RE: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
At 08:53 PM 5/27/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 04:52 PM 5/27/2011, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Cost to refuel is crucial. $5000 for 4800 hours run time is $1.04 per hour, or $0.41 per kWh, compared to $0.15 from my local power company. Is Defkalion losing money on every E-Cat but making up for it with volume? This cost was, of course, based on the $5000 estimated for an E-Cat, as if refueling were at maximum cost. It looks like refueling consists of replacing the core of the thing, the rest is just a piece of plumbing with, perhaps, some heating elements. Rossi said (extracted from multiple posts): 3) do you know, approximately, how much will cost the recharge of the module after the 6 month of working ? 3- 100 $ == $0.02/hr = $0.0087 / kWH (at 2.4kW) Okay. What's the life time of the E-Cat? It may become obsolete, rapidly, by better units, but let's give it five years just for grins. The investment is somewhat speculative in certain ways. Installation will cost money. I'm thinking of an amortization at about $1800 per year. Let's assume continuous power generation: That's $0.20 per hour for the device. Not counting refueling. If it can be refueled for $100, then why does the E-Cat itself, which is not a lot more than plumbing and some heating elements and control circuits, so expensive? At 2.4 kW, it looks like the cost per kWh is roughly $0.10, plus at 6:1, I'd have to pay maybe $0.03 for the control power at 15 cents per kWh. While decent, that's not spectacular, by any means. Not enough to move me to buy one and use it. Besides, I rent my apartment. But I'd suppose that one could make a portable E-Cat installation.
Re: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
At 06:29 PM 5/28/2011, you wrote: Perhaps more important is the fact that a working E-cat means confirmation of a new source of energy. Once that is accepted many more people will start working on improving the output, as Jed has often said. The interesting thing to me is that this argument would apply to the original cold fusion work. If so many people are *independently* reporting anomalous energy from palladium deuteride, under reasonably reproducible conditions, then surely this would have been worth a ver substantial investment to really nail it down and understand it. Thus, from a neutral perspective, just looking at the game theory of it, there should have been at least enough allocated to this project to determine the origin of this apparent heat, one way or another. Instead, what happened was that a faction among scientists was allowed to dominate, to receive all the funding, and to practically demolish routine research for the dissenters, those who had seen the beast. It doesn't matter, from this perspective, if cold fusion is real or not. Answering the questions, determining the source of this confirmed observation, would, in a sane society, have been collectively very important. I'm seeing some similarities with N-rays, though they didn't have the enormous implications that cold fusion had and has. Wood allegedly did several surreptitious experiments. Only he observed them, and these were, by definition, not replicable. Why did it happen that Wood's report almost single-handedly, if we believe the popular interpretations, demolished the idea of N-rays, which had been seen by many people? With our hindsight, it's quite easy to devise and determine experiments that would have resolved the issue. But it was already considered resolved, if we accept the standard story, by Wood's tricks. Turning Wood's tricks into controllable and replicable experiments would have been a scientific approach. Was that followed? My guess is that it was, and that the results were negative. So, if that's true, what really killed N-rays was that once the possible causes of the observations were understood, and experimenters designed experiments to rule them out, the effect did disappear. Human eyesight is a totally amazing and sensitive instrument, and it would have been difficult, in those days, to do better. But human eyesight could still have been used, in spite of the obvious problems with it, i.e., the dependence upon a human observer, whose expectations can affect what is observed and reported. All that was necessary was to, so to speak, run the experiments totally blind, to not only rule out observer expectation bias, but also subtle bias through unconciously communicated bias. That may not have been much in people's minds in those days, they had other things to worry about! But we can now see how to proceed. It's more difficlt, and once one is convinced, one way or another, one isn't likely to go to the trouble. What is interesting is that the matter, in both cases, came to be considered closed without adequate evidence! In both cases, some researchers worked on, but there is a huge difference between what happened with N-rays and what happened with cold fusion. The issue was enormously confused by differences in the disciplines of chemistry and physics. Chemists are accustomed to complex experiments where the results might not be so accurately predicted from theory. An electrochemical cell, it turns out, is far from a simple environment. Cold fusion has been shown to be a surface effect, it does not happen, it appears, in the bulk of the palladium, it happens at or very near the surface. What is that surface? An electrolytic cathode attracts every impurity in the electrolyte, elements that might be found, say, in a rubber seal used with the cell, will show up there, plated on the surface by the current. Even though oxygen is being evolved at the other electrode, there is oxygen dissolved in the electrolyte that will nevertheless