Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
At 12:40 AM 8/20/2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: That PESN report gives me practically no confidence. So they've sold the poppers before they are ready to ship any? Has anyone seen an Inteligentry popper function? I should be more careful. They have 100 orders, they claim. They may not have accepted payment for these orders yet, and it is certainly legal to sell something for future delivery. It isn't even reprehensible to make the offer of sale and to accept orders, even if you don't have the product yet. Routinely, in my own business, I only charge credit cards when I ship. Under some conditions, if people accept it, you can actually accept prepayment. I don't recommend it for buying anything from a company that might vanish or otherwise be unable to deliver. Money-back guarantees only work when a company needs to maintain its reputation and/or has assets that can be targeted. And that can be far more trouble than it's worth
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
At 10:55 AM 8/18/2012, ChemE Stewart wrote: I think the invention was real, powerful and very uncertain and unreliable, prone to failures, malfunctions and explosions, nature of the beast. No. Papp demonstrations did not normally fail. That's a myth. The demonstration that Feynman interrupted was working, quite well. That if failed was pretty obviously the result of removing power from the control system. Papp could not have anticipated that (though he was certainly careless to design the control system not to be fail-safe against power failure.) The only other explosion I know of was a demonstration planned as an explosion. Please get it straight. (I'm new to this Papp engine stuff, so there could be plenty I don't know.) As I've written, I see two possibilities, based on what I've learned so far: 1. Papp was a fraud and others have continued the fraud. 2. This thing is real, there is a real Papp Effect, and we will see an energy revolution, and likely soon. I don't see mistake or artifact as reasonable here. The demonstrations were too much power for too long. There is ample testimony to that, and I'm getting some by private mail that is very credible; unfortunately, I won't ask anyone to count on that, precisely because I can't disclose who it is from. All I will do is to assert, on my own authority, that there are experts who have believed that there is something real about the engine, that fraud is unlikely. But I have to keep it alive as a possibility, until there is full, open, independent verification, and there isn't. Not yet. Do *not* invest in a Papp Engine, unless you know what you are doing and have been able to independently verify operation. Anyone asking for money for Papp Engines, at this point, is quite likely a scammer. The Inteligentry popper, the experimental unit, might be a reasonable investment for someone who wants to check out the science, but, note, there has been *no public demonstration* of this popper. You could lose your money, be prepared for that. I'd recommend that people interested in checking out the popper coordinate with each other. It could save a lot of money. I'm willing to coordinate this, being disinterested financially, so people can write me off-list if they wish; I'll keep identities confidential unless disclosure is explicitly allowed. I am *not* a believer in the Papp Engine, my position is that there is so much secrecy and paranoia and rancor around it that we can't know what is going on. I *do* trust the scientific method, and know that impossibility proofs are not a part of it. Ever.
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
At 11:03 AM 8/18/2012, Axil Axil wrote: This is a certificate of an independent and legally witnessed test of the Papp engine by two independent witnesses in 1983. http://www.plasmerg.com/_files/Cert.pdfhttp://www.plasmerg.com/_files/Cert.pdf Right. Stuff like this is why I bifurcate this into fraud/real. There is more than this particular test. Much more. But there is no independent verification. That test was not an independent verification. Period. It was a test run under Papp's supervision.
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
At 12:15 PM 8/18/2012, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Note that this could be parallel with Jospeh Papp. Papp apparently planted red herrings in his patent applications, things that he knew would not work, to throw people trying to imitate his engine off. Too bad that this is the opposite of the intention of a patent More importantly, as I have already stated in this forum, it vitiates the patent in all countries. Moreover in all countries but the US, which is first to invent rather than first to file, it opens the door to a valid patent filing in the present by those who decipher the prior patent. In other words, the noble gas engine has never been in the public domain because its patent disclosure did not, in fact, disclose in such a way that those skilled in the art (what art?) could reproduce the benefit of the invention. Whether or not this is so depends on the exact language of the patent. Probably so. But I'd check with a lawyer before depending on new patentability. John Rohner, or one of his companies, which he might or might not still control -- this whole thing is too complicated for the average bear -- obtained a new patent fairly recently, which might or might not cover current work. I haven't read it. Not planning to. Beware of investing in the Papp Engine at this point. The whole situation is a tangled mess. If interested, building a popper would be in order. If Bob Rohner has any sense, he'll encourage people to buy a popper from him, since he's actually demonstrated it. He could easily provide plans for it, with a license to build one, for cheap, and at a decent profit. John's going to eat his lunch if he doesn't. Unless John doesn't really have a popper and is just bluffing See what I mean about mess? Don't risk your life savings just because someone talks a good line. Even if they have a running engine, it could turn out that they don't own the technology, they will lose their shirts, and you along with them. Be careful!
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
Just more UNCERTAINTY On Sunday, August 19, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 12:15 PM 8/18/2012, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto: a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Note that this could be parallel with Jospeh Papp. Papp apparently planted red herrings in his patent applications, things that he knew would not work, to throw people trying to imitate his engine off. Too bad that this is the opposite of the intention of a patent More importantly, as I have already stated in this forum, it vitiates the patent in all countries. Moreover in all countries but the US, which is first to invent rather than first to file, it opens the door to a valid patent filing in the present by those who decipher the prior patent. In other words, the noble gas engine has never been in the public domain because its patent disclosure did not, in fact, disclose in such a way that those skilled in the art (what art?) could reproduce the benefit of the invention. Whether or not this is so depends on the exact language of the patent. Probably so. But I'd check with a lawyer before depending on new patentability. John Rohner, or one of his companies, which he might or might not still control -- this whole thing is too complicated for the average bear -- obtained a new patent fairly recently, which might or might not cover current work. I haven't read it. Not planning to. Beware of investing in the Papp Engine at this point. The whole situation is a tangled mess. If interested, building a popper would be in order. If Bob Rohner has any sense, he'll encourage people to buy a popper from him, since he's actually demonstrated it. He could easily provide plans for it, with a license to build one, for cheap, and at a decent profit. John's going to eat his lunch if he doesn't. Unless John doesn't really have a popper and is just bluffing See what I mean about mess? Don't risk your life savings just because someone talks a good line. Even if they have a running engine, it could turn out that they don't own the technology, they will lose their shirts, and you along with them. Be careful!
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
At 05:36 PM 8/18/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Oh yes he is! His influence is seen in most of the new experiments reported at ICCF17. Most of the authors give him credit. If it turns out his results are fake it will ironic, to say the least. I've seen massive deception play a major role in history, and even for the good, in an entirely different field. Yes, ironic.
