been studied to death and the null result is 
still open to interpretation.


Hendrik Lorentz argued on the basis of Maxwell's theory of EM that a 
stationary magnet has no electric field and that a moving magnet does 
have an electric field. When he says a moving magnet he clearly states 
the magnet is moving with uniform velocity. The appearance of this 
electric field bothered Einstein, because it led to conflicting 
accounts of how a magnet induces a current in a coil depending on 
whether the coil was at rest or the magnet was at rest. He didn't like 
nature exhibiting laws which changed according to their frame of 
reference. He developed his special theory of relativity, in part, to 
avoid this conflict.


Mathematical and principled arguments aside, was Lorentz's claim ever 
directly tested? i.e. Has anyone tried to measure the electric field 
around a moving magnet without the use of a conducting coil? eg. 
an electroscope can measure an electric field without moving relative 
to the field. Or am I missing something about the nature of the 
produced electric field in this case that would prevent such a 
measurement?


Harry







On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:25 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  
wrote:


As most might know, in physics we only know force fields. Thus so
called field lines (magnet field) are equipotential cuts of the
space covered by fields. Of course you never can draw such a line
as all sources are in constant motion/rotation.

The static magnetic field is a special case as it is a part of the
atoms mass that form out the field. This field is attached but
with the same restrictions as above. The only real "energy" field
is the EM field produced by an active sender. Here of course no
stable lines occur - only in case of a cavity with a
sender-resonance we call receiver.


Key is the understanding that in physics a field must have a
source and a sink. From this point of view most so called
mathematical physics (tensor...) field theory simply is nonsense.

There are far to many simplifications in physics models as
historically only point field equations could be solved. As a
consequence of this, one thing most did miss is:  Total potentials
almost never are 1/r. Total because we no longer deal with a 
single point


J.W.


On 14.03.2024 16:02, H L V wrote:

Another visualization of the behaviour of magnetic fields without
the concept of lines of force.
When the magnet is moved around it simply changes the orientation
of all the little compass needles.
The notion of  lines of force tends to make one think the
magnetic field is somehow mechanically
attached to the magnet so that the centre point of each needle
must change position in order to match
the motion of the magnetic.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HTylDaG5_RY

Harry




On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 11:16 AM H L V  wrote:



Here is a physical demonstration of the situation using a
ferrofluid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn41nPOGq-U
The ferrofluid does not rotate with the cylindrical magnet,
which supports the idea that the magnet's field does not
rotate with the magnet.
(There is a little bit of movement but the narrator explains
that this movement arises from the field not being
perfectly symmetrically.and homogeneous).

Harry

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:40 AM H L V 
wrote:

It depends what you mean by a field. If you imagine the
field is made of wire-like filaments which are fastened
to an atom then you would expect the field to translate
and rotate whenever t

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[H L V]

The question of whether the magnetic field rotates in the faraday disc
generator is a question that is related to aether theories in particular
or  any theory of privileged reference frames in general. It got me
wondering if there are alternate ways to test for the presence of an aether
or a privileged frame of reference that do not involve interferometers and
radiation.  I am not sure why interferometers became the experiment de jour
for detecting such things, but they have been studied to death and the null
result is still open to interpretation.

Hendrik Lorentz argued on the basis of Maxwell's theory of EM that a
stationary magnet has no electric field and that a moving magnet does have
an electric field. When he says a moving magnet he clearly states the
magnet is moving with uniform velocity. The appearance of this electric
field bothered Einstein, because it led to conflicting accounts of how a
magnet induces a current in a coil depending on whether the coil was at
rest or the magnet was at rest. He didn't like nature exhibiting laws which
changed according to their frame of reference. He developed his special
theory of relativity, in part, to avoid this conflict.

Mathematical and principled arguments aside, was Lorentz's claim ever
directly tested? i.e. Has anyone tried to measure the electric field around
a moving magnet without the use of a conducting coil? eg. an electroscope
can measure an electric field without moving relative to the field. Or am I
missing something about the nature of the produced electric field in this
case that would prevent such a measurement?

