At 10:46 AM 2/21/5, thomas malloy wrote [in the BBC Horizon to feature Taleyarkhan] thread:
>Do you recall what the thermal efficiency that LANL observed was? It was measured 98 percent, which I assume includes a 2 percent error. Following or some hilights from the vrtex posts at the time. At 11:52 AM 2/13/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Re: Japanese Yusmar Experiments. >> >>One of my friends is now at Wakabayashi-san, the professor >>of Japanese at our local University for a complete translation >>of the documents coming from FIELD CO. However I was able to >>understand the raw data for two experiments. >>The setup is with immersed pump plus a Yusmar in a metal container. >>The water is recirculated in the container. >> >>1-st experiment. >>300 liters of water are heated from 23.5 to 55.2 deg Celsius in >>100 minutes. The motor takes 11.5 Amps. (380 Volts). >> >>2-nd experiment. >>150 liters of water are heated from 31.0 to 87.6 deg Celsius in >>170 minutes. The motor takes 7.5 Amps. (380 Volts). >> >If this is a normal 3-phase power system, the total volt-amp into the motor >is given by (Sqrt 3) X V_line-line X I_line. In Exp. 1 this is (1.73)(380 >V)(11.5 A) = 7.6 kVA, and in Exp. 2 it is 4.9 kVA. > >The thermal power is (sp. heat)(mass)(delta T)/time, if heat leaks are >negligible. (If heat leaks were significant, then that fact should be >mentioned; otherwise the data do not characterize the Yusmar.) In Exp. 1 >the thermal power is (4185 j/kg/C)(300 kg)(31.7 C)/(6000 s) = 6600 j/s = >6.6 kW. In Exp. 2 the result is 3.5 kW. > >In neither experiment does the raw data support a claim of over unity. > >Michael J. Schaffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 >General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA At 10:59 AM 7/24/96, Chris Tinsley wrote: >Frank, > >Give my regards to Peter Glueck, who is a nice guy. But you should appreciate >that whilst I wish you all good fortune with the Yusmar at LANL, Potapov took >'our' (Jed Rothwell's and Athur C Clarke's) good money for several of the >devices and then *failed even to acknowledge* all our requests for assistance >when they didn't work. And no help was forthcoming for the St Petersburg tests >either. > >It is no good Peter telling you that we didn't do as we were supposed to do. >Scott Little and Gene Mallove are not stupid people, they did their best with >what information they received. > >Please explain to Peter and to Potapov that we are distinctly *unhappy* about >the whole affair, since we acted in good faith which was not reciprocated. > >You should appreciate that we regard the present activities in the US with very >mixed feelings. I suggest also that you communicate these matters to your >business associates. > >I look forward to hearing the responses of those to whom you communicate these >views. > >Chris At 5:12 PM 8/10/96, Ron McFee wrote: >Greetings Vortejanos > >I am please to report that the Yusmar Company representatives Yuri >Semionovich Potapov and his son Semion Yurievich Potapov are presently >in Los Alamos, New Mexico to demonstrate one of their second generation >Yusmar devices. The device is being set up according to the Potapovs' >instructions, and we will begin diagnostics next week. Los Alamos National >Laboratory has signed a limited non-disclosure agreement which I believe >will allow full publication of the test results. Peter Glueck of Cluj, >Romania has accompanied Yuri and Semion and is serving as advisor and >interpreter. The device will have an input power of approximately >5.6 Kilowatts (7.5 HP) of three phase 220 Volt electricity to the motor >and should according to Potapov predictions produce about 10 Kilowatts >of thermal energy. These test are being conducted with limited >discretionary resources by Los Alamos; the Yusmar, motor, pump and piping >being the property of the Yusmar Company. Los Alamos is providing power, >water, and diagnostic testing. The Yusmar was hand carried to Los Alamos >by Yuri, the remainder of the device was procured locally and assembled >in a private Los Alamos machine shop at Yusmar Company expense. > >Regards, Ron At 9:35 AM 8/19/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi all > > John Barron and I are now at home. We had an enjoyable and busy > trip at Los Alamos. We arrived at LanL Friday morning. What I > treat. Double row fences around buildings with guard towers and > signs that say, "Warning do not cross fences buried explosives." > I guess the whole area is land minded. We finally got into area > 26 as guests of the Yusmar company. There we met Thomas Clator > and Ron McFee two very nice people. We spent the day at LanL > and completed several tests. Afterwords, Yuri invited us for > dinner at Ron's house. Yuri cooked us up a fish dinner. It was > very good. Yuri is a good cook. > The next day we travel to Santa Fe to visit with Dr. Ed Storms. > Ed