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
http://pesn.com/2012/08/18/9602162_My_Visit_to_Inteligentry/ My Visit to Inteligentry Even the usually supportive Sterling D. Allan of Pure Energy Systems News is asking hard questions. The entire area is in a herding cat’s type of predicament. The Rohner business plan is something that an engineer would come up with. If the Papp engine does work, the business plan might not. Cheers:Axil On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 12:15 PM 8/18/2012, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto: a...@lomaxdesign.coma**b...@lomaxdesign.com a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Note that this could be parallel with Jospeh Papp. Papp apparently planted red herrings in his patent applications, things that he knew would not work, to throw people trying to imitate his engine off. Too bad that this is the opposite of the intention of a patent More importantly, as I have already stated in this forum, it vitiates the patent in all countries. Moreover in all countries but the US, which is first to invent rather than first to file, it opens the door to a valid patent filing in the present by those who decipher the prior patent. In other words, the noble gas engine has never been in the public domain because its patent disclosure did not, in fact, disclose in such a way that those skilled in the art (what art?) could reproduce the benefit of the invention. Whether or not this is so depends on the exact language of the patent. Probably so. But I'd check with a lawyer before depending on new patentability. John Rohner, or one of his companies, which he might or might not still control -- this whole thing is too complicated for the average bear -- obtained a new patent fairly recently, which might or might not cover current work. I haven't read it. Not planning to. Beware of investing in the Papp Engine at this point. The whole situation is a tangled mess. If interested, building a popper would be in order. If Bob Rohner has any sense, he'll encourage people to buy a popper from him, since he's actually demonstrated it. He could easily provide plans for it, with a license to build one, for cheap, and at a decent profit. John's going to eat his lunch if he doesn't. Unless John doesn't really have a popper and is just bluffing See what I mean about mess? Don't risk your life savings just because someone talks a good line. Even if they have a running engine, it could turn out that they don't own the technology, they will lose their shirts, and you along with them. Be careful!
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
Le Aug 19, 2012 à 6:20 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com a écrit : http://pesn.com/2012/08/18/9602162_My_Visit_to_Inteligentry/ Is it normal to mount the electronics on the engine block like that? Even though it not understood to heat up like a normal engine, I understand that it still gets hot. I do not imagine that it is necessary to place the controllers on the engine like that; or am I mistaken? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
I do not believe this engine will ever make it to market. When it is
working as designed it is destroying itself, much in the way that a wire
that shows the anomalous heat effect is considered a successful result just
before the wire becomes embrittled and breaks apart.
On Sunday, August 19, 2012, Eric Walker wrote:
Le Aug 19, 2012 à 6:20 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({},
'cvml', 'janap...@gmail.com');
a écrit :
http://pesn.com/2012/08/18/9602162_My_Visit_to_Inteligentry/
Is it normal to mount the electronics on the engine block like that? Even
though it not understood to heat up like a normal engine, I understand that
it still gets hot. I do not imagine that it is necessary to place the
controllers on the engine like that; or am I mistaken?
Eric
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
The engines, by report, don't run hot. Warm, at most. Not a problem for electronics. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 19, 2012, at 9:36 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Le Aug 19, 2012 à 6:20 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com a écrit : http://pesn.com/2012/08/18/9602162_My_Visit_to_Inteligentry/ Is it normal to mount the electronics on the engine block like that? Even though it not understood to heat up like a normal engine, I understand that it still gets hot. I do not imagine that it is necessary to place the controllers on the engine like that; or am I mistaken? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
That PESN report gives me practically no confidence. So they've sold the poppers before they are ready to ship any? Has anyone seen an Inteligentry popper function? They are announcing the availability of engines at an upcoming show, but the mfrs. haven't seen a running engine? The most brilliant idea was that they don't want to look competent, to throw off the competition. Who was it said that? It's late and I don't want to reread it. 100 poppers already sold? While it's believable, I have to remember the source! Sent from my iPhone On Aug 19, 2012, at 9:20 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://pesn.com/2012/08/18/9602162_My_Visit_to_Inteligentry/ My Visit to Inteligentry Even the usually supportive Sterling D. Allan of Pure Energy Systems News is asking hard questions. The entire area is in a herding cat’s type of predicament. The Rohner business plan is something that an engineer would come up with. If the Papp engine does work, the busin ess plan might not. Cheers:Axil On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 12:15 PM 8/18/2012, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Note that this could be parallel with Jospeh Papp. Papp apparently planted red herrings in his patent applications, things that he knew would not work, to throw people trying to imitate his engine off. Too bad that this is the opposite of the intention of a patent More importantly, as I have already stated in this forum, it vitiates the patent in all countries. Moreover in all countries but the US, which is first to invent rather than first to file, it opens the door to a valid patent filing in the present by those who decipher the prior patent. In other words, the noble gas engine has never been in the public domain because its patent disclosure did not, in fact, disclose in such a way that those skilled in the art (what art?) could reproduce the benefit of the invention. Whether or not this is so depends on the exact language of the patent. Probably so. But I'd check with a lawyer before depending on new patentability. John Rohner, or one of his companies, which he might or might not still control -- this whole thing is too complicated for the average bear -- obtained a new patent fairly recently, which might or might not cover current work. I haven't read it. Not planning to. Beware of investing in the Papp Engine at this point. The whole situation is a tangled mess. If interested, building a popper would be in order. If Bob Rohner has any sense, he'll encourage people to buy a popper from him, since he's actually demonstrated it. He could easily provide plans for it, with a license to build one, for cheap, and at a decent profit. John's going to eat his lunch if he doesn't. Unless John doesn't really have a popper and is just bluffing See what I mean about mess? Don't risk your life savings just because someone talks a good line. Even if they have a running engine, it could turn out that they don't own the technology, they will lose their shirts, and you along with them. Be careful!
