[Vo]:Sunday lecture, vaguely but unfortunately related to LENR
My dear Friends, I am asking you a huge favor; PLEASE disseminate and promote at a distance of least 6 circles intersecting with your personal Circle this: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/10/stop-probletence-pandemic.html Special request to those of yours who Have newsletters or Blogs _ I want to send this everywhere THANK YOU! Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
I read the report you linked to. Their main argument is that CCDs response at the temperature the ecat is operating at has a low reaction curve, i.e. the reaction to temperature change flattens out so it's harder to get an accurate reading with a change in temperature. The method that Williamson is using is a Spot Pyrometer which uses emissivity or for a better word reflectance, that's why they are concerned with the transparency of the object they are measuring at IR wavelengths. Williamson says they have looked at alumina at various temperatures and have included it's varying emissivity into an algorithm to give accurate temperature readings. Since alumina is opaque at the temperature of the ecat and the wavelengths they were measuring in the Lugano report, were of between 7.5u and 13u, they chose the appropriate IR cameras. The only thing that someone might have a question with in regards to the IR cameras and Rossi's ecat is, Were the cameras calibrated properly?, and they say on page 4 of the report that the cameras were calibrated by the respective manufacturers laboratories. Robert Dorr At 10:16 PM 10/25/2014, you wrote: Hank Mills transcript : https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WNDVQVEhmUjJ4ek0/viewhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WNDVQVEhmUjJ4ek0/view But it's still not clear whether they should use 8-14u or 2.5u In any case, their spot pyrometer is most likely more accurate. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.comwww.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8454 - Release Date: 10/25/14 - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8454 - Release Date: 10/25/14
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
As to whether a spot pyrometer is more accurate than an IR camera, I think depends on their use. For small area or pin point measurement I agree that a spot pyrometer may be more accurate, but for large or gross measurement I think the IR camera would be just as accurate if not more so. I think that there is no problem using the IR cameras for accurate measurement of the temperature of the Rossi ecat as long as the cameras were calibrated properly. Robert Dorr At 10:16 PM 10/25/2014, you wrote: Hank Mills transcript : https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WNDVQVEhmUjJ4ek0/viewhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WNDVQVEhmUjJ4ek0/view But it's still not clear whether they should use 8-14u or 2.5u In any case, their spot pyrometer is most likely more accurate. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.comwww.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8454 - Release Date: 10/25/14 - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8454 - Release Date: 10/25/14
RE: [Vo]:A new type of laser is born?
Bob, The overwhelming probability is that the Levi sample was salted - which is to say that it was compromised by the addition of a pure isotope. Show me one US nuclear physicist who would believe otherwise - and fully back Rossi on the issue of in situ manufacture of pure (99.3%) Ni62. I'm convinced that there are none who will back this specific result. The overwhelming probability is that the sample was compromised. The only justification for doing this, expressed by a few here - is that Rossi should be allowed to protect a trade secret and/or to confuse competitors, since he did not have to present the results at all. Which of course casts doubt all of the other conclusions, even if one believes he had the right to do that - since it renders the entire paper, including the excess heat, as little more that non-scientific crap. At best, the justification is lame, if not ridiculous. This is further proved by Rossi's own admission on his blog - to purchasing pure isotopes. According to Rossi, using pure isotopes is how he determined what works and what doesn't. It turns out that commercially available Ni62 is the same percentage enrichment as what was found in the ash. We know Rossi had in his possession the pure isotope and the opportunity, so what else does it take? Since actual deceit was committed in this experiment - as evidenced by the appearance of pure isotope, and since 3-body reactions are extraordinarily rare (millions of times less likely than 2-body) it probably makes no sense to try to justify a false result with an improbable 3-body reaction, simply to try to salvage some value from an experiment that has become diminished by an Inventors desire to confuse potential competitors. Jones -Original Message- From: Robert Ellefson Oops, I see at least one significant typo in the reaction table. The first line should read: Li-7 + Ni-58 + Li-7 + stimulus - 2Li-6 + Ni-60 + sr-gammas This is the first step of the enrichment cycle. -Bob -Original Message- From: Robert Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 5:29 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:A new type of laser is born? I believe that a continuous neutron-exchange reaction cycle is taking place between lithium and nickel, which includes the following reactions: Li-7 + Ni-58 + Li-7 + stimulus - 2Li-6 + Ni-58 + sr-gammas Li-7 + Ni-60 + Li-7 + stimulus - 2Li-6 + Ni-62 + sr-gammas Li-7 + Ni-61 + Li-6 + stimulus - 2Li-6 + Ni-62 + sr-gammas Li-7 + Ni-62 + Li-7 + stimulus - 2Li-7 + Ni-62 + enhanced sr-gammas (no neutrons exchanged) Li-6 + Ni-62 + Li-6 + enhanced stimulus - 2Li-7 + Ni-60 + sr-gammas Li-6 + Ni-64 + Li-6 + stimulus - 2Li-7 + Ni-62 + sr-gammas Li-6 + Ni-60 + Li-6 + stimulus - 2Li-7 + Ni-58 + sr-gammas