Harry







On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:25 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> As most might know, in physics we only know force fields. Thus so called
> field lines (magnet field) are equipotential cuts of the space covered by
> fields. Of course you never can draw such a line as all sources are in
> constant motion/rotation.
>
> The static magnetic field is a special case as it is a part of the atoms
> mass that form out the field. This field is attached but with the same
> restrictions as above. The only real "energy" field is the EM field
> produced by an active sender. Here of course no stable lines occur - only
> in case of a cavity with a sender-resonance we call receiver.
>
>
> Key is the understanding that in physics a field must have a source and a
> sink. From this point of view most so called mathematical physics
> (tensor...) field theory simply is nonsense.
>
> There are far to many simplifications in physics models as historically
> only point field equations could be solved. As a consequence of this, one
> thing most did miss is:  Total potentials almost never are 1/r. Total
> because we no longer deal with a  single point
>
>
> J.W.
>
>
> On 14.03.2024 16:02, H L V wrote:
>
> Another visualization of the behaviour of magnetic fields without the
> concept of lines of force.
> When the magnet is moved around it simply changes the orientation of all
> the little compass needles.
> The notion of  lines of force tends to make one think the magnetic field
> is somehow mechanically
> attached to the magnet so that the centre point of each needle must change
> position in order to match
> the motion of the magnetic.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HTylDaG5_RY
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 11:16 AM H L V  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Here is a physical demonstration of the situation using a ferrofluid.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn41nPOGq-U
>> The ferrofluid does not rotate with the cylindrical magnet,
>> which supports the idea that the magnet's field does not rotate with the
>> magnet.
>> (There is a little bit of movement but the narrator explains that this
>> movement arises from the field not being perfectly symmetrically.and
>> homogeneous).
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:40 AM H L V  wrote:
>>
>>> It depends what you mean by a field. If you imagine the field is made of
>>> wire-like filaments which are fastened to an atom then you would expect the
>>> field to translate and rotate whenever the atom translates and rotates. On
>>> the other hand if you imagine the field is a vector field then the field
>>> never really needs to move. Instead the direction of the magnitude of the
>>> vector at each point in space updates as the atom moves through that vector
>>> space. The way the vector field changes as the atom rotates and translates
>>> gives the appearance of a field that is moving as if it were fastened to
>>> the atom.
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 1:41 PM Robin 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 In reply to  H L V's message of Tue, 5 Mar 2024 09:28:31 -0500:
 Hi,

 You don't need an experiment to figure this out. The field obviously
 rotates with the magnet.
 This is because the field is not a single entity. It is the sum of all
 the tiny fields created by the electrons attached
 to individual atoms, so when the magnet rotates, the atoms all move,
 ta

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

As most might know, in physics we only know force fields. Thus so called 
field lines (magnet field) are equipotential cuts of the space covered 
by fields. Of course you never can draw such a line as all sources are 
in constant motion/rotation.


The static magnetic field is a special case as it is a part of the atoms 
mass that form out the field. This field is attached but with the same 
restrictions as above. The only real "energy" field is the EM field 
produced by an active sender. Here of course no stable lines occur - 
only in case of a cavity with a sender-resonance we call receiver.



Key is the understanding that in physics a field must have a source and 
a sink. From this point of view most so called mathematical physics 
(tensor...) field theory simply is nonsense.


There are far to many simplifications in physics models as historically 
only point field equations could be solved. As a consequence of this, 
one thing most did miss is:  Total potentials almost never are 1/r. 
Total because we no longer deal with a single point



J.W.


On 14.03.2024 16:02, H L V wrote:
Another visualization of the behaviour of magnetic fields without the 
concept of lines of force.
When the magnet is moved around it simply changes the orientation of 
all the little compass needles.
The notion of  lines of force tends to make one think the magnetic 
field is somehow mechanically
attached to the magnet so that the centre point of each needle must 
change position in order to match

the motion of the magnetic.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HTylDaG5_RY

Harry




On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 11:16 AM H L V  wrote:



Here is a physical demonstration of the situation using a ferrofluid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn41nPOGq-U
The ferrofluid does not rotate with the cylindrical magnet,
which supports the idea that the magnet's field does not rotate
with the magnet.
(There is a little bit of movement but the narrator explains that
this movement arises from the field not being
perfectly symmetrically.and homogeneous).