RE: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
At 10:30 AM 8/17/2012, Arnaud Kodeck wrote: I think AR is smarter than this. He said Ni+p - Cu when it knew it was not the case. With this statement, he was sure that Cu will not be taken as a potential catalyst and only a by-product. Note that this could be parallel with Jospeh Papp. Papp apparently planted red herrings in his patent applications, things that he knew would not work, to throw people trying to imitate his engine off. Too bad that this is the opposite of the intention of a patent Rossi can say whatever he likes about the theory of his work. It's legal. Lying is legal, under many conditions. The problem is that once we know someone is willing to lie for a good purpose, i.e., to protect his secrets, we can't trust anything he says unless we independently verify it. If someone would lie, shamelessly, they would also arrange a fraudulent demonstration. There isn't much difference. People become confused when this is pointed out, they think I'm saying that there *was* a fraudulent demonstration. No, I'm saying that we can't trust the demonstrations. That and little more. That NiH reactions might produce power is not and was not a big surprise, because there had been other reports (more sober, more scientific in nature). The surprise with Rossi was the level of heat and the claim of reliability. Many knowledgeable people think Rossi really did find an approach that generates significant heat, at least sometimes. It was the appearance of reliability that was new and surprising. If Rossi did not actually solve the reliability problem, which is the trillion-dollar question in all of cold fusion, it would explain the delays, the confident announcements followed by failures to perform as promised, followed by more confident announcements. Any day now, he'd think or hope, I'll solve this, and then nobody will worry about my fudging this or that. Comparisons with Papp are a bit shaky, because Papp was not using an approach analogous to that of anyone else. Rossi's work is an extension of what was already known as possible, or at least that had some level of experimental evidence of possibility. (As to theory, since we don't know what is happening with NiH, we only have speculations. In general, theory cannot establish the impossibility of any specific experimental outcome, for a number of reasons. Well-established theory can give us some guidance, that's about all. Independently confirmed experiment trumps theory, no matter how well-established, at least provisionally.) However, having said that, Papp and Rossi share a paranoia about others ripping off their invention. With Papp the paranoia was deep and quite damaging. It's unclear how deep it is with Rossi, some think it is a pretense with him, a game he plays to confuse competition. My general point is that we do not know if the Rossi devices really do produce power, or really are reliable, without independent confirmation. With the Papp Effect, there is also a lack of independent confirmation, still -- as far as anything published, I hear *rumor* of independent confirmation, which is almost useless -- and it is clear that Papp opposed all such. Rossi, as well, has declined many friendly opportunities for independent confirmation of his claims. With Papp, though, there were ample demonstrations, witnessed by many people, that establish one of two major possibilities: the engine was real, and powerful, or there was an extremely sophisticated fraud. Compressed air has been mentioned as one possibility, there could be others. Any given fraud mode might be ruled out for any given demonstration, there is nothing that limits an inventor to one mode of pretense. This is why we want to see *independent* confirmations, where the inventor is not present to guide the experimenters. We have another reason for wanting independent demonstrations, entirely independent. It forces the inventor to communicate what is necessary to others, thus making it unlikely that some secret will be lost. Sometimes, unfortunately, that's not possible. SRI, replicating the Case Effect, used material supplied by Case. It worked. This material was a catalyst prepared from coconut charcoal and plated with palladium, as I recall. When the material was accidentally discarded, nobody was able to create a new batch of material that worked. So the SRI replication was not *entirely* independent. Yet it did show that the particular material worked, it was independent in that way. But, unless someone figures out how to make that catalyst again, which I consider unlikely, there isn't any gold there commercially, and this is a dead end, useful only for certain facts developed. The Case replication did show heat/helium correlation, as with other FPHE approaches. (I've seen people doubt the accidental discard report. It's believable, especially coming from SRI. A resident of a community I was leading
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
At 10:54 AM 8/17/2012, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2012-08-17 17:43, Jones Beene wrote: Why do you say that 3W/cm² is not enough for a commercial product ? We are talking about an alloy that costs only $20/kg (US) in large volume lots. The treatment (not known in detail yet - but Celani said a paper about it is in preparation) to create deep nano/micro structures needed for the reaction to occur might increase costs significantly, however. At the moment, all we know at the moment is that treated ISOTAN44 wires cost him less than pure palladium. Frequently people discussing commercial prospects neglect that LENR materials, classically, don't continue to operate indefinitely. Until we have solid theory of operation, it may be impossible to design materials for continued, reliable operation. That's why calls for someone like Celani to scale up are misguided. It's putting the cart before the horse. First, establish an effect. Second, investigate the characteristics of the effect thoroughly, which, combined with theoretical exploration and the feedback of controlled experiments to test theory, discover and elucidate the mechanism. Then engineering reliable materials that will continue to operate *might* be possible. While it's possible someone will stumble across something that works -- Rossi has certainly made the claim that he did -- it's stabbing in the dark, until the lights have been turned on by the development of confirmed theory. (Though anyone is free to run with an unconfirmed theory, and if this leads them to success, great! That's a confirmation of a kind. Not necessarily a proof, but it could lead to proof.) Suppose we discover that a material that costs $20/kg works, that, say, a few grams of this will generate a kilowatt. Processing the material might cost $10 per gram, say for a KW reactor it costs $30, just pulling these figures out of the air. Suppose the thing operates for three days, then the material needs to be replaced, reprepared. that's $10 per day. Electric power presently, for a day, might run $3.00. Utterly impractical except for certain narrow applications. The point is that processing cost could be the major cost, by far. I hope that those who are working with NiH, and who are seeing unreliable results, release their data. Certainly that would be preferable to giving up! Until there is sharing of information, there is going to be vast inefficiency, as groups independently invent the wheel. For starters, we need very much to know what *does not* work. That could be more than half the struggle!