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
Use both as a cross check. harry On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Robert Dorr rod...@comcast.net wrote: As to whether a spot pyrometer is more accurate than an IR camera, I think depends on their use. For small area or pin point measurement I agree that a spot pyrometer may be more accurate, but for large or gross measurement I think the IR camera would be just as accurate if not more so. I think that there is no problem using the IR cameras for accurate measurement of the temperature of the Rossi ecat as long as the cameras were calibrated properly. Robert Dorr At 10:16 PM 10/25/2014, you wrote: Hank Mills transcript : https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WNDVQVEhmUjJ4ek0/view But it's still not clear whether they should use 8-14u or 2.5u In any case, their spot pyrometer is most likely more accurate. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8454 - Release Date: 10/25/14 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8454 - Release Date: 10/25/14
[Vo]:Deconstructing Rossi
Vorticians. We have played the deconstructing Rossi game before on vortex - which is to say, trying to look for hidden motives - which could have been there all along, but the overall scenario has been intentionally clouded by conduct which is puzzling at best, and self-destructive at worst. Here is a surprising picture of the hidden motives of Rossi - which fits the current facts of the E-Cat, with greater emphasis on the early work and less on the recent boondoggle. It may make him sound more like a genius than a scoundrel, and he is certainly a bit of both. This is supposition based on believing some of Rossi-speak, but not all of it. First, realize that the around the time of Big Blue in Bologna - the shipping crate loaded with E-Cats, there was actually better evidence for higher COP than at present. Why would any sane Inventor go from a more robust experiment to a less robust version - other than to confuse and to buy time? Thus, here is a deconstruction of Rossi, which makes him look better than he deserves, but answers all of the outstanding questions succinctly. 1) The HotCat in the Levi report was never intended to be anything other than a planned deception. There is little or no gain. It is nothing but a red herring. 2) The low temperature E-Cat is the focus of research and always has been. 3) The so-called megawatt unit is actually NOW a commercial product, purpose-designed for space-heating to serve the Asian market - particularly northern China 4) This is a billion dollar market, currently being served by burning coal which is killing the population with it toxicity in the winter months. 5) The second iteration of the Blue Box for China will contain about 100+ low temp E-Cat sub-units, each with average COP of about 2, but staged in such a way that the net COP is infinite (which is simple to do, when they can be heat-triggered). 6) The Blue Box will be pre-fueled to provide 6 months of winter-time heat, after which it will be replaced (swapped out) for the next season. It is strictly a thermal device with too low a temperature for electrical conversion. 7) The average heat availability will probably be in the range of 500 kW-thermal per hour range with a 4000 hour lifetime at 200 C. This is to be used purely for space heating. 8) The technology is and always has been derived from Thermacore and BLP but that is not a concern for the Chinese market. It is completely non-nuclear. 9) In China, the cost for this heat will actually be considerably more than for the coal which it replaces, but air pollution is such a strong concern there over there that as many 10,000 of the Blue Boxes will be required for Beijing alone. They would like to start shipping soon. 10) It should be no surprise to learn that the Chinese partner is gearing up for full production now, with commercial product to be available this winter. 11) There is almost no real market in the USA for this device - as natural gas is cheap, clean and the supply is growing, due to advances in fracking. And no one wants litigation from BLP so this is an Asia-only product (northern Europe may depend on whether Russia is a credible natural gas supplier) 12) The entire scenario of the HotCat can now be seen as nothing more than a brilliant deception- which was positioned only to give a year or two of extra time for Rossi. With significant cash flow to come in from China, Rossi will try to find a way to make what is essentially the technology of Randell Mills available in the USA. With apologies to Harry Block. (BTW - my spell checker wants to substitute morticians for vorticians which I find amusing in light of what is really an autopsy of a dead report) Jones
Re: [Vo]:A new type of laser is born?