was a very welcome host. He lives in a beautiful mansion on > a the buff of a cliff that overlooks all of Santa Fe. His wife > Carol made us lunch. We sat on the balcony overlooking Santa > Fe and enjoyed it. Carol is a very beautiful and intelligent > woman. Ed Storms and Chip Ransford, who was also there, spent a > few hours with us showing us their work. Ed has quite a set up > in his basement. Ed was very open and explained everything that > he was doing. Chip showed us his reactor. > After visiting storms we met Richard T. Murry, a member of > this list, and reviewed the latest developments in cold fusion. > Richard is sending me some very interesting papers on sono > luminescence. > The tests at Lanl did not come out as well as expected. > The average C.O.P. was .96. John Barron and I were quite > concerned about this. We both are good judges of character and > we know Yuri and Peter are telling the truth. What went wrong? > John Barron, who is an expert in impeller design, and I > discussed it. We think we know what the problem is. In fact I > am quite sure I know what is going wrong. Today the Yusmar is > being shipped from Lanl to our shop in Pennsylvania. We are not > going to test it, we plan to get it working. After we get set > up Yuri is coming to work with us. The device did cavatate but > was not producing anomalous energy. I know why Ed Storms gave > me the clue that I needed. For John Barron, Yuri, and I the > adventure has just begun. > ................................... > > > "The reason that I have seen so far is that I have stood on the > shoulders of giants." Albert Einstein > > My giants are: > > Yuri Potapov, Ron McFee, Hal Puthoff, Scott Little, Frank > Stenger, Tom Clator, Ed Storms, John Barron, Hal Fox, Jed > Rothwell, Gene Mallove, James Patterson, Peter Glueck, George > Miley, and many more. Each of these persons has met with or > openly spoke with me. This has allowed me to see a farther into > the darkness. I plan to use my now clearing but still muddy > vision to get the Yusmar working. We will do it. > > Frank Znidarsic > > At 4:13 PM 8/19/96, Jed Rothwell wrote: >To: Vortex > >I was mystified by the enthusiastic tone of Frank Znidarsic's's report on the >Potapov tests at Los Alamos. I had been hearing reports of problems with the >pump, delays, breakdowns, and no excess heat. On Saturday the final word came: >the Potapov Device produced no excess heat and the tests at Los Alamos have >been terminated. Then Frank posted this sunny message: > > "The tests at Lanl did not come out as well as expected. The average > C.O.P. was .96. John Barron and I were quite concerned about this. . . > . What went wrong? John Barron, who is an expert in impeller design, > and I discussed it. We think we know what the problem is. In fact I am > quite sure I know what is going wrong." > >I could not imagine why anyone could be so enthusiastic about what appeared to >be an unmitigated fiasco. So I called Ed Storms to get his take on the >situation. He was not present during the tests, but he talked to Znidarsic's, >Potapov, Gluck and others. According to Ed, this is what happened on the >Friday, the last day of testing. There was no sign of excess heat all day. >Potapov said that the pump and equipment "did not sound right." It did not >seem to be cavitating enough. Late in the afternoon they found air bubbles in >the pipes, which probably came from air that had been dissolved in the water. >They bled off the air and tried again. This time, the sound of the machine >changed distinctly and Potapov said it was working right. The temperature rose >more quickly than before. (I do not have any numbers; I hope that someone who >was there will post some.) The pressure also rose sharply. After about three >minutes, a pressure seal broke, and the run had to be terminated. This was >late in the afternoon. There was no time left to repair the thing. The Los >Alamos engineers, who had volunteered to work on this thing for a week said >they had enough. They asked that the equipment be removed and no further >testing be done. I can understand their frustration, although if I had seen >the glimmering of an interesting result I might have stuck it out one more >day. In view of this partial success, Znidarsic's and the others agreed to >move the tests back to their own turf in Pennsylvania. > >Well . . . I hope it works out. > >I would not be as sanguine about these results as Frank is. If I were Potapov, >I would apologize to the Los Alamos staff for wasting their time. At the risk >of sounding like an old fuddy-duddy, let me repeat what I said the other day >about Joe Champion. Put your best foot forward! Be prepared! Potapov was given >a golden opportunity to demonstrate his device at America's preeminent physics >laboratory. He blew it! He should have brought a fully tested system, with a >pump. Chris Tinsley says the pumps in