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
I think the invention was real, powerful and very uncertain and unreliable, prone to failures, malfunctions and explosions, nature of the beast. On Saturday, August 18, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 10:30 AM 8/17/2012, Arnaud Kodeck wrote: I think AR is smarter than this. He said Ni+p - Cu when it knew it was not the case. With this statement, he was sure that Cu will not be taken as a potential catalyst and only a by-product. Note that this could be parallel with Jospeh Papp. Papp apparently planted red herrings in his patent applications, things that he knew would not work, to throw people trying to imitate his engine off. Too bad that this is the opposite of the intention of a patent Rossi can say whatever he likes about the theory of his work. It's legal. Lying is legal, under many conditions. The problem is that once we know someone is willing to lie for a good purpose, i.e., to protect his secrets, we can't trust anything he says unless we independently verify it. If someone would lie, shamelessly, they would also arrange a fraudulent demonstration. There isn't much difference. People become confused when this is pointed out, they think I'm saying that there *was* a fraudulent demonstration. No, I'm saying that we can't trust the demonstrations. That and little more. That NiH reactions might produce power is not and was not a big surprise, because there had been other reports (more sober, more scientific in nature). The surprise with Rossi was the level of heat and the claim of reliability. Many knowledgeable people think Rossi really did find an approach that generates significant heat, at least sometimes. It was the appearance of reliability that was new and surprising. If Rossi did not actually solve the reliability problem, which is the trillion-dollar question in all of cold fusion, it would explain the delays, the confident announcements followed by failures to perform as promised, followed by more confident announcements. Any day now, he'd think or hope, I'll solve this, and then nobody will worry about my fudging this or that. Comparisons with Papp are a bit shaky, because Papp was not using an approach analogous to that of anyone else. Rossi's work is an extension of what was already known as possible, or at least that had some level of experimental evidence of possibility. (As to theory, since we don't know what is happening with NiH, we only have speculations. In general, theory cannot establish the impossibility of any specific experimental outcome, for a number of reasons. Well-established theory can give us some guidance, that's about all. Independently confirmed experiment trumps theory, no matter how well-established, at least provisionally.) However, having said that, Papp and Rossi share a paranoia about others ripping off their invention. With Papp the paranoia was deep and quite damaging. It's unclear how deep it is with Rossi, some think it is a pretense with him, a game he plays to confuse competition. My general point is that we do not know if the Rossi devices really do produce power, or really are reliable, without independent confirmation. With the Papp Effect, there is also a lack of independent confirmation, still -- as far as anything published, I hear *rumor* of independent confirmation, which is almost useless -- and it is clear that Papp opposed all such. Rossi, as well, has declined many friendly opportunities for independent confirmation of his claims. With Papp, though, there were ample demonstrations, witnessed by many people, that establish one of two major possibilities: the engine was real, and powerful, or there was an extremely sophisticated fraud. Compressed air has been mentioned as one possibility, there could be others. Any given fraud mode might be ruled out for any given demonstration, there is nothing that limits an inventor to one mode of pretense. This is why we want to see *independent* confirmations, where the inventor is not present to guide the experimenters. We have another reason for wanting independent demonstrations, entirely independent. It forces the inventor to communicate what is necessary to others, thus making it unlikely that some secret will be lost. Sometimes, unfortunately, that's not possible. SRI, replicating the Case Effect, used material supplied by Case. It worked. This material was a catalyst prepared from coconut charcoal and plated with palladium, as I recall. When the material was accidentally discarded, nobody was able to create a new batch of material that worked. So the SRI replication was not *entirely* independent. Yet it did show that the particular material worked, it was independent in that way. But, unless someone figures out how to make that catalyst again, which I consider unlikely, there isn't any gold there commercially, and this is a dead end, useful only for certain facts developed. The Case replication did show
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
At 11:27 AM 8/17/2012, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2012-08-17 18:03, Daniel Rocha wrote: Beware that the extra heat/g. And that's the up limit. Generally, it's around 40W/g and 50/g. You'd have to use some complicated scheme to get an electrical feedback and self sustain. True, actual average values for Celani are smaller at the moment. My point still holds however. Cheaply scaling up excess heat and gain would not be hard. Gain, maybe hard. Depends on details I have not studied. Simple scaling is easy. Just make the experiment bigger; since it may be sensitive to wire size (almost certainly is), then just more wires. However, the very easy makes this scientifically almost useless, unless the heat is marginal as to what can be measured. Then scaling up to get enough heat would make sense. Rather, the cheaper approach would be to nail down the calorimetry. Do more control experiments, as well. And measure the ash. With PdD, it's helium, almost certainly, so certainly that at this point it's pretty much a waste of time to look for any other major ash. However, to be sure, more careful and more precise studies of helium and other transmutations would be generally useful. With NiH, the ash is unknown, and this is a crucial missing piece of knowledge. Scientifically, that should be the major problem to be addressed. It isn't necessary to have perfect calorimetry to determine the ash, it's done through correlation. Calorimetry, alone, is almost inherently subject to skepticism, particularly when experiments are unconfirmed, and the famous ureliability of cold fusion made clear confirmation difficult to assess, when it was heat alone being confirmed. When it was heat/helium, however, the situation radically changed. It's not supportable to deny cold fusion, once heat/helium is known. Krivit challenges the work, but none of the criticisms I've seen from him cut deeply enough to change the default conclusion, as reported by Storms (2010). An unknown process is converting deuterium to helium. In a word, fusion. Not necessarily d-d fusion. It's been obvious from the beginning that cold fusion isn't hot fusion, the mechanism is different. W-L theory, as far as I've been able to find, doesn't negate this result. Larsen has attempted to impeach some of the work, though confirming the substance of it, but doesn't actually supply an independent *quantitative* explanation with experimental evidence to back it. And W-L theory has hosts of unobserved implications, Larsen only talks about observations that seem to confirm his theory.
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
This is a certificate of an independent and legally witnessed test of the Papp engine by two independent witnesses in 1983. http://www.plasmerg.com/_files/Cert.pdf On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 10:30 AM 8/17/2012, Arnaud Kodeck wrote: I think AR is smarter than this. He said Ni+p - Cu when it knew it was not the case. With this statement, he was sure that Cu will not be taken as a potential catalyst and only a by-product. Note that this could be parallel with Jospeh Papp. Papp apparently planted red herrings in his patent applications, things that he knew would not work, to throw people trying to imitate his engine off. Too bad that this is the opposite of the intention of a patent Rossi can say whatever he likes about the theory of his work. It's legal. Lying is legal, under many conditions. The problem is that once we know someone is willing to lie for a good purpose, i.e., to protect his secrets, we can't trust anything he says unless we independently verify it. If someone would lie, shamelessly, they would also arrange a fraudulent demonstration. There isn't much difference. People become confused when this is pointed out, they think I'm saying that there *was* a fraudulent demonstration. No, I'm saying that we can't trust the demonstrations. That and little more. That NiH reactions might produce power is not and was not a big surprise, because there had been other reports (more sober, more scientific in nature). The surprise with Rossi was the level of heat and the claim of reliability. Many knowledgeable people think Rossi really did find an approach that generates significant heat, at least sometimes. It was the appearance of reliability that was new and surprising. If Rossi did not actually solve the reliability problem, which is the trillion-dollar question in all of cold fusion, it would explain the delays, the confident announcements followed by failures to perform as promised, followed by more confident announcements. Any day now, he'd think or hope, I'll solve this, and then nobody will worry about my fudging this or that. Comparisons with Papp are a bit shaky, because Papp was not using an approach analogous to that of anyone else. Rossi's work is an extension of what was already known as possible, or at least that had some level of experimental evidence of possibility. (As to theory, since we don't know what is happening with NiH, we only have speculations. In general, theory cannot establish the impossibility of any specific experimental outcome, for a number of reasons. Well-established theory can give us some guidance, that's about all. Independently confirmed experiment trumps theory, no matter how well-established, at least provisionally.) However, having said that, Papp and Rossi share a paranoia about others ripping off their invention. With Papp the paranoia was deep and quite damaging. It's unclear how deep it is with Rossi, some think it is a pretense with him, a game he plays to confuse competition. My general point is that we do not know if the Rossi devices really do produce power, or really are reliable, without independent confirmation. With the Papp Effect, there is also a lack of independent confirmation, still -- as far as anything published, I hear *rumor* of independent confirmation, which is almost useless -- and it is clear that Papp opposed all such. Rossi, as well, has declined many friendly opportunities for independent confirmation of his claims. With Papp, though, there were ample demonstrations, witnessed by many people, that establish one of two major possibilities: the engine was real, and powerful, or there was an extremely sophisticated fraud. Compressed air has been mentioned as one possibility, there could be others. Any given fraud mode might be ruled out for any given demonstration, there is nothing that limits an inventor to one mode of pretense. This is why we want to see *independent* confirmations, where the inventor is not present to guide the experimenters. We have another reason for wanting independent demonstrations, entirely independent. It forces the inventor to communicate what is necessary to others, thus making it unlikely that some secret will be lost. Sometimes, unfortunately, that's not possible. SRI, replicating the Case Effect, used material supplied by Case. It worked. This material was a catalyst prepared from coconut charcoal and plated with palladium, as I recall. When the material was accidentally discarded, nobody was able to create a new batch of material that worked. So the SRI replication was not *entirely* independent. Yet it did show that the particular material worked, it was independent in that way. But, unless someone figures out how to make that catalyst again, which I consider unlikely, there isn't any gold there commercially, and this is a dead end, useful only for certain
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 10:30 AM 8/17/2012, Arnaud Kodeck wrote: I think AR is smarter than this. He said Ni+p - Cu when it knew it was not the case. With this statement, he was sure that Cu will not be taken as a potential catalyst and only a by-product. Note that this could be parallel with Jospeh Papp. Papp apparently planted red herrings in his patent applications, things that he knew would not work, to throw people trying to imitate his engine off. Too bad that this is the opposite of the intention of a patent More importantly, as I have already stated in this forum, it vitiates the patent in all countries. Moreover in all countries but the US, which is first to invent rather than first to file, it opens the door to a valid patent filing in the present by those who decipher the prior patent. In other words, the noble gas engine has never been in the public domain because its patent disclosure did not, in fact, disclose in such a way that those skilled in the art (what art?) could reproduce the benefit of the invention.