This conjecture aligns with Occham's Razor. If it's true, Rossi has painted himself into a corner. The only real value of the TIP report is its use towards gaining a patent. I have no doubt that the patent examiners would demand to do their own isotope testing, and it would either blow Rossi out of the water or give him pole position in the upcoming patent wars. On 10/26/14, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Bob, The overwhelming probability is that the Levi sample was salted - which is to say that it was compromised by the addition of a pure isotope. Show me one US nuclear physicist who would believe otherwise - and fully back Rossi on the issue of in situ manufacture of pure (99.3%) Ni62. I'm convinced that there are none who will back this specific result. The overwhelming probability is that the sample was compromised. The only justification for doing this, expressed by a few here - is that Rossi should be allowed to protect a trade secret and/or to confuse competitors, since he did not have to present the results at all. Which of course casts doubt all of the other conclusions, even if one believes he had the right to do that - since it renders the entire paper, including the excess heat, as little more that non-scientific crap. At best, the justification is lame, if not ridiculous. This is further proved by Rossi's own admission on his blog - to purchasing pure isotopes. According to Rossi, using pure isotopes is how he determined what works and what doesn't. It turns out that commercially available Ni62 is the same percentage enrichment as what was found in the ash. We know Rossi had in his possession the pure isotope and the opportunity, so what else does it take? Since actual deceit was committed in this experiment - as evidenced by the appearance of pure isotope, and since 3-body reactions are extraordinarily rare (millions of times less likely than 2-body) it probably makes no sense to try to justify a false result with an improbable 3-body reaction, simply to try to salvage some value from an experiment that has become diminished by an Inventors desire to confuse potential competitors. Jones -Original Message- From: Robert Ellefson Oops, I see at least one significant typo in the reaction table. The first line should read: Li-7 + Ni-58 + Li-7 + stimulus - 2Li-6 + Ni-60 + sr-gammas This is the first step of the enrichment cycle. -Bob -Original Message- From: Robert Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 5:29 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:A new type of laser is born? I believe that a continuous neutron-exchange reaction cycle is taking place between lithium and nickel, which includes the following reactions: Li-7 + Ni-58 + Li-7 + stimulus - 2Li-6 + Ni-58 + sr-gammas Li-7 + Ni-60 + Li-7 + stimulus - 2Li-6 + Ni-62 + sr-gammas Li-7 + Ni-61 + Li-6 + stimulus - 2Li-6 + Ni-62 + sr-gammas Li-7 + Ni-62 + Li-7 + stimulus - 2Li-7 + Ni-62 + enhanced sr-gammas (no neutrons exchanged) Li-6 + Ni-62 + Li-6 + enhanced stimulus - 2Li-7 + Ni-60 + sr-gammas Li-6 + Ni-64 + Li-6 + stimulus - 2Li-7 + Ni-62 + sr-gammas Li-6 + Ni-60 + Li-6 + stimulus - 2Li-7 + Ni-58 + sr-gammas
RE: [Vo]:Deconstructing Rossi
Hi Jones, As always, I have learned to appreciate the creativeness of your conjecture. I have to admit, some of your speculation actually comes across to me as plausible... in a fashion. I noticed you came up with 12 deconstructions. Personally, I think that's an awful lot of conjecture to base your deconstructions of the enigma we all know as Rossi. Too many IMO. Consider the house of cards metaphor. Pull out too many cards and what happens to the rest of the elaborate construction? FWIW, I would recommend stepping away from the assembled deconstruction for just a spell. Don't worry, it's not going anywhere. Just sleep on it. It's been my experience that after I engage in creative conjecture of this nature where I have convinced myself that my speculations are spot-on - after a good night's rest I often notice that I become less impressed with the contents of whoever wrote such conjecture the next day. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Deconstructing Rossi
Your theory kind of relies on Levi and Crew being frauds and liars... Because Rossi wouldn't trust them to be incompetent. Conspiracies of that nature just don't work except in the minds of nutjobs. On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Vorticians… We have played the “deconstructing Rossi” game before on vortex – which is to say, trying to look for hidden motives – which could have been there all along, but the overall scenario has been intentionally clouded by conduct which is puzzling at best, and self-destructive at worst. Here is a surprising picture of the hidden motives of Rossi - which fits the current facts of the E-Cat, with greater emphasis on the early work and less on the recent boondoggle. It may make him sound more like a genius than a scoundrel, and he is certainly a bit of both. This is supposition based on believing some of Rossi-speak, but not all of it. First, realize that the around the time of Big Blue in Bologna – the shipping crate loaded with E-Cats, there was actually better evidence for higher COP than at present. Why would any sane Inventor go from a more robust experiment to a less robust version – other than to confuse and to “buy time”? Thus, here is a deconstruction of Rossi, which makes him look better than he deserves, but answers all of the outstanding questions succinctly. 