Moldova are attached to external >electric motors, so they could have hooked up a Russian pump to an American >motor. They should have done that here in the U.S. a few months ahead of the >Los Alamos test. They should have run the machine for weeks beforehand. Of >course he should have done that -- who wouldn't? Any junior engineer assigned >to set up a demo system at a trade show would have prepared more >conscientiously than Potapov did. You *must* bring every component you will >need. (If you cannot transport something, you must send someone ahead to be >sure everything is waiting on site.) You must bring spare parts and tools. You >must spell out in advance what you intend to do and bring handouts and sample >data from previous runs. In a demonstration at a National Laboratory the >stakes are high and a professional will take every reasonable precaution to >assure success. As far as I know, Potapov took no precautions and did no >pre-testing here in the U.S., even though we warned him repeatedly that his >machines do not work with U.S. equipment. > >I want to emphasize that I am criticizing this behavior strictly from a >business point of view. This has nothing to do with the scientific content of >Potapov's claims. When you go into Los Alamos to sell bubble gum vending >machines to the Food Service Department you should be prepared to give a >polished, professional presentation. YOU SHOULD NOT WASTE PEOPLE'S TIME while >you scramble to make your machine work! I think any businessman would agree >with me. > >It is a crying shame that these people have *again* blown a wonderful >opportunity. Let me emphasize that: Again! For the fourth time they have >thrown away the chance to achieve credibility! Why?!? The machines were been >tested by Scott Little, Gene Mallove, the Univ. of St. Petersburg. In every >case, Potapov was told exactly what the testers were doing. He was told they >were getting no excess heat. He did not lift a finger to help. If he had only >cooperated last year we could have solved these problems. (Assuming the gadget >actually works, which I find increasingly unlikely.) Potapov could have gone >into Los Alamos with one of our systems pretested and certified to work with >U.S. equipment. We asked *nothing* in return. We bought the Yusmars from him >and paid for the pumps and other equipment (with generous help from Arthur >Clarke). Why didn't he cooperate? Peter Gluck gave bizarre reasons that made >no sense to me or anyone else connected with the project, including a critique >of tent calorimetry straight out of Alice in Wonderland. At first I thought >this was cultural gap between former communists and us capitalists, but I >gather the people in St. Petersburg were as puzzled as we were, so that can't >be it. I will never understand the reasons. Was it anger, fear, distrust, >paranoia, a control fetish, a low opinion of our technical abilities? Did >overweening self-confidence make Potapov think he could march into Los Alamos >without help or preparation? He should have had experienced U.S. scientists >standing by -- people who had worked with this product successfully for >months, who knew it inside out. Gene Mallove or Scott Little would have been >perfect. It would have cost him *nothing* to bring them up to speed, and it >would have guaranteed success. Instead, he made a fool of himself and wasted a >lot of other people's time and money. I hope he did not embarrass Ron McFee >and Tom Claytor, who stuck their necks out on his behalf. They deserve a round >of applause. > >I have seen this same kind self-destructive Inventor's Disease in too many >other scientists, from Pons and Fleischmann, to CETI, to E-Quest. It breaks my >heart. > >- Jed At 12:48 PM 8/20/96, Akira Kawasaki wrote: >Vortexians, > > Shortly after I made the earlier vortex post, I received a telephone >call from Peter Glueck now at Cold Fusion Center in Salt Lake City, >Utah. He did not accompany Potapove to Philedelphia but went on to Utah >to read up on the Center's CF resources. > > According to Peter, the limited tests were conducted during a strict >timetable of one week (five working days -- 9 to 5?). During the first >two days, they were beset by basically electrical problems. The third >day late, after adjustments, definite O/U was achieved. The fourth day, >a cover blew off of the setup and welding resources were not available >around on-site. Efforts to repair and continue were fustrated by lack >of time, freedom of movement (in and out of LANL), concern of LANL for >their own security and everybody's safety, and the built-in >bureaucracy. The fifth day was essentially wasted. So ended the LANL >visit. > > The LANL enviroment reminded Peter of the old days in Communist >Romania and it was not nostalgia. So it was nothing unusual for the >Potapov party but it was not ideal for the purpose that Potapov and >party went there to accomplish