RE: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
I never trusted all the claims of Rossi. His paranoia is understandable with his history (Petroldragon and so) and the matter of topic here. This attitude doesn't help LENR in the short term. But what is a few years regarding the long story of the mankind? It is always too short, but man is a man. It takes time to convince him to change his mind. Soon or later, the truth will enlighten us ... -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: samedi 18 août 2012 18:10 To: arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova At 10:30 AM 8/17/2012, Arnaud Kodeck wrote: I think AR is smarter than this. He said Ni+p - Cu when it knew it was not the case. With this statement, he was sure that Cu will not be taken as a potential catalyst and only a by-product. Note that this could be parallel with Jospeh Papp. Papp apparently planted red herrings in his patent applications, things that he knew would not work, to throw people trying to imitate his engine off. Too bad that this is the opposite of the intention of a patent Rossi can say whatever he likes about the theory of his work. It's legal. Lying is legal, under many conditions. The problem is that once we know someone is willing to lie for a good purpose, i.e., to protect his secrets, we can't trust anything he says unless we independently verify it. If someone would lie, shamelessly, they would also arrange a fraudulent demonstration. There isn't much difference. People become confused when this is pointed out, they think I'm saying that there *was* a fraudulent demonstration. No, I'm saying that we can't trust the demonstrations. That and little more. That NiH reactions might produce power is not and was not a big surprise, because there had been other reports (more sober, more scientific in nature). The surprise with Rossi was the level of heat and the claim of reliability. Many knowledgeable people think Rossi really did find an approach that generates significant heat, at least sometimes. It was the appearance of reliability that was new and surprising. If Rossi did not actually solve the reliability problem, which is the trillion-dollar question in all of cold fusion, it would explain the delays, the confident announcements followed by failures to perform as promised, followed by more confident announcements. Any day now, he'd think or hope, I'll solve this, and then nobody will worry about my fudging this or that. Comparisons with Papp are a bit shaky, because Papp was not using an approach analogous to that of anyone else. Rossi's work is an extension of what was already known as possible, or at least that had some level of experimental evidence of possibility. (As to theory, since we don't know what is happening with NiH, we only have speculations. In general, theory cannot establish the impossibility of any specific experimental outcome, for a number of reasons. Well-established theory can give us some guidance, that's about all. Independently confirmed experiment trumps theory, no matter how well-established, at least provisionally.) However, having said that, Papp and Rossi share a paranoia about others ripping off their invention. With Papp the paranoia was deep and quite damaging. It's unclear how deep it is with Rossi, some think it is a pretense with him, a game he plays to confuse competition. My general point is that we do not know if the Rossi devices really do produce power, or really are reliable, without independent confirmation. With the Papp Effect, there is also a lack of independent confirmation, still -- as far as anything published, I hear *rumor* of independent confirmation, which is almost useless -- and it is clear that Papp opposed all such. Rossi, as well, has declined many friendly opportunities for independent confirmation of his claims. With Papp, though, there were ample demonstrations, witnessed by many people, that establish one of two major possibilities: the engine was real, and powerful, or there was an extremely sophisticated fraud. Compressed air has been mentioned as one possibility, there could be others. Any given fraud mode might be ruled out for any given demonstration, there is nothing that limits an inventor to one mode of pretense. This is why we want to see *independent* confirmations, where the inventor is not present to guide the experimenters. We have another reason for wanting independent demonstrations, entirely independent. It forces the inventor to communicate what is necessary to others, thus making it unlikely that some secret will be lost. Sometimes, unfortunately, that's not possible. SRI, replicating the Case Effect, used material supplied by Case. It worked. This material was a catalyst prepared from coconut charcoal and plated with palladium, as I recall. When the material was accidentally discarded, nobody was able to create a new batch
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net (or is it Joro Jaro?) wrote: . . . For this and many other reasons, I stopped paying attention to Rossi some time ago, due to this propensity for dishonesty and trickery. I think that is a big mistake. I recommend you pay close attention to him * despite* this propensity, because he often says and does important things. He is not helping to push the field forward . . . Oh yes he is! His influence is seen in most of the new experiments reported at ICCF17. Most of the authors give him credit. If it turns out his results are fake it will ironic, to say the least. We should apologize to Krivit on this point. Steve is/was correct about Rossi's basic dishonesty. (but he was not correct about W-L). Steve was number 1,486 in line to make this assertion about Rossi. Many other people made it before he did, including me. We owe Krivit no apologies. On the other hand, we should cite him when he does good work, as I did in this paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