react, to some degree, with the palladium surface. Palladium metal, depending on its microstructure, may very greatly in its ability to be loaded with a high percentage of deuterium. I have read old sources that, as I recall, claimed that 70% was the maximum. Apparently not. CF researchers who were successful often monitored the loading ratio in various ways. One of the characteristics later found to be consistent with replication failure was lack of attention to loading ratio. Apparently, the effect only appears at around 90%, which obviously was pushing the state of the art at the time. (In gas-loading experiments, my understanding is that ratios above 100% are sometimes obtained. My own understanding of CF theories leads me to think that CF doesn't happen until a locale actually has what would be 400% loading! But it might happen in enlarged defects, of just a certain size, so that ratio would
Re: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
At 06:33 PM 5/28/2011, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 27 May 2011 20:59:34 -0400: Hi, [snip] Not being a mills expert, how do we know the Mills effect is not nuclear? No radiation and/or transmustation? If the Mills effect is nuclear, then it also has to function in a gas/plasma (see some of Mills' early experiments with e.g. Sr, Ar.) Aw, geez, folks. No, CF doesn't function in a plasma. Period. (Okay, okay, I shouldn't be so damned certain, but if it happened in a plasma, it would be very visible and easily detectable. CF appears to depend on quantum phenomena that are based on common influences from many atoms, acting together. There are a number of well-known nuclear effects that don't happen in plasmas. For example, muon-catalyzed fusion, while it might *happen* would be undetectable, the rates would be so low, and certain nuclei are stable in a plasma, and become unstable when in the solid state. And then, of course, there is this cold fusion thingie, whatever it is. Making helium, it must be nuclear.
Re: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
Is setting up a tinier Pt wire anode for your DPd codeposition going to delay your first attempt to try out your kit cell -- I am keenly interested in what turns up -- will you have a simultaneous control cell? -- there is a minute possibility that the cell could interact with neutral dark matter particles in orbit with the Earth around the Sun -- meaning that no nuclear physics experiment can so far be completely isolated from unexpected interactions -- can you set up a webcam to show you real-time doing your first runs? -- hey, ask for donations! Rich
Re: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sun, 29 May 2011 18:23:51 -0400: Hi, [snip] If the Mills effect is nuclear, then it also has to function in a gas/plasma (see some of Mills' early experiments with e.g. Sr, Ar.) Aw, geez, folks. No, CF doesn't function in a plasma. Period. My point was that Mills' effect does function in a gas/plasma. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
At 06:39 PM 5/29/2011, Rich Murray wrote: Is setting up a tinier Pt wire anode for your DPd codeposition going to delay your first attempt to try out your kit cell -- I am keenly interested in what turns up -- will you have a simultaneous control cell? I originally planned to have a hydrogen control in series, but I abandoned that because it could raise the voltage above my 20 V power supply, given headroom for the current regulator. Then I was going to do a parallel hydrogen control. I may still. It's more urgent to me to simply start varying parameters, I want to get a standard and cheap configuration going that shows *some* effect, the most obvious one is neutron tracks, but I'll be looking for light and ultrasound as well. Heat, only if there is substantial heat, which I don't particularly expect. I've cut the cathode in half from the Galileo protocol, as to length. Same 0.010 inch diameter wire. So, half the surface area, half the current for the same current density. I was going to reduce the palladium in the electrolyte by half as well, but talking with Dr. Storms, he said that the concentration during initial plating would be important, so what I'm doing is cutting the total electrolyte volume in half. It gets cheaper. The biggest problem I've run into is that the wires are fragile, both the gold and platinum wires break easily. There are lots of ways to do this wrong, and I may stumble across many of them Anyway, I can't see how shortening the anode will do anything except raise the voltage a bit, due to the voltage between the anode and the electrolyte being higher. Given constant current, I'd expect that the cathode won't see that difference at all. The cathode also won't see the total electrolyte volume, so this smaller cathode should be just as happy as a longer one in a larger bath. Conceptually, this is like having two cathode sections in parallel. Only we just toss one -- there is a minute possibility that the cell could interact with neutral dark matter particles in orbit with the Earth around the Sun -- meaning that no nuclear physics experiment can so far be completely isolated from unexpected interactions -- can you set up a webcam to show you real-time doing your first runs? -- hey, ask for donations! Rich Donations welcome. However, given how distracted I get, and how long this is taking me, I'm embarrassed to ask. The purpose of this is not to prove anything, it's to explore, and, if possible, to replicate the so-far-unreplicated finding of neutrons from SPAWAR. I'm using different detectors, but the LR-115 that I have is recommended for fast neutron detection through proton knock-on. I do have some Boron-10 converter screen, I could detect slow neutrons, but I'm not going there first.
