RE: [Vo]:Defkalion factory visit?
So adept at stating the obvious. You're about as useful as tits on a bullfrog. -m From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 1:23 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion factory visit? How do you figure that from those posts? I'll believe it when you have an appointment, a specific agenda to test something by a particular method, and a street address. Until then it's vapor and not steam. On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: Seems a door has been opened for me to visit the Defkalion Hyperion factory in GreeceSNIP
RE: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
MY wrote: I can also determine if proper scientific method has most likely been followed. Rossi and Defkalion fail *miserably* in both categories I know about. You can't fail at something that you never agreed to achieve. Rossi has said from the out-set (i.e., January 2010) that he was NOT INTERESTED in performing scientific tests and/or submitting results to peer-review. what part of NOT INTERESTED don't you understand? At the most, he has failed to meet YOUR requirements. so what, he also never agreed to your requirements. He leaves it up to his customers, and if they are too stupid to determine whether the E-Cat is producing the claimed energy amplification, then that's their problem. A fool and his money. or they will have a head start in what will be the most interesting race to profitability in the history of the planet! -m
RE: [Vo]:Thermacore reported heat well above recombination
Mary: Despite the fact that you have only been following CF/LENR for a year, whereas most of the regulars on Vortex have been following it since 1989, you should at least have a clue that there are 22 years of some very revealing HISTORY behind CF/LENR, and much of it does NOT reflect well on the scientific process. You and your cohort need to take off the rose colored glasses and realize the HUMANS are doing science. With humans comes all the things that make us human, like ambition, greed, protecting your turf, jealousy, fear, envy, etc. John Bockris at Texas AM went thru three investigations which proved he and his lab didn't do anything wrong, and yet, his OWN colleagues at TAM still tried to silence him because they feared (that's a human trait) that their college/Department would get ridiculed. Even science is filled with politics and egos. Your views are way too idealistic for the real world... Ever see that movie 'Clueless'? You want the scientific process to work right all the time... yeah, don't hold your breath... maybe in a few hundred years. -mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 5:35 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Thermacore reported heat well above recombination I should make a comment on the MIT report, mentioned by Jed ... or lack of one. Haldeman was the head of Lincoln Labs at MIT for years, which was the premiere physics Lab in the World at the time. CERN may make the claim now, but I think they are comparative bumblers. Anyway, as I understand it, Haldeman wanted to stay on after retirement as a consultant - and as a result of their deal - he could not file the complete report on Ni-H and Mills/Thermacore - due to political pressure from the Hot Fusion group, and the fact that Mallove had already exposed the recalibration fraud with the PF experiment. They did not want any more negative publicity. Here is what Tom Stolper has to say about this episode in his fine book, which everyone interested in Ni-H should put at the top of their reading list. It is on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Genius-Inventor-controversy-historical-contemporary/dp /1419643045/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8qid=1324085375sr=8-2 Haldeman's team at MIT's Lincoln Lab verified excess power production from the old [Thermacore] cells long ago, and so did Michael Jacox at the Idaho National Engineering Lab. Those labs were, and are, as reputable as one can get. No, I never did see the replications at MIT's Lincoln Lab or at INEL, but I did speak with Haldeman and Jacox years ago, as well as another engineer at INEL. I also spoke with management at Lincoln Lab and asked for a copy of the report there but got stonewalled. At INEL, the public relations people claimed never to have heard of Mills. Haldeman was very impressed with the performance of his final cell and recommended that further studies be made, in particular studies of the newer gas-phase cells of greater power (which have since been succeeded by the plasma cells of even greater power). Jacox was also impressed, but being more junior at INEL at the time than Haldeman was at MIT, Jacox wasn't able to get as far before his managers, like the managers at the Lincoln Lab, decided that Mills' cells were too hot to handle (pun intended). Where is Tom Stolper these days anyway? He used to contribute here on Vortex, and I would love to hear his take on Rossi. Jones From: Jed Rothwell Stephen A. Lawrence has been fretting about the Thermacore NASA study, which said: However, the present data do admit efficient recombination of dissolved hydrogen-oxygen as an ordinary explanation. Stop worrying about it. They published a later study in which input was I*V and output exceeded it by a large margin, easily measured. I think that was the MIT report. I am sure Jones Beene is right and this was dropped because of politics. That is always the reason. - Jed attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Statistics and LENR and Thermodynamics - a new theory.