Celani is gives up to 70W/g... 2012/8/17 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net Slide 16 Takahashi and Kitamura (thanks Akira, Jed et al) https://decibel.ni.com/content/servlet/JiveServlet/download/23750-1-51320/TS 9240%20Status%20of%20CMN%20CF%20LENR%20Research.pdf Summary: Ni-Cu on zirconia support, long period of gain, hydrogen and deuterium compared for gain. 1) Far better results with hydrogen than deuterium 2) Up to 2 watts per gram max, compared to Celani's technique which is ten times more 3) Long run showing no sign of drop-off (other than P-in being turned off) 4) Strange Theory of operation involving 4 units Brian Ahern sent them one of his early materials (which they mentioned) and told Takahashi about the copper-nickel on zirconia support (which they did not mention) - and which they had fabricated by a local company, and it was by far their best results. However, Ahern had even better results with another sample (much better than with the copper-nickel on zirconia support (teaser)... and Celani gets much more energy per gram. Lesson: the door is wide open for improvement, but these guys add further credibility to Ahern/Celani/etc ... but the most interesting thing - which has not been well-documented in the past is the side-by-side comparison of hydrogen with deuterium. IMPLICATION - there are 20 years of experiments with palladium-deuterium, most of them using hydrogen as a control. Hydrogen does not work in pure palladium. Deuterium only seems to work in palladium, and surprisingly is much poorer in side-by-side with hydrogen, in Ni-Cu (but still gainful). Most interesting! THERE IS A LESSON HERE ... but damn, I'm not sure exactly what it is ! Jones -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
Does this discovery lend credibility to Rossi with his Hydrogen Nickel (and apparently some Copper) reactor? Jojo - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 10:29 PM Subject: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova Slide 16 Takahashi and Kitamura (thanks Akira, Jed et al) https://decibel.ni.com/content/servlet/JiveServlet/download/23750-1-51320/TS 9240%20Status%20of%20CMN%20CF%20LENR%20Research.pdf Summary: Ni-Cu on zirconia support, long period of gain, hydrogen and deuterium compared for gain. 1) Far better results with hydrogen than deuterium 2) Up to 2 watts per gram max, compared to Celani's technique which is ten times more 3) Long run showing no sign of drop-off (other than P-in being turned off) 4) Strange Theory of operation involving 4 units Brian Ahern sent them one of his early materials (which they mentioned) and told Takahashi about the copper-nickel on zirconia support (which they did not mention) - and which they had fabricated by a local company, and it was by far their best results. However, Ahern had even better results with another sample (much better than with the copper-nickel on zirconia support (teaser)... and Celani gets much more energy per gram. Lesson: the door is wide open for improvement, but these guys add further credibility to Ahern/Celani/etc ... but the most interesting thing - which has not been well-documented in the past is the side-by-side comparison of hydrogen with deuterium. IMPLICATION - there are 20 years of experiments with palladium-deuterium, most of them using hydrogen as a control. Hydrogen does not work in pure palladium. Deuterium only seems to work in palladium, and surprisingly is much poorer in side-by-side with hydrogen, in Ni-Cu (but still gainful). Most interesting! THERE IS A LESSON HERE ... but damn, I'm not sure exactly what it is ! Jones
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
According to Piantelli and to Defkalion. Ni does not work at all with deuterium, Why it works (?) here is a good/bad question. Peter On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Slide 16 Takahashi and Kitamura (thanks Akira, Jed et al) https://decibel.ni.com/content/servlet/JiveServlet/download/23750-1-51320/TS 9240%20Status%20of%20CMN%20CF%20LENR%20Research.pdf Summary: Ni-Cu on zirconia support, long period of gain, hydrogen and deuterium compared for gain. 1) Far better results with hydrogen than deuterium 2) Up to 2 watts per gram max, compared to Celani's technique which is ten times more 3) Long run showing no sign of drop-off (other than P-in being turned off) 4) Strange Theory of operation involving 4 units Brian Ahern sent them one of his early materials (which they mentioned) and told Takahashi about the copper-nickel on zirconia support (which they did not mention) - and which they had fabricated by a local company, and it was by far their best results. However, Ahern had even better results with another sample (much better than with the copper-nickel on zirconia support (teaser)... and Celani gets much more energy per gram. Lesson: the door is wide open for improvement, but these guys add further credibility to Ahern/Celani/etc ... but the most interesting thing - which has not been well-documented in the past is the side-by-side comparison of hydrogen with deuterium. IMPLICATION - there are 20 years of experiments with palladium-deuterium, most of them using hydrogen as a control. Hydrogen does not work in pure palladium. Deuterium only seems to work in palladium, and surprisingly is much poorer in side-by-side with hydrogen, in Ni-Cu (but still gainful). Most interesting! THERE IS A LESSON HERE ... but damn, I'm not sure exactly what it is ! Jones -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
On 2012-08-17 16:43, Peter Gluck wrote: According to Piantelli and to Defkalion. Ni does not work at all with deuterium, Why it works (?) here is a good/bad question. Celani reported strange results with Deuterium too (with his treated nanostructured ISOTAN44 wires). It works, but poorly compared to Hydrogen. See here, slide 45: http://www.22passi.it/downloads/Celani_ICCF17_Trasp3.pdf His observations on Deuterium use: 21) After D2 intake, we increased, as usual, the temperature by power to the inert wire. The absorption was really of small amount. 22) We observed, for the first time in our experimentation with such kind of materials, some X (and/or gamma emission), coming-out from the reactor during the increasing of the temperature from about 100°C to 160°C. We used a NaI(Tl) detector, energy range 25-2000keV used as counter (safety purposes), not as spectrometer. Total time of such emission was about 600s and clearly detectable, burst like. 23) About thermal anomalies, we observed, very surprising, that the response was endothermic, not eso-thermic. The second day the system crossed the zero line and later become clearly eso-thermic. Similar effects were reported also by A. Takahashi and A. Kitamura. 24) After about 35s from the beginning of D2 intake the temperature abruptly increased and the wire was broken. We observed that the pressure decreased, because some problems to the reactor gas tight, but at times of 8s before. The SEM observations showed fusion of a large piece of wire. The shape was like a ball. Further analyses are in progress. Cheers, S.A.