1) The HotCat in the Levi report was never intended to be anything other than a planned deception. There is little or no gain. It is nothing but a red herring. 2) The low temperature E-Cat is the focus of research and always has been. 3) The so-called megawatt unit is actually NOW a commercial product, purpose-designed for space-heating to serve the Asian market – particularly northern China 4) This is a billion dollar market, currently being served by burning coal which is killing the population with it toxicity in the winter months. 5) The second iteration of the Blue Box for China will contain about 100+ low temp E-Cat sub-units, each with average COP of about 2, but staged in such a way that the net COP is infinite (which is simple to do, when they can be heat-triggered). 6) The Blue Box will be pre-fueled to provide 6 months of winter-time heat, after which it will be replaced (swapped out) for the next season. It is strictly a thermal device with too low a temperature for electrical conversion. 7) The average heat availability will probably be in the range of 500 kW-thermal per hour range with a 4000 hour lifetime at 200 C. This is to be used purely for space heating. 8) The technology is and always has been derived from Thermacore and BLP but that is not a concern for the Chinese market. It is completely non-nuclear. 9) In China, the cost for this heat will actually be considerably more than for the coal which it replaces, but air pollution is such a strong concern there over there that as many 10,000 of the Blue Boxes will be required for Beijing alone. They would like to start shipping soon. 10) It should be no surprise to learn that the Chinese partner is gearing up for full production now, with commercial product to be available this winter. 11) There is almost no real market in the USA for this device - as natural gas is cheap, clean and the supply is growing, due to advances in fracking. And no one wants litigation from BLP so this is an Asia-only product (northern Europe may depend on whether Russia is a credible natural gas supplier) 12) The entire scenario of the HotCat can now be seen as nothing more than a brilliant deception- which was positioned only to give a year or two of extra time for Rossi. With significant cash flow to come in from China, Rossi will try to find a way to make what is essentially the technology of Randell Mills available in the USA. With apologies to Harry Block… (BTW - my spell checker wants to substitute “morticians” for “vorticians” which I find amusing in light of what is really an autopsy of a dead report) Jones
Re: [Vo]:Deconstructing Rossi
That being said, I do believe Rossi might have messed with the fuel or the extraction of the fuel in some way to mis direct, so if you want to re-write your analysis to hold for that, I'd be cool with it. I just won't accept that the scientists purposely lied. On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Your theory kind of relies on Levi and Crew being frauds and liars... Because Rossi wouldn't trust them to be incompetent. Conspiracies of that nature just don't work except in the minds of nutjobs. On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Vorticians… We have played the “deconstructing Rossi” game before on vortex – which is to say, trying to look for hidden motives – which could have been there all along, but the overall scenario has been intentionally clouded by conduct which is puzzling at best, and self-destructive at worst. Here is a surprising picture of the hidden motives of Rossi - which fits the current facts of the E-Cat, with greater emphasis on the early work and less on the recent boondoggle. It may make him sound more like a genius than a scoundrel, and he is certainly a bit of both. This is supposition based on believing some of Rossi-speak, but not all of it. First, realize that the around the time of Big Blue in Bologna – the shipping crate loaded with E-Cats, there was actually better evidence for higher COP than at present. Why would any sane Inventor go from a more robust experiment to a less robust version – other than to confuse and to “buy time”? Thus, here is a deconstruction of Rossi, which makes him look better than he deserves, but answers all of the outstanding questions succinctly. 1) The HotCat in the Levi report was never intended to be anything other than a planned deception. There is little or no gain. It is nothing but a red herring. 