Hi Horace, You stated: Note that this also represents a pressure to the vacuum of 5.8678x10^111 Pa. Which ties in perfectly with my qualitative model of the vacuum as a medium which is under extreme tension or pressure, but with extremely little viscosity. Thus, if you were to 'strike' a small local area, it will oscillate (ring) for a very, very long time (what's the lifetime of a proton or electron?). Why doesn't the oscillation spread out? Due to the vacuum being made up of smaller, polarizable elements, the oscillation affects the surrounding elements and they polarize (perhaps manifesting as E and/or B fields?) which then acts like a kind of surface tension or barrier to contain the oscillating elements to a very small spacial area... which we perceive as e-, p+, or quarks, which then combine to form e-, p+, n. -Mark
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion tells a reader : visit us
Hate to sound paranoid, but, do you get the feeling like someone is watching us? :-) Which reminds me of Feynman's story about being in the military's recruiting office... -mark -Original Message- From: Alan J Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 4:39 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion tells a reader : visit us M.Y. : Can you mention the name of any well known scientist, engineer, reporter or major company which has visited you, been favorably impressed by the technology you showed them, and with whom we could get confirmation of the visit? No trade secrets or product specifications are requested -- only an opinion from someone or some company independent of your people and Rossi's-- who has visited your factory and/or lab and has come away with a positive impression. DKT : You had your chance MaryYugo which you dropped for the sake of your precious anonymity. Why you ask from others to confirm us now? Chao PS Please do not confuse(*) Xanthou street, Glyfada, where our HQ is, with Xanthi town, when we have our main factory and one of our labs. There are just 780km away from each other. (*) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg58942.html
RE: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
I think I've watched all of Thane's vids and from what I remember, there is a lower limit (RPM) where the acceleration will not happen, but if you start at, or above, that RPM, then shorting the coils causes very significant acceleration (IIRC, 100rpm/sec) from say 1700 RPM to over 3000. I wouldn't be surprised if it would continue to well past 3400 which is double where he started from... not sure what to make of it yet! At one point he was using two different types of coils, hi-frequency coils and hi-current coils; not sure if his latest stuff is still using both types. Just engaging the high current coils to light a bank of small incandescent bulbs WILL bring the induction motor to a HALT. Engaging the high current coils AND the hi-frequency coils results in not only lighting the bulbs, but a very large increase in speed which he limits to ~3000-3100 RPM. Go figure? -Mark -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 7:03 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Robert Leguillon 2) Shorting the coil does create a collapsing magnetic field. The time constant of the collapsing field is proportional to the resistance to electrical current. If the shorted coil collapses at just the right speed w.r.t. the disk rotation, it would cause a push in the direction of rotation. There could be a higher rpm of rotation at a lower torque value, and only within the narrow band of rotation frequency. If there is a right speed the values start at lower speed limit and range upwards continuously. Thane does not know if there is an upper limit. Harry
[Vo]: Resonances, cont'd
FYI: See excerpt at end of message for more evidence for what I've been thinking of for 30 years, and harping on here for the last year or more. J Point of interest: The nanoclusters only formed when a specific amount of heat was present. which means that that specific amount of heat caused some kind of long-lived localized coherence or resonance. Makes no difference if you add more heat, or remove heat, either would destroy the resonant conditions and the nanoclusters and colossal magnetoresistance to die away. Robin: Haven't forgotten your 1st question. I've just been too busy to take time out to finish my response. I will get to it. -Mark Colossal magnetoresistance occurs when nanoclusters form at specific temperatures http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-colossal-magnetoresistance-nanoclusters- specific-temperatures.html As we cooled samples from room temperature to about 250 Kelvin (-23 degrees Celsius), we found that colossal magnetoresistance emerged as nanoclusters formed and became most dense, Jing explained. We saw the nanoclusters form and connect a path in the crystal, and the whole material became conducting. These nanoclusters were thought to only act as insulators with different magnetic properties, Jing added. This work shows that these properties are temperature dependent. In the presence of a magnetic field and at the proper temperature, the nanoclusters become conductive and ferromagnetic to allow colossal magnetoresistance to occur. ---
RE: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi?