RE: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
Jones, I agree big business will eventually try to derail the E-cat and will probably have some initial success in doing so BUT will be unable to stem the piracy and proliferation among third world nations where the E-cats will evolve rapidly. Theory and safety will quickly fall away to the expediency of shot gunning arrays of different variables at a time in a race very similar to Edison's search for a long lasting filament. We may not want to deviate from low cost Ni but instead be searching for faster more efficient heat transfer - maybe longer reactors with dividing zones taped off to segregate the sputtered areas into more identical subsets to prevent hot spots and promote uniformity? Anyway the costs you mention are just Rossi trying to sour the milk and posturing his device in a non threatening manner - of course it also means that investors see bigger dollar signs and lends support to a possible pump and dump but with a real technology underneath there are fewer criminal repercussions to consider. Seems like a brilliant plan that peels like the layers of an onion . Fran
Re: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Fri, 27 May 2011 19:52:05 -0400: Hi, [snip] Look, the obvious application for an E-Cat is for heating, if it's designed to heat water, and many heating systems do simply circulate water -- or steam -- for heating. So that's almost as efficient as direct electrical heating, the only losses would be in transmission of the hot water, i.e., in heating, say, pipes under a house instead of the house, but usually those get insulated The E-Cat is not designed, of course, to generate electricity, and the numbers would have to get a lot better before it would make any sense. [snip] Perhaps more important is the fact that a working E-cat means confirmation of a new source of energy. Once that is accepted many more people will start working on improving the output, as Jed has often said. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 27 May 2011 20:59:34 -0400: Hi, [snip] Not being a mills expert, how do we know the Mills effect is not nuclear? No radiation and/or transmustation? If the Mills effect is nuclear, then it also has to function in a gas/plasma (see some of Mills' early experiments with e.g. Sr, Ar.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
Terry - The situation with E-Cat does seem a bit more hopeful than MAHG on the demonstration end, since Naudin made those silly measurement errors (still not fully corrected on his website) but the problem is looming for Rossi since there are legitimate doubts our there. I seldom refer to MAHG as being proved overunity since that was never clear. The E-Cat may turn out to be the same, but as of now, it does seem much more hopeful. Most of that hope comes from independent confirming results of others, however - including Brian Ahern's, which was posted today on another forum. I know of two others in addition, but nothing yet on the scale of kilowatts. It may be tough for LENR proponents to swallow, but they better start getting used to the likelihood that this Ni-H effect is NOT nuclear. Ahern is getting zero counts above background and no transmutation, but with excess heat that would ordinarily indicate something non-chemical. Neither are others seeing any radioactivity. That is a mixed blessing. The biggest problem, however, seems to be that the E-Cat units as presently being quoted by the two licensees - do NOT compare well, economically, with solar for instance. As of now the E-Cat will be sized at 2.5 kW, and thus will cost no less $5,000 each. Rossi says $2 per watt is his present goal, but it could be higher. That does NOT include installation. He quoted less initially, but this is recent (Monday) and probably represents an expected premium that early adopters may or may not be willing to pay. The only guarantees will be for 4,800 hours run-time - which is a little over six months of continuous use, and a COP of at least six to one (over electrical input). The cost to refuel is unknown but the reactor is sealed, so it will likely be a swap-out arrangement (at the consumers expense). A worst case scenario is that you may get no more than 14,000 kW-hrs of heat for your investment. At the average rate of 10 cents for the equivalent electricity that is $1,400 of heat for your up-front overhead - and don't forget the cost of electricity to run it, since you have to supply 1/6 the output as electrical input ... and when you include the installation cost, which could be high since it will need its own electrical controls, circuit breakers and a fireproof place to store hydrogen safely, the end user could really be only getting a guarantee of about a tenth of the original investment with professional installation. At least that is according to the guarantee that they are talking about. And in a year, Defkalion or Ampenergo may be history pumped, dumped, and belly-up. Caveat emptor. It seems to me that most consumers, or businesses, would be better off with $6000-10,000 worth of solar cells. At least you get electricity instead of heat, and they have a proved history of an extended lifetime. Jones -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton I felt a pang when I read: This is the latest installment of that vision-quest - knowing full well that it could all be a tempest-in-a-teapot... but also being able to sense the thin chance of success juxtaposed to the earth-shattering ramifications but then again... having followed alternative energy since 1989 and been disappointed about twice per year, it is clear that the batting-average for such claims is not good. There was one member of the group who went so far as to build his own replication. His pictures are still there. T attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
At 05:38 PM 5/27/2011, Jones Beene wrote: Terry - The situation with E-Cat does seem a bit more hopeful than MAHG on the demonstration end, since Naudin made those silly measurement errors (still not fully corrected on his website) but the problem is looming for Rossi since there are legitimate doubts our there. I seldom refer to MAHG as being proved overunity since that was never clear. The E-Cat may turn out to be the same, but as of now, it does seem much more hopeful. No, this will never be the same. The kind of work that was found so disappointing was work where the apparent positive results could be artifact, rather easily, or not, but still no way was found to amplify the effect. Rossi is real or Rossi is fraud. At this point, there is no longer any middle ground. I'm not aware of anything in the history of cold fusion that truly approaches this in scale and, if it is fraud, in the boldness of it. Most of that hope comes from independent confirming results of others, however - including Brian Ahern's, which was posted today on another forum. I know of two others in addition, but nothing yet on the scale of kilowatts. Rossi just blows every other story off my personal front page that may be unfortunate, in fact, but it's just the truth. It may be tough for LENR proponents to swallow, but they better start getting used to the likelihood that this Ni-H effect is NOT nuclear. That's way, way to soon to say. Speculating on mechanism is far, far premature. I'm with Dr. Storms in the economy of speculation: start first by speculating that there is some common cause or mechanism behind PdD and NiH reactions. That's just a reasonable place to start, not some kind of proof of something! And PdD most definitely is nuclear. Deuterium - Helium, in short. If deuterinos are involved, that would be a catalytic effect. Unless they catalyze fusion, deuterinos would not produce helium! (I think it's more likely that BlackLight Power's stuff is Ni-H nuclear, mistaken as being due to hydrinos, and that the problem that BLP ran into was that their reactors ran down quickly. I.e., they worked, but not well enough, for long enough. That would explain the -- limited -- confirmation from, for example, Rowan University, and, then, mostly silence But maybe Mills will have the last laugh, and hydrinos are real.) Ahern is getting zero counts above background and no transmutation, but with excess heat that would ordinarily indicate something non-chemical. Neither are others seeing any radioactivity. That is a mixed blessing. It's simply what we should expect, as a default, by now, for cold fusion. It may well be that there is something about the process that takes anything radioactive to the end of the process, distributing the energy among many elements in the reactive matrix, whatever that is, i.e., almost all of it ends up as heat, plus non-radioactive ash. That's about as far as I'd care to go with theory, beyond flogging Takahashi's TSC theory, not as anything complete, but as a line of approach that could be seen as dovetailing with Kim's BEC theory and the work of others. Frankly, I'd rather leave the theory to the physicists, at least those among them -- like Takahashi -- willing to take up the challenge seriously. The biggest problem, however, seems to be that the E-Cat units as presently being quoted by the two licensees - do NOT compare well, economically, with solar for instance. As of now the E-Cat will be sized at 2.5 kW, and thus will cost no less $5,000 each. Rossi says $2 per watt is his present goal, but it could be higher. That does NOT include installation. He quoted less initially, but this is recent (Monday) and probably represents an expected premium that early adopters may or may not be willing to pay. Yup. I just used different figures, but it is what it is. However, the key here is early adopters. The value of a $5000 E-Cat would depend entirely on how long it will run without refueling, and how much it will cost to refuel. At six months, this is way expensive, more expensive than buying power from the electric company. I'd suggest to Rossi, if he were so foolish to ask me, that those early adopters should be guaranteed upgrade to improved E-Cats with their refueling, and possibly to refueling for a defined period at a fixed cost. This would bring in immediate cash. Whether or not you'd want to trust Rossi/Defkalion/Ampenergo to perform on the guarantee would be another matter. If the thing works, if you can produce 2.5 kW for a few days from a device the size of the E-Cat, and no additional fuel or significant electricity input, by comparison, it's stunning as a demonstration. That's not possible for chemistry. So would I pay $5000 for a convincing LENR demonstration in my house? Not I, but some might. The only guarantees will be for 4,800 hours run-time - which is a little over six months of continuous use, and a
Re: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: It may be tough for LENR proponents to swallow, but they better start getting used to the likelihood that this Ni-H effect is NOT nuclear. As a long time proponent, let me say that I do not give a fart whether the Ni-H effect is nuclear or green cheese, as long as it produces far more energy than chemistry with no pollution. It is hard to imagine any issue less important than whether it is nuclear or some sort of Mills effect, or something completely unknown. As long as it works, what difference does it make what it is? Ahern is getting zero counts above background and no transmutation, but with excess heat that would ordinarily indicate something non-chemical. Neither are others seeing any radioactivity. That is a mixed blessing. No, it's wonderful! We don't want radioactivity. Industrial scale transmutation would be nice, but if energy is all it produces, that's fine. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
At 04:52 PM 5/27/2011, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: The only guarantees will be for 4,800 hours run-time - which is a little over six months of continuous use, and a COP of at least six to one (over electrical input). The cost to refuel is unknown but the reactor is sealed, so it will likely be a swap-out arrangement (at the consumers expense). Cost to refuel is crucial. $5000 for 4800 hours run time is $1.04 per hour, or $0.41 per kWh, compared to $0.15 from my local power company. Is Defkalion losing money on every E-Cat but making up for it with volume? Rossi said (extracted from multiple posts): 1- we consume about 1 gram og hydrogen in 24 hours A- We consume 1 gram of hydrogen per E-Cat. All the rest is confidential. 2- a recharge every 6 months is necessary, is less frequent than usual technologies and very cheap. X- We can reach the factor 20, but we guarantee the factor 6. 3- No, we have to change the modules, eventually refueling them at home (so far). Of course the E-Cat can be turned off at any moment. The 6 months duration is based on 24 hours/day operation. 3) do you know, approximately, how much will cost the recharge of the module after the 6 month of working ? 3- 100 $ == $0.02/hr = $0.0087 / kWH (at 2.4kW)
Re: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
Not being a mills expert, how do we know the Mills effect is not nuclear? No radiation and/or transmustation? On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: It may be tough for LENR proponents to swallow, but they better start getting used to the likelihood that this Ni-H effect is NOT nuclear. As a long time proponent, let me say that I do not give a fart whether the Ni-H effect is nuclear or green cheese, as long as it produces far more energy than chemistry with no pollution. It is hard to imagine any issue less important than whether it is nuclear or some sort of Mills effect, or something completely unknown. As long as it works, what difference does it make what it is? Ahern is getting zero counts above background and no transmutation, but with excess heat that would ordinarily indicate something non-chemical. Neither are others seeing any radioactivity. That is a mixed blessing. No, it's wonderful! We don't want radioactivity. Industrial scale transmutation would be nice, but if energy is all it produces, that's fine. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
From: Jed Rothwell * It is hard to imagine any issue less important than whether it is nuclear or some sort of Mills effect, or something completely unknown. As long as it works, what difference does it make what it is? It could be more important than you realize. Fear of the unknown is always a risk factor and let's not forget a heated political climate. And there is always going to be the chance of some kind of Hindenburg silliness anytime hydrogen is employed. No one should be so naïve to imagine that interested parties (i.e. oil or coal companies) would not actually try to stage a fire or other kind of subterfuge - if too many of these get out and start to hurt their profits. Although it might seem to be easier to get into production quickly if it is non-radioactive - that might be problematic since there is always that fear of the unknown, and politicians want to control everything ... so if devices are poised to get to market without an adequate explanation for how they work, then those who might be hurt the most, commercially, will appeal to politicians to delay, delay, delay - lest we unleash some unknown risk factor. Of course UL approval would be an impediment ... that kind of thing. If health issues turns up which can be arguably blamed on the device, that too will be a possible road-block, even if the causal connection is totally bogus. And then there are the patent issues Physicists would probably 'want' it to be nuclear so that their training and world-view is not turned upside down, and could be a major problem if remains a mystery. If there was to be any indication that lots of hydrogen is being consumed (once in mass production) - in the sense of disappearing from 3 dimensions, then that could raise alarms. Where did it go? If there were any climate problem or earthquake/tsunami which happened in a way that could be tied to widespread use, you can bet that fear-mongers will be pointing the finger. Bottom line - It is easy to imagine why and how this might not be easy sailing - especially to the extent is disruptive. Perhaps the high initial cost will actually keep it from appearing to be too disruptive for a year or two, and that could help. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
FW: RE: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
From: francis [mailto:froarty...@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 10:04 PM To: 'a...@lomaxdesign.com' Subject: RE: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat Abd, You just did the same thing as Jones in reverse by stating Pd-D is definitely nuclear based on resulting helium. If these reactions are related then the common denominator is Zero Point chemistry as the initial exothermic reaction - It clearly can lead to nuclear reactions but is already capable of energy production on a nuclear scale by endlessly reversing an exothermic chemical reaction using ZPE of gas motion relative to rapid changes in casimir geometry. The frequencies of these reversals can be even higher than those Jones mentions if Naudts proposal about the hydrino being relativistic turn out to be correct because it means time is accelerated as the energy density is suppressed and the reactions would occur exponentially faster from our perspective. The catalytic action would be from the rapid change in energy density but the average density due to Casimir geometry between powder grains and in pores will be substantially lower than the isotropic value of larger geometries. At 05:38 PM 5/27/2011, Jones Beene wrote: It may be tough for LENR proponents to swallow, but they better start getting used to the likelihood that this Ni-H effect is NOT nuclear. On Fri, 27 May 2011 16:53 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax replied That's way, way to soon to say. Speculating on mechanism is far, far premature. I'm with Dr. Storms in the economy of speculation: start first by speculating that there is some common cause or mechanism behind PdD and NiH reactions. That's just a reasonable place to start, not some kind of proof of something! And PdD most definitely is nuclear. Deuterium - Helium, in short.
Re: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: It could be more important than you realize. Fear of the unknown is always a risk factor and let's not forget a heated political climate. And there is always going to be the chance of some kind of Hindenburg silliness anytime hydrogen is employed. This makes me wonder just how smart AR really is. He has chosen a country in the depths of debt to inaugurate his invention. Coincidence? I don't believe in them. Either he is one of the most lucky dudes in the world, one of the most insightful or he has someone of intelligence advising him? Warren Buffet? Naaa. T
Re: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: It could be more important than you realize. Fear of the unknown is always a risk factor and let's not forget a heated political climate. And there is always going to be the chance of some kind of Hindenburg silliness anytime hydrogen is employed. This makes me wonder just how smart AR really is. He has chosen a country in the depths of debt to inaugurate his invention. Coincidence? I don't believe in them. Either he is one of the most lucky dudes in the world, one of the most insightful or he has someone of intelligence advising him? Warren Buffet? Naaa. Aliens! T
Re: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:31 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Jones is wrong again. It is a nuclear affect. Jones never said it wasn't nuclear . . . just not fusion. I am beginning to be convinced that this is true. Low Energy Nuclear Reactions are not necessarily fusion and THAT is the new physics we need to grasp. T
Re: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:31 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Jones is wrong again. It is a nuclear affect. Jones never said it wasn't nuclear . . . just not fusion. I am beginning to be convinced that this is true. Low Energy Nuclear Reactions are not necessarily fusion and THAT is the new physics we need to grasp. Oh, and BTW, the energy source might not involve nuclear reactions. LOL! Bwaaaha! T
Re: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
There is a halfway state between non-nuclear and nuclear reactions. Let me term this state as shielded nuclear reactions. When heat is produced, nuclear radiation is converted to lattice heating. Otherwise it is released to the outside environment. One of Rossi’s big design challenges is to minimize radiation production through its conversion to lattice heating. Rossi may have found a way to control and manipulate the various variables that govern radiation production in his process to minimize its generation. From this paper by Ficardi et al… *Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems* * * http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSevidenceof.pdf [snip] During the degassing period, the very first acquisition revealed a spectrum (Fig. 5) dramatically different from the background one. During some acquisition sequences sample temperature was changed in the range from 350 to 750K without any detectable variation in the spectrum. Samples were kept 52 days under vacuum before hydrogen admission in order to study extensively the photon emission. After this too prolonged treatment, the system did not produce energy. *It may be that the two phenomena, extended photon emission and energy production, are alternative, and mutually exclusive.*[/snip] On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:31 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Jones is wrong again. It is a nuclear affect. Jones never said it wasn't nuclear . . . just not fusion. I am beginning to be convinced that this is true. Low Energy Nuclear Reactions are not necessarily fusion and THAT is the new physics we need to grasp. Oh, and BTW, the energy source might not involve nuclear reactions. LOL! Bwaaaha! T