2) The low temperature E-Cat is the focus of research and always has been. 3) The so-called megawatt unit is actually NOW a commercial product, purpose-designed for space-heating to serve the Asian market – particularly northern China 4) This is a billion dollar market, currently being served by burning coal which is killing the population with it toxicity in the winter months. 5) The second iteration of the Blue Box for China will contain about 100+ low temp E-Cat sub-units, each with average COP of about 2, but staged in such a way that the net COP is infinite (which is simple to do, when they can be heat-triggered). 6) The Blue Box will be pre-fueled to provide 6 months of winter-time heat, after which it will be replaced (swapped out) for the next season. It is strictly a thermal device with too low a temperature for electrical conversion. 7) The average heat availability will probably be in the range of 500 kW-thermal per hour range with a 4000 hour lifetime at 200 C. This is to be used purely for space heating. 8) The technology is and always has been derived from Thermacore and BLP but that is not a concern for the Chinese market. It is completely non-nuclear. 9) In China, the cost for this heat will actually be considerably more than for the coal which it replaces, but air pollution is such a strong concern there over there that as many 10,000 of the Blue Boxes will be required for Beijing alone. They would like to start shipping soon. 10) It should be no surprise to learn that the Chinese partner is gearing up for full production now, with commercial product to be available this winter. 11) There is almost no real market in the USA for this device - as natural gas is cheap, clean and the supply is growing, due to advances in fracking. And no one wants litigation from BLP so this is an Asia-only product (northern Europe may depend on whether Russia is a credible natural gas supplier) 12) The entire scenario of the HotCat can now be seen as nothing more than a brilliant deception- which was positioned only to give a year or two of extra time for Rossi. With significant cash flow to come in from China, Rossi will try to find a way to make what is essentially the technology of Randell Mills available in the USA. With apologies to Harry Block… (BTW - my spell checker wants to substitute “morticians” for “vorticians” which I find amusing in light of what is really an autopsy of a dead report) Jones
Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component
The total instantaneous power into the system can be calculated by taking the instantaneous source voltage and multiplying it by the instantaneous source current. It does not matter whether you want to call it AC or DC since this is the total that is being delivered. There is no more, regardless of how the load changes resistance. If you then integrate the instantaneous power over the time period of interest, you get the total energy delivered by that source. The requirement is that you must accurately measure the voltage and current waveforms during the period of interest. If someone can show that the measuring system used by McKubre was not capable of following the waveforms then they might have a valid point. I suspect the Mike knew how to make these measurements in an accurate manner. The skeptics need to demonstrate otherwise. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Oct 24, 2014 10:47 am Subject: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component Barry Kort on Dr bob blog reported challenging critiques of McKubre experiments http://www.drboblog.com/cbs-60-minutes-on-cold-fusion/#comment-37932 maybe some already have the debunking, the correction... i imagien it is addressed: About a year after CBS 60 Minutes aired their episode on Cold Fusion, I followed up with Rob Duncan to explore Richard Garwin’s thesis that McKubre was measuring the input electric power incorrectly. It turns out that McKubre was reckoning only the DC power going into his cells, and assuming (for arcane technical reasons) there could not be any AC power going in, and therefore he didn’t need to measure or include any AC power term in his energy budget model. Together with several other people, I helped work out a model for the omitted AC power term in McKubre’s experimental design. Our model showed that there was measurable and significant AC power, arising from the fluctuations in ohmic resistance as bubbles formed and sloughed off the surface of the palladium electrodes. Our model jibed with both the qualitative and quantitative evidence from McKubre’s reports: 1) McKubre (and others) noted that the excess heat only appeared after the palladium lattice was fully loaded. And that’s precisely when the Faradaic current no longer charges up the lattice, but begins producing gas bubbles on the surfaces of the electrodes. 2) The excess heat in McKubre’s cells was only apparent, significant, and sizable when the Faradaic drive current was elevated to dramatically high levels, thereby increasing the rate at which bubbles were forming and sloughing off the electrodes. 