Mass in must = mass out, or else pressure inside would steadily increase. From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 9:19 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi? I never found a way to make vapor carry more than 1/1 of its volume in liquid when any of its parts are sltighly off horizontal. So, I cannot convince myself that humidity meters would be useful at all. 2011/12/11 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Are you sure Puthoff was so skeptical to start with? He spent more than a decade spending public money to research paranormal even before meeting Yuri Geller. Neither Targ nor Puthoff were properly skeptical of Geller's ridiculous (and somewhat silly) claims which were simply sleight of hand ordinary stage magic. I did say they were gullible. What they were not were the things AG suggested (fools, idiots, liars or incompetents). Well... maybe they were a bit incompetent. So is someone who measures quality of steam with an HVAC humidity meter! -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Rossi plans to muzzle the university project for at least a year
Mary, and many LENR-under-informed or patho-skeptics, point to things like this as evidence to support their beliefs: Nor is there any evidence that Defkalion, as they claimed, provided devices to the Greek authorities for safety and efficacy testing and certification. A member of the Greek Parliament from Xanthi attempted to find the relevant agencies and ask them about it and everyone he asked about it said they never heard of any such tests. First, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Second, How many people did this person ask? I can't imagine that a member of the Greek Parliament is posting on Vortex or any other 'discussion group', so what do we know about the person who made that statement? Do they PERSONALLY know the member of Parliament? Is this second-hand, third-hand, or even fourth-hand information? Some here are so eager to grasp onto and repeat supportive statements to their position REGARDLESS of who they come from, and regardless of what can be confirmed about the veracity and factualness of those statements. they simply repeat them as fact when I seriously doubt that has been conclusively established. MY POINT IS, ALL THIS DISCUSSION, WHETHER YOU THINK ITS FOR OR AGAINST, IS ABSOLUTELY A WASTE OF TIME AND BANDWIDTH. NOTHING CAN BE CONCLUDED FROM IT. If you want to discuss anything, stick to the technical results for which we *DO* have evidence. or else, just don't post anything (increase SNR), or only when something NEW happens (increase SNR). you should all be asking yourselves BEFORE you hit Send, Does this increase the SNR? -mark
RE: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi?
Yes, I would expect the pressure to increase slightly until the reactor reached steady state, but after that, and over the course of 6+ hours, if mass in NOT= mass out, then pressure would increase to dangerous levels (if not explosive) since the volume ratio between liquid water and water as vapor is ~1800. -m From: Robert Leguillon [mailto:robert.leguil...@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 10:34 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi? Just a thought, FWIW: The pressure does increase, raising the boiling temperature, decreasing the primary pump output (remember it decreases with back-pressure) and eventually it leaks out of the top of the E-Cat. Remember the leaking seals? _ From: zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi? Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:29:17 -0800 Mass in must = mass out, or else pressure inside would steadily increase. From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 9:19 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:What is so special abbout Rossi? I never found a way to make vapor carry more than 1/1 of its volume in liquid when any of its parts are sltighly off horizontal. So, I cannot convince myself that humidity meters would be useful at all. 2011/12/11 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Are you sure Puthoff was so skeptical to start with? He spent more than a decade spending public money to research paranormal even before meeting Yuri Geller. Neither Targ nor Puthoff were properly skeptical of Geller's ridiculous (and somewhat silly) claims which were simply sleight of hand ordinary stage magic. I did say they were gullible. What they were not were the things AG suggested (fools, idiots, liars or incompetents). Well... maybe they were a bit incompetent. So is someone who measures quality of steam with an HVAC humidity meter! -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Rossi plans to muzzle the university project for at least a year
Mary: You should read the entire thread which ended with the following exchange between me and Terry: Mark Iverson: Didn't they change the location to Cypress? Or was that just rumor? I tend to gloss over the non-technical details. Terry Blanton: Defkalion Green Technologies is actually a Cypress based company. not Greek. Mark Iverson: So, has anyone checked to see if Defkalion has filed an application with the appropriate agency on Cypress??? Probably not... at least not yet! There was NEVER any response as to whether someone checked with various agencies on Cypress. so what are we to conclude? At best, that the inquiry to Greek agencies proves nothing. Which goes to the whole point of my posting. that these kinds of debates are useless and a waste of time because they almost never result in any clear conclusions. Why do you think that this discussion group was formed over a decade ago and still exists with many of the same members? Because we don't care to belong to a discussion group which is nothing more than the 'true believer' vs the 'pathological skeptics'. useless bickering ad nauseum. We focus on what we feel are facts that we do know, try to analyze them as best we can, and then set out 'credibility meter' to whatever we personally feel the evidence and analyses warrant. And that could change any day with new info, so just sit back and wait for new data to come it. -Mark