or prove for their device and science. > > There was zero computer e-mail access allowed. Extensive video taping >was not outlawed but not permitted(?). External telephone calls were >not encouraged. Not much physical movement to in or out of LANL was >encouraged also. And whatever budgetary limits there were to executing >the tests, it was not allowed to be exceeded although Potapov offered >to pay for it. > > So I am relaying to vortex what I heard from Peter from Salt Lake >City. Perhaps I did not hear everythiong correctly. A more correct >version should be written and posted by Peter when he gets around to >subscribing on the Vortex. > > The LANL instrumentation was great and Potapov will be getting them. > > Confidence in Yusmar's O/U is not shaken by Potapov or Glueck. > > -AK- At 4:44 PM 8/21/96, Ron McFee wrote: > >Greetings Vortejanos > >To balance all second and third hand reports concerning the Los Alamos >testing of Yuri Potapov's second generation Yusmar I will add my own >unofficial first hand comments. We (Tom Claytor, Jon Sollid, Mark Schwab, >et al.) will be publishing an official report which will be publicly >available soon. > >During three days of actively testing of the Yusmar last week no anomalous >energy production was observed. While this does not prove that such a device >can not produce energy under the right conditions, the test was inconclusive >in that no excess energy was observed in any of the tests including the >last one when the pressure was increased. Yuri had predicted in advance >that the device would produce an excess 80% energy. If it had been observed >to produce greater than 5% more energy, then the tests would probably have >continued at an increased level of effort. Since NO excess energy was >observed, it was decided to terminate the tests at the close of business >Friday, August 16th. > >The visit of Potapov and Company which included Yuri, his son Semion, >and Peter Gluck was in my opinion no fiasco. He and his Company have an >open invitation to return for a repeat demonstration of any fully integrated >system whenever they wish. Indeed I hope that the testing at Los Alamos >will encourage Yuri to make his systems available for testing by other >interested parties in the US and other countries. > >The initial testing of the Yusmar were dynamic tests in which initially 5 and >later 7.5 kilowatts of three phase 460/380 Volt power (not the 220 as I stated >earlier) were used to power a submerged motor and pump. This drove water >through the vortex unit in a closed loop back to the pump. At the same time >temperature measurements were made at various locations on the device. The >mass of the device was measured empty and then filled with water so that >the heat capacity of the device was known to better than a percent. By >observing the rate at which the device heated up one could observe whether >any anomalous energy was produced. In all cases the observed heating up >was slower than the energy added to the system in the form of electricity. >When the device was uninsulated there was about a 10% decrement which could >be explained by convective heat losses to the surroundings. When the >device was well insulated, the heat loses were less than 5%. In no case >did the device heat up faster than could be accounted by the input electric >power. The temperature range in which the device was tested was between 25 >and 70 degrees Celsius. > >We would have liked to test the device at a high steady state temperature >with flow meters and a proper heat exchanger. Frank Znidarsic and his partner >John Barron will take delivery of the Yusmar device which as far as I know >is still the property of the Yusmar Company and proceed to test it in this >fashion. Also I believe that the Los Alamos tests may have had too much >air dissolved in the water. By adding a heat exchanger and possibly different >pumps different parameters can be tested than were possible at Los Alamos. > >Instead of a fiasco, I consider the Los Alamos tests to be an initial step >in testing the Yusmars. I hope that the Yusmar Company will begin selling >and shipping units to the US as soon as possible so that everyone can make >their own tests of properly integrated systems. > >Regards, Ron At 11:32 AM 8/22/96, Mark Hugo, Northern wrote: >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: A BROAD COMMENTARY ON THE POTOPOV FIASCO.... >- >I'm still climbing the walls! What, AM I A SIMPLETON or what? I'm frustrated >at both P. and everyone else! If P has a successful device, then >he damned well better get the following components to the US: 1. Pump, >2. Yusmar, 3. Pipe with radiator fins, and probably 4. WATER from his >area. >- >Then one sets up a closed loop. One puts in a standard water company >total flow device (AMETEK, at Surplus places for $50!!!!!!) On puts a >thermocouple on the input to the radiating loop and the