Harry

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:40 AM H L V  wrote:

It depends what you mean by a field. If you imagine the field
is made of wire-like filaments which are fastened to an atom
then you would expect the field to translate and rotate
whenever the atom translates and rotates. On the other hand if
you imagine the field is a vector field then the field never
really needs to move. Instead the direction of the magnitude
of the vector at each point in space updates as the atom moves
through that vector space. The way the vector field changes as
the atom rotates and translates gives the appearance of a
field that is moving as if it were fastened to the atom.

Harry


On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 1:41 PM Robin
 wrote:

In reply to  H L V's message of Tue, 5 Mar 2024 09:28:31
-0500:
Hi,

You don't need an experiment to figure this out. The field
obviously rotates with the magnet.
This is because the field is not a single entity. It is
the sum of all the tiny fields created by the electrons
attached
to individual atoms, so when the magnet rotates, the atoms
all move, taking their individual fields with them. We know
they do this because when the magnet is moved sideways,
instead of rotating, the field moves sideways as well.
IOW, the
atomic fields are attached to their individual atoms.
There is no reason this should change when rotation is
involved
rather than translation.

[snip]
>Resolving the paradox of unipolar induction: new
experimental evidence on
>the influence of the test circuit (Free to download.
Published 2022)
>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21155-x
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it
from solar panels on your roof on the alternate days.
The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same
with it.


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[H L V]

Sorry, the last word should be 'magnet' rather than 'magnetic'.
harry

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 11:02 AM H L V  wrote:

> Another visualization of the behaviour of magnetic fields without the
> concept of lines of force.
> When the magnet is moved around it simply changes the orientation of all
> the little compass needles.
> The notion of  lines of force tends to make one think the magnetic field
> is somehow mechanically
> attached to the magnet so that the centre point of each needle must change
> position in order to match
> the motion of the magnetic.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HTylDaG5_RY
>
> Harry
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[H L V]

Another visualization of the behaviour of magnetic fields without the
concept of lines of force.
When the magnet is moved around it simply changes the orientation of all
the little compass needles.
The notion of  lines of force tends to make one think the magnetic field is
somehow mechanically
attached to the magnet so that the centre point of each needle must change
position in order to match
the motion of the magnetic.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HTylDaG5_RY

Harry





On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 11:16 AM H L V  wrote:

>
>
> Here is a physical demonstration of the situation using a ferrofluid.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn41nPOGq-U
> The ferrofluid does not rotate with the cylindrical magnet, which supports
> the idea that the magnet's field does not rotate with the magnet.
> (There is a little bit of movement but the narrator explains that this
> movement arises from the field not being perfectly symmetrically.and
> homogeneous).
>
> Harry
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:40 AM H L V  wrote:
>
>> It depends what you mean by a field. If you imagine the field is made of
>> wire-like filaments which are fastened to an atom then you would expect the
>> field to translate and rotate whenever the atom translates and rotates. On
>> the other hand if you imagine the field is a vector field then the field
>> never really needs to move. Instead the direction of the magnitude of the
>> vector at each point in space updates as the atom moves through that vector
>> space. The way the vector field changes as the atom rotates and translates
>> gives the appearance of a field that is moving as if it were fastened to
>> the atom.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 1:41 PM Robin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In reply to  H L V's message of Tue, 5 Mar 2024 09:28:31 -0500:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> You don't need an experiment to figure this out. The field obviously
>>> rotates with the magnet.
>>> This is because the field is not a single entity. It is the sum of all
>>> the tiny fields created by the electrons attached
>>> to individual atoms, so when the magnet rotates, the atoms all move,
>>> taking their individual fields with them. We know
>>> they do this because when the magnet is moved sideways, instead of
>>> rotating, the field moves sideways as well. IOW, the
>>> atomic fields are attached to their individual atoms. There is no reason
>>> this should change when rotation is involved
>>> rather than translation.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>> >Resolving the paradox of unipolar induction: new experimental evidence
>>> on
>>> >the influence of the test circuit (Free to download. Published 2022)
>>> >https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21155-x
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>>
>>> Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar
>>> panels on your roof on the alternate days.
>>> The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.
>>>
>>>

[Vo]:85 papers uploaded to LENR-CANR.org

[Jed Rothwell]

I uploaded 85 papers. The latest papers are shown here, but there are so
many this list is unhelpful:

https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=3009

I have appended another list below, which includes most of the new papers.