RE: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
-Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro Does this discovery lend credibility to Rossi with his Hydrogen Nickel (and apparently some Copper) reactor? Has Rossi ever admitted to using copper as an alloy in his design ? Apparently, in the sample tested by the Swedes, AR's ploy was to let them show that copper was there via transmutation. That would have been great, and such a showing would have bolstered the contention of Focardi and Rossi about the operation of the reactor. It would have made Rossi and instant hero - but the scheme completely backfired! Catch-22 - unknown to AR the Swedes went further - and tested the isotope balance and found it to be natural ! Thus their testing completely disproves AR's contention of Ni-Cu transmutation and more importantly raised serious questions about attempted manipulation of science. Consequently, we must conclude that the copper which was in there at about 10% and which is indeed close to but not exactly a good Romanowski alloy range - had to be added at some point in time as natural copper. Was it added later, or prior, to the run which was sent to the Swedes? Who can know? For this and many other reasons, I stopped paying attention to Rossi some time ago, due to this propensity for dishonesty and trickery. He is not helping to push the field forward, and has given no independent proof of gain, anyway. I think AR has seen minor gain perhaps COP=2, and that he used copper to get it, perhaps inadvertently from the copper-alloy plumbing. But that is a guess. We should apologize to Krivit on this point. Steve is/was correct about Rossi's basic dishonesty. (but he was not correct about W-L). Jones
RE: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
I think AR is smarter than this. He said Ni+p - Cu when it knew it was not the case. With this statement, he was sure that Cu will not be taken as a potential catalyst and only a by-product. I think also that Cu isn't the only catalyst for the reaction. There is still some more to be discovered. With Celani, the experiment shown at ICCF-17 reaches around 3W/cm² which is very good in itself but not enough for a commercial product. AR is a step further. Moreover, he claims 1200°C, how can it with Cu catalyser? The Cu will smelt immediately or there is something I didn't catch up. Soon I will test Celani's recipe. But I'm still missing the last modification of Constantan preparation. (See changes from June2012) -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: vendredi 17 août 2012 17:14 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro Does this discovery lend credibility to Rossi with his Hydrogen Nickel (and apparently some Copper) reactor? Has Rossi ever admitted to using copper as an alloy in his design ? Apparently, in the sample tested by the Swedes, AR's ploy was to let them show that copper was there via transmutation. That would have been great, and such a showing would have bolstered the contention of Focardi and Rossi about the operation of the reactor. It would have made Rossi and instant hero - but the scheme completely backfired! Catch-22 - unknown to AR the Swedes went further - and tested the isotope balance and found it to be natural ! Thus their testing completely disproves AR's contention of Ni-Cu transmutation and more importantly raised serious questions about attempted manipulation of science. Consequently, we must conclude that the copper which was in there at about 10% and which is indeed close to but not exactly a good Romanowski alloy range - had to be added at some point in time as natural copper. Was it added later, or prior, to the run which was sent to the Swedes? Who can know? For this and many other reasons, I stopped paying attention to Rossi some time ago, due to this propensity for dishonesty and trickery. He is not helping to push the field forward, and has given no independent proof of gain, anyway. I think AR has seen minor gain perhaps COP=2, and that he used copper to get it, perhaps inadvertently from the copper-alloy plumbing. But that is a guess. We should apologize to Krivit on this point. Steve is/was correct about Rossi's basic dishonesty. (but he was not correct about W-L). Jones
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
Thanks for interperting this for me. I can follow only a small part of that presentation. How I wish I had a wordy interpretation for each slide. - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 7:29 AM Subject: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova Slide 16 Takahashi and Kitamura (thanks Akira, Jed et al) https://decibel.ni.com/content/servlet/JiveServlet/download/23750-1-51320/TS 9240%20Status%20of%20CMN%20CF%20LENR%20Research.pdf
RE: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
-Original Message- From: Arnaud Kodeck With Celani, the experiment shown at ICCF-17 reaches around 3W/cm² which is very good in itself but not enough for a commercial product. Why do you say that 3W/cm² is not enough for a commercial product ? We are talking about an alloy that costs only $20/kg (US) in large volume lots.
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
You should think about the total volume (area is a rule of a thumb anyway...) because it should be possible to roll all that. It gives around 450W/cm3. Also, that gives an average of 50W/g, using his wires. So, 20Kg should give you 1MW of extra heat... 2012/8/17 Kelley Trezise ktrez2...@ssvecnet.com Thanks for interperting this for me. I can follow only a small part of that presentation. How I wish I had a wordy interpretation for each slide. - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 7:29 AM Subject: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova Slide 16 Takahashi and Kitamura (thanks Akira, Jed et al) https://decibel.ni.com/**content/servlet/JiveServlet/** download/23750-1-51320/TShttps://decibel.ni.com/content/servlet/JiveServlet/download/23750-1-51320/TS 9240%20Status%20of%20CMN%20CF%**20LENR%20Research.pdf -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
On 2012-08-17 17:14, Jones Beene wrote: gain, anyway. I think AR has seen minor gain perhaps COP=2, and that he used copper to get it, perhaps inadvertently from the copper-alloy plumbing. But that is a guess. If Rossi's magic powder works as Celani's treated ISOTAN44 wires (positive feedback with temperature), there's little reason to doubt that his gain could be higher. Just increase the amount of active material and you can immediately have useful amounts of energy, although this might be expensive and/or impractical. In fact, I think this is exactly what Rossi did in is earlier public tests to scale up the effect. Celani, with 70 W/g (data by Daniel Rocha), would just need 150g of active material to reach about 10 kW of low temperature excess heat and a quite high COP, if he wanted (he would need a proper reactor vessel first, however). Incidentally this is about the same amount of material reportedly used by Rossi in his early 2011 demos. I guess it would be relatively expensive to set up such a demonstrative reactor for Celani, but it's not undoable, although it would be scientifically useless. 70 W/g is a low starting point as a specific power for the active material too. I imagine this could be vastly improved with funds and good engineering. According to Cures (Domenico Fioravanti - the colonel engineer who tested Rossi's half-megawatt plant in October 2011 and used to post anonymously on a public forum, if you trust him), calculated the specific power for Rossi's powder to range between 480-3300 W/g [1] - so apparently there's plenty of room for improvement. Combine this with cheap scaling up methods (add more material) and you can see why Rossi might be worried about competition, especially Celani's. Cheers, S.A. [1] http://www.cobraf.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=5747reply_id=123482813#123482813
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
On 2012-08-17 17:43, Jones Beene wrote: Why do you say that 3W/cm² is not enough for a commercial product ? We are talking about an alloy that costs only $20/kg (US) in large volume lots. The treatment (not known in detail yet - but Celani said a paper about it is in preparation) to create deep nano/micro structures needed for the reaction to occur might increase costs significantly, however. At the moment, all we know at the moment is that treated ISOTAN44 wires cost him less than pure palladium. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