RE: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model
Peter: Thanks for taking time to RAISE the SNR! What can we conclude from your analysis? Well, at first reading, it seems reasonable, so it is at least helpful and might swing the 'accuracy meter' a little over to Rossi's favor, however, I don't think its conclusive. But that seems to be the norm in this case, that the only conclusive thing we can conclude from what facts we do have, is that nothing is conclusive! I APPLAUD your efforts here since what you did is EXACTLY what this discussion group is for... tomorrow you could run some more test cases with this software and come to the opposite conclusion, which I would also applaud! It's unfortunate that some people on this list just don't understand that... -Mark -Original Message- From: Peter Heckert [mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 12:23 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model Yes, I do now think, the heat exchanger should do it in the horizontal orientation. I tested this as follows: I downloaded and installed the heatexchanger calculation software from SWEP. It is unregistered and in demo mode. Registering is free bust must be approved, so I have none. In this mode the application supports only water-water applications, so far I found. So I inserted the primary water flow multiplied by 5, this gives about the thermal energy of the steam. Under this conditions I get secondary delta_t of 5° and the difference between primary out and secondary in is about 0.5 degrees. Lewan reported about 1 degree. So if this exchanger can do it with water, then it should also be able to do it with the equivalent energy in steam. Apparently horizontal orientation is not a problem here. BTW, the difference between primary out and secondary in was about 1 degrees in Lewans report. If the primary delta_t was 100° then this means, the energetic efficiency of the heatexchanger was 99 %. This is pretty good and is probably because this exchanger is designed for higher flow rates. Best, Peter
RE: [Vo]:Rossi plans to muzzle the university project for at least a year
Mary wrote: That none of this appears to be true is indeed evidence-- evidence that Defkalion was lying. NO, IT IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE LYING! There are a number of explanations which are just as plausible: - knowledge of the application's existence has not made it up to whatever level of the manager who was asked at that time. If that manager became aware of the application the next week, would they take the time to contact the person who asked, if they even knew who that was, to update them on the existence of the application, or, - the Dept involved may be under direction to NOT answer questions related to the application due to its potentially overwhelming nature and/or military use. Relying on statements from as politically charged an environment as this, and with all the turmoil in Greece, and with all the corruption and power struggles going on, as evidence of DGT's lying, is walking way out on a very flimsy limb. Also, note this phrase in your statement, appears to be true. Perceptions are used by clever people to mislead the masses. politicians and people in decision-making positions are keenly aware of this. I've known people at the Director level in govt organizations who have specifically said that perceptions are everything. they know that their effectiveness as a Director is based more on perceptions, than facts and figures. So they carefully cultivate the perceptions that others have of their Dept. I don't think its pathological at all to ask whether or not there was an application submitted. checking up on claims by some person or company is appropriate. However, depending on the circumstances, as I have now stated several times as being the whole point, it is a very rare instance where those kinds of inquiries results in any definitive conclusions. ergo, the initial inquiry degrades into useless bickering. -Mark
RE: [Vo]:Rossi plans to muzzle the university project for at least a year
I don't know Daniel. but that's certainly a relevant point. I've only skimmed these kinds of topics since they rarely prove ANYTHING, positive or negative. I have only been engaging in the discussion lately in an attempt to raise the SNR of this forum. -mark From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 1:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi plans to muzzle the university project for at least a year That they promised to heat the police academy was before they broke up with Rossi, right? 2011/12/11 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: So, has anyone checked to see if Defkalion has filed an application with the appropriate agency on Cypress??? Probably not... at least not yet! Except that Defkalion specifically said their factory was in Xanthi, Greece, not Cypress. They said that they had applied to the GREEK authorities (again: not Cypress) and they also said that by now, they'd be supplying heat to the Xanthi Police Academy! That none of this appears to be true is indeed evidence-- evidence that Defkalion was lying. If they lie about that, they are probably lying about much more. And it is not an issue of simple technical issues causing delays. If it were, they would have issued an explanation and a new