I uploaded 4 papers by W. B. Clarke. These cast doubt on results from
Arata, and Case. I recall that he and Mike McKubre did not get
along, although they co-authored some papers.

900. Clarke, W.B., *Search for 3He and 4He in Arata-Style Palladium
Cathodes I: A Negative Result.* Fusion Science and Technology, 2001. *40*
 ACC

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeWBsearchforh.pdf
901. Clarke, W.B., *Search for 3He and 4He in Arata-Style Palladium
Cathodes II: Evidence for Tritium Production.* Fusion Science and
Technology, 2001 ACC

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeWBsearchforha.pdf

903. Clarke, W.B., *Production of 4He in D2-Loaded Palladium-Carbon
Catalyst I.* Fusion Science and Technology, 2003. *43*(1): p. 122-127 ACC

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeWBriproduction.pdf

904. Clarke, W.B., S.J. Bos, and B.M. Oliver, *Production of 4He in
D2-Loaded Palladium-Carbon Catalyst II.* Fusion Science and Technology,
2003. *43*(2): p. 250-255 ACC

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeWBriproductiona.pdf

Clarke had some unkind things to say about Arata. So did Ed and I:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonar.pdf

Arata was a genius. I think his palladium power approach was fruitful. It
was groundbreaking. But I think he was a little sloppy as an
experimentalist. I am no experimentalist at all, so I hesitate to say that.


Here are most of the papers I added today:

New to the database and newly uploaded

New: Ambadkar, A., electrolysis of d2o with a palladium cathode compared
with electrolysis of h2o with a platinum electrode: procedure and
experimental details
New: Bockris, J., do nuclear reactions take place under chemical simulation?
New: Bockris, J. O'M., speculative interpretation of overunity experiments
involving water electrolysis
New: Bush, B. F., data for 4he measurement
New: Bush, B. F., comments on "search for 3he and 4he in arata-style
palladium cathodes i: a negative result" and "search for 3he and 4he in
arata-style palladium cathodes ii: evidence for tritium production"
New: Cirillo, D., experimental evidence of a neutron flux generation in a
plasma discharge electrolytic cell
New: De Ninno, A., consequences of lattice expansive strain gradients on
hydrogen loading in palladium
New: Drebushchak, V. A., excess heat release during deuterium
sorption-desorption by finely powdered palladium deuteride
New: Dubinko, V. I., on the role of disorder in catalysis driven by
discrete breathers
New: Fralick, G. C., transmutations observed from pressure cycling
palladium silver metals with deuterium gas
New: Holmlid, L., heat generation above break-even from laser-induced
fusion in ultra-dense deuterium
New: Karabut, A., possible nuclear reactions mechanisms at glow discharge
in deuterium
New: McKubre, M. C. H., conditions for the observation of excess power in
the d/pd system
New: McKubre, M. C. H., electrochemistry and calorimetry in a packed-bed
flow-through electrochemical cell
New: Mizuno, T., excess heat evolution and analysis of elements for solid
state electrolyte in deuterium atmosphere during applied electric field
New: Stepanov. I. N., experimental measurement of excess thermal energy
released from a cell loaded with a mixture of nickel powder and lithium
aluminum hydride
New: Ohmori, T., enrichment of 41k isotope in potassium formed on and in a
rhenium electrode during plasma electrolysis in k2co3/h2o and k2co3/d2o
solutions
New: Srinivasan, M., excess heat and tritium measurements in ni-h2o
electrolytic cells
New: Vysotskii, V. I., the formation of correlated states and optimization
of the tunnel effect for low-energy particles under nonmonochromatic and
pulsed action on a potential barrier
New: Yamada, H., carbon production on palladium point electrode with
neutron burst under dc glow discharge in pressurized deuterium gas