Beware that the extra heat/g. And that's the up limit. Generally, it's around 40W/g and 50/g. You'd have to use some complicated scheme to get an electrical feedback and self sustain. 2012/8/17 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com On 2012-08-17 17:14, Jones Beene wrote: gain, anyway. I think AR has seen minor gain perhaps COP=2, and that he used copper to get it, perhaps inadvertently from the copper-alloy plumbing. But that is a guess. If Rossi's magic powder works as Celani's treated ISOTAN44 wires (positive feedback with temperature), there's little reason to doubt that his gain could be higher. Just increase the amount of active material and you can immediately have useful amounts of energy, although this might be expensive and/or impractical. In fact, I think this is exactly what Rossi did in is earlier public tests to scale up the effect. Celani, with 70 W/g (data by Daniel Rocha), would just need 150g of active material to reach about 10 kW of low temperature excess heat and a quite high COP, if he wanted (he would need a proper reactor vessel first, however). Incidentally this is about the same amount of material reportedly used by Rossi in his early 2011 demos. I guess it would be relatively expensive to set up such a demonstrative reactor for Celani, but it's not undoable, although it would be scientifically useless. 70 W/g is a low starting point as a specific power for the active material too. I imagine this could be vastly improved with funds and good engineering. According to Cures (Domenico Fioravanti - the colonel engineer who tested Rossi's half-megawatt plant in October 2011 and used to post anonymously on a public forum, if you trust him), calculated the specific power for Rossi's powder to range between 480-3300 W/g [1] - so apparently there's plenty of room for improvement. Combine this with cheap scaling up methods (add more material) and you can see why Rossi might be worried about competition, especially Celani's. Cheers, S.A. [1] http://www.cobraf.com/forum/**topic.php?topic_id=5747reply_** id=123482813#123482813http://www.cobraf.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=5747reply_id=123482813#123482813 -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
On 2012-08-17 18:03, Daniel Rocha wrote: Beware that the extra heat/g. And that's the up limit. Generally, it's around 40W/g and 50/g. You'd have to use some complicated scheme to get an electrical feedback and self sustain. True, actual average values for Celani are smaller at the moment. My point still holds however. Cheaply scaling up excess heat and gain would not be hard. I don't think a complex electrical feedback is really needed for that. Celani showed that his treated wires generate excess heat when heated *indirectly*. If he only cared about generating heat, he could even use a band heater as Rossi does/used to do to drive the reaction, with a simple control system to keep it within safe temperatures. Of course, this is in the ideal case all works as expected. Complications might arise when scaling things up. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
Akira, According to my theory, at the moment the hydrogen collapses in a void or crack (singularity), you should get an instant burst of low level Hawking Radiation(full spectrum) since quantum singularities are very hot to start with and they will immediately evaporate matter down near local steady state thermodynamic and spatial equilibrium conditions within a void or crack in the lattice. If/once it settles down within a void it then will start slowly consuming hydrogen gas that it pulls gas matter into the void from outside and will continue emitting very low levels of radiation and heat. According to theory, some of this radiation is quarks and gluons and I am not sure these will register on your devices. Over time, the Hawking radiation and or collapse of nearby matter will create local/brittleness within the lattice at which point any internal collapse will create another immediate and local instability and burst of energy at which point it will come to a new thermodynamic equilibrium point. This will go one until a point at which enough matter is consumed that their is a complete collapse of the wire. Singularities can create temperature inversions as their surface area changes and they consume more/gas matter than they evaporate. Over time this should balance out at the end of the universe. These singularities will act as a quantum heat pump, pulling in matter from hydrogen or the lattice (or any other matter) and rewarding you with heat and radiation, much of it as heat. The Rohner/Papp video that shows a coil sucking gas from a reactor vessel and balloon is the same effect. The singularities have built up on the inside surface of the coil (he mentions that the surface has changed and sticks to the cyclinder) with a voltage and are acting as a quantum heat pump pulling in gas matter and liberating heat trying to achieve equilibrium in their environment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlgiwB8V4sc According to my theory, collapsed matter generates radiation and appear to exists in nature within cracks and voids of metals and rocks of the earth and is probably concentrated in the earth at the core, away from life. I believe it is the singularity(s) themselves that are more dangerous than the low level radiation. As you can see it is devouring the lattice with primary collapse, hawking radiation and some fission and fusion events as well as probably some chemical events from the heat release. Be careful of getting a singularity on/in you which will be hard to do since they are invisible. According to theory a singularity might be as small as 22 micro grams at planck length, about like a grain of sand but will be completely invisible. They might even be smaller based upon actual quantum gravity effects. Gravity wants to take it to the earth and dispose of it at the center where it safetly produces heat for the earth. Stewart On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-08-17 16:43, Peter Gluck wrote: According to Piantelli and to Defkalion. Ni does not work at all with deuterium, Why it works (?) here is a good/bad question. Celani reported strange results with Deuterium too (with his treated nanostructured ISOTAN44 wires). It works, but poorly compared to Hydrogen. See here, slide 45: http://www.22passi.it/**downloads/Celani_ICCF17_**Trasp3.pdfhttp://www.22passi.it/downloads/Celani_ICCF17_Trasp3.pdf His observations on Deuterium use: 21) After D2 intake, we increased, as usual, the temperature by power to the inert wire. The absorption was really of small amount. 22) We observed, for the first time in our experimentation with such kind of materials, some X (and/or gamma emission), coming-out from the reactor during the increasing of the temperature from about 100°C to 160°C. We used a NaI(Tl) detector, energy range 25-2000keV used as counter (safety purposes), not as spectrometer. Total time of such emission was about 600s and clearly detectable, burst like. 23) About thermal anomalies, we observed, very surprising, that the response was endothermic, not eso-thermic. The second day the system crossed the zero line and later become clearly eso-thermic. Similar effects were reported also by A. Takahashi and A. Kitamura. 24) After about 35s from the beginning of D2 intake the temperature abruptly increased and the wire was broken. We observed that the pressure decreased, because some problems to the reactor gas tight, but at times of 8s before. The SEM observations showed fusion of a large piece of wire. The shape was like a ball. Further analyses are in progress. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
I didn't mean electric circuit, but feedback scheme in general. Maybe heating only won't work... 2012/8/17 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com I don't think a complex electrical feedback is really needed for that. Celani showed that his treated wires generate excess heat when heated *indirectly*. If he only cared about generating heat, he could even use a band heater as Rossi does/used to do to drive the reaction, with a simple control system to keep it within safe temperatures. Cheers, S.A. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
For 1 MW, the surface needed shall be 33 cm² ... 33 m². With a thickness of 100 µm, we arrive at 3.3 dm³. It's not costly indeed for the benefit it has. I'm more worried about structural body, loss heat, and control it will imply with such lower power density. That's engineering. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: vendredi 17 août 2012 17:44 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova -Original Message- From: Arnaud Kodeck With Celani, the experiment shown at ICCF-17 reaches around 3W/cm² which is very good in itself but not enough for a commercial product. Why do you say that 3W/cm² is not enough for a commercial product ? We are talking about an alloy that costs only $20/kg (US) in large volume lots.