3) The effect was enhanced if the surface of the electrodes was rough rather than polished smooth, so that larger bubbles could form and cling to the rough surface before sloughing off, thereby alternately occluding and exposing somewhat larger fractions of surface area for each bubble. The time-varying resistance arising from the bubbles forming and sloughing off the surface of the electrodes — after the cell was fully loaded, enhanced by elevated Faradaic drive currents and further enhanced by a rough electrode surface — produced measurable and significant AC noise power into the energy budget model that went as the square of the magnitude of the fluctuations in the cell resistance. To a first approximation, a 17% fluctuation in resistance would nominally produce a 3% increase in power, over and above the baseline DC power term. Garwin and Lewis had found that McKubre’s cells were producing about 3% more heat than could be accounted for with his energy measurements, where McKubre was reckoning only the DC power going into his cells, and (incorrectly) assuming there was no AC power that needed to be measured or included in his energy budget model. I suggest slapping an audio VU meter across McKubre’s cell to measure the AC burst noise from the fluctuating resistance. Alternatively use one of McKubre’s constant current power supplies to drive an old style desk telephone with a carbon button microphone. I predict the handset will still function: if you blow into the mouthpiece, you’ll hear it in the earpiece, thereby proving the reality of an AC audio signal riding on top of the DC current.
RE: [Vo]:A new type of laser is born?
Occam's Razor is a tool used by enfeebled minds to construct paper houses out of tree bark shavings. Real thinkers use chain saws and portable lumber mills to build their houses. -Bob -Original Message- From: Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 5:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A new type of laser is born? This conjecture aligns with Occham's Razor. If it's true, Rossi has painted himself into a corner. On 10/26/14, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Bob, The overwhelming probability is that the Levi sample was salted - which is to say that it was compromised by the addition of a pure isotope. Show me one US nuclear physicist who would believe otherwise - and fully back Rossi on the issue of in situ manufacture of pure (99.3%) Ni62. -Original Message- From: Robert Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 5:29 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:A new type of laser is born? I believe that a continuous neutron-exchange reaction cycle is taking place between lithium and nickel, which includes the following reactions:
Re: [Vo]:A new type of laser is born?
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.com wrote: Occam's Razor is a tool used by enfeebled minds to construct paper houses out of tree bark shavings. Real thinkers use chain saws and portable lumber mills to build their houses. Bayes' theorem and plain old intuition aren't that bad, either. ;) Eric
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
The actual measurement that I am interesting in is the amount of power being radiated and convected away from the device. If the effective temperature can be manipulated by some process that results in less than expected power emission, then we are being fooled. That is the root of my reservations. I have little doubt that excess power is being generated internally by the ECAT core, but an accurate accounting of that power eludes me thus far. The earlier version of the ECAT with the black painted surface appears to be subject to less error in these important calculations. It is unfortunate that the latest version remains so difficult to verify. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Oct 26, 2014 11:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON Use both as a cross check. harry On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Robert Dorr rod...@comcast.net wrote: As to whether a spot pyrometer is more accurate than an IR camera, Ithink depends on their use. For small area or pin point measurement Iagree that a spot pyrometer may be more accurate, but for large or grossmeasurement I think the IR camera would be just as accurate if not moreso. I think that there is no problem using the IR cameras for accuratemeasurement of the temperature of the Rossi ecat as long as the cameraswere calibrated properly. Robert Dorr At 10:16 PM 10/25/2014, you wrote: Hank Mills transcript :https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WNDVQVEhmUjJ4ek0/view But it's still not clear whether they should use 8-14u or 2.5u In any case, their spot pyrometer is most likely more accurate. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8454 - Release Date:10/25/14 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8454 - Release Date: 10/25/14