Previously listed in database but not uploaded

On file: Adachi, G., (3)He and (4)He from D2 absorbed in LaNi5
On file: Alguero, M., An interpretation of some postelectrolysis nuclear
effects in deuterated titanium
On file: Asami, N., Material characteristics and behavior of highly
deuterated loaded palladium by electrolysis
On file: Battaglia, A., Neutron emission in Ni-H systems
On file: Belzner, A., Two fast mixed-conductor systems: deuterium and
hydrogen in palladium - thermal measurements and experimental considerations
On file: Bertalot, L., Study of deuterium charging in palladium by the
electrolysis of heavy water: heat excess production
On file: Bhadkamkar, A., Electron Charge Cluster Sparking in Aqueous
Solutions
On file: Bockris, J., Nuclear Transmutation: The reality of cold fusion
(Book Review)
On file: Bush, R. T., Electrolytically Simulated Cold Nuclear Synthesis of
Strontium from Rubidium
On file: Celani, F., Further measure

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[H L V]

Here is a physical demonstration of the situation using a ferrofluid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn41nPOGq-U
The ferrofluid does not rotate with the cylindrical magnet, which supports
the idea that the magnet's field does not rotate with the magnet.
(There is a little bit of movement but the narrator explains that this
movement arises from the field not being perfectly symmetrically.and
homogeneous).

Harry

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:40 AM H L V  wrote:

> It depends what you mean by a field. If you imagine the field is made of
> wire-like filaments which are fastened to an atom then you would expect the
> field to translate and rotate whenever the atom translates and rotates. On
> the other hand if you imagine the field is a vector field then the field
> never really needs to move. Instead the direction of the magnitude of the
> vector at each point in space updates as the atom moves through that vector
> space. The way the vector field changes as the atom rotates and translates
> gives the appearance of a field that is moving as if it were fastened to
> the atom.
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 1:41 PM Robin 
> wrote:
>
>> In reply to  H L V's message of Tue, 5 Mar 2024 09:28:31 -0500:
>> Hi,
>>
>> You don't need an experiment to figure this out. The field obviously
>> rotates with the magnet.
>> This is because the field is not a single entity. It is the sum of all
>> the tiny fields created by the electrons attached
>> to individual atoms, so when the magnet rotates, the atoms all move,
>> taking their individual fields with them. We know
>> they do this because when the magnet is moved sideways, instead of
>> rotating, the field moves sideways as well. IOW, the
>> atomic fields are attached to their individual atoms. There is no reason
>> this should change when rotation is involved
>> rather than translation.
>>
>> [snip]
>> >Resolving the paradox of unipolar induction: new experimental evidence on
>> >the influence of the test circuit (Free to download. Published 2022)
>> >https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21155-x
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar
>> panels on your roof on the alternate days.
>> The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Faraday's disc generator

[H L V]

It depends what you mean by a field. If you imagine the field is made of
wire-like filaments which are fastened to an atom then you would expect the
field to translate and rotate whenever the atom translates and rotates. On
the other hand if you imagine the field is a vector field then the field
never really needs to move. Instead the direction of the magnitude of the
vector at each point in space updates as the atom moves through that vector
space. The way the vector field changes as the atom rotates and translates
gives the appearance of a field that is moving as if it were fastened to
the atom.

Harry


On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 1:41 PM Robin 
wrote:

> In reply to  H L V's message of Tue, 5 Mar 2024 09:28:31 -0500:
> Hi,
>
> You don't need an experiment to figure this out. The field obviously
> rotates with the magnet.
> This is because the field is not a single entity. It is the sum of all the
> tiny fields created by the electrons attached
> to individual atoms, so when the magnet rotates, the atoms all move,
> taking their individual fields with them. We know
> they do this because when the magnet is moved sideways, instead of
> rotating, the field moves sideways as well. IOW, the
> atomic fields are attached to their individual atoms. There is no reason
> this should change when rotation is involved
> rather than translation.
>
> [snip]
> >Resolving the paradox of unipolar induction: new experimental evidence on
> >the influence of the test circuit (Free to download. Published 2022)
> >https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21155-x
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> Drive your electric car every second day and recharge it from solar panels
> on your roof on the alternate days.
> The other days, drive your spouses car, and do the same with it.
>
>