output. >- >One puts the differential on the TC's to a chart recorder. On takes a >stop watch and finds out how much flow goes through in a minute. Flow >times Delta T times Cp = power out. Power in is read at the power company's >watt/hour meter going into the building. Am I missing something? System >is run a steady state. Anything between 10% to 50% excess is academic >interest. Anything 0 to 10% excess is observational error. Anything >above 50% has commercial potential. >- >Is that clear enough? Last: If P. CANNOT supply pump, pipe, and Yusmar....then >his sales and alledged success in the former communist block contries is >a fraud. Period. It's a show...he's running a scam... >- >MDH And of course I have to offer my two cents worth... At 10:36 AM 8/27/96, Horace Heffner wrote: >Akira Kawasaki writes: > >>The Volume 1 No. 3 issue of Infinite Energy has the reports of Earth >>Tech's and Mallov group's tests with their Yusmar units. >> >>Page 16, Mallove writes of Mr. Robert Smith of Oakton International in >>Virginia. He saw (and heard) a Yusmar in a cosmonaut training facility >>near Moscow. The sound level of the unit was deafening. >> >>Both Mallove and Little certifies that their units did not make such >>"deafening" sound. Also some physical features inside the exit tubes >>were missing on their units. >> >>Page 21 of the same issue has Earth Tech reporting on Round 3 test on >>July 10, 1995 has this table (one of several: >> Wattmeter Pressure Pressure >># Disk rev. Bath Temp time (inlet) (bypass) >> >>1. 0 27.5 9:37:06 64 +5 >>2. 98 31.8 9:49:50 65 5 >>3. 217 37.0 10:06:00 25 3 >>4. 287 39.8 10:19:20 24 3 >>5. 369 45.2 10:35:20 24 3 >>6. 595 51.5 11:17:00 25 3 >> > >This is a prime example of the ineffectiveness of the bypass of the Yusmar >as a sonic feedback mechanism. The pressure is far too low for it be >effective. It is also placed in the wrong location to be effective in >generating a hammering effect. The best location for such feedback is >where the Yusmar takes its primary input. i.e. at Pc in "TOP VIEW" below. >To utilize amplification of the vortex triode to the maximum the primary >flow should be at Pj with the feedback directed to the flow at Pc. The >pressure bypass was clearly not designed to operate as a sonic feedback >mechanism, but rather as a means of increasing vertical flow by reducing >some of the vacuum in the vortex by entering the Yusmar at O. However, >regardless of where the bypass enters, *some* sonic feedback should occur, >so the bypass should enhance any o-u effect dependent upon sonic >cavitation. It is notable that if the only functionality of the bypass >were to relieve pressure then the "bypass" could simply be fed by splitting >the feed from the pump. > >TOP VIEW > > Pj > | | > | | > --------------- . > Pc ------------- . > . . > . . > . O . > . . > . . . > >Pc - Control pressure >Pj - Main fluid flow pressure >O - vertical drain >.. - walls of vortex chamber > > >The lack of pump cavitation which occurs prior to reading 3 above indicates >that the Yusmar, by itself, can not sustain the required sonic feedback to >generate cavitation. The pump therefore must play a role in achieving the >sonic feedback required for resonant cavitation. Clearly, the Yumar plays >a significant role in heating the water to a point where cavitation takes >less energy. The water is closer to the boiling point, so steam bubbles >form faster and with less sonic energy. As to the o-u heat generation, it >is obvious that it would be useful to put thermistors at numerous places in >the fluid circuits to see if heat is also being generated in the cavitating >pump, the pump outlet, etc. > >So what can be done to improve efficiency, assuming the o-u performance is >due at least in part to sonic cavitation, possibly aided by extreme shear >of the vortex? One possibility is to insert a sound generation device, a >"whistle" in the feed at Pc. Another is to insert the whistle in the >bypass and supply it from the main pressure feed: > > >TOP VIEW > > > --------------- . > Pc ------------- . > || . . > || . . > |===W======== O . > . . > . . . > >Pc - Control pressure >Pj - Main fluid flow pressure >O - vertical drain and entrance to vortex tube >.. - walls of large vortex chamber >W - whistle device > > >This has the effect of meeting pressure relieving the needs of the bypass >while providing sonic vibrations transverse to the shear planes of the >vortex. The sonic waves travel right down the vortex tube due to their >introduction right above O, the entrance to the vortex tube from the large >vortex chamber. It could be that the combination of shear and transverse >sonic vibrations is a key ingredient to o-u. > >The sonic contribution of W can be piezoelectrically, mechanically, or >fluidicallly generated or controlled, and thus is under much more >controlled conditions for experimental purposes. Regards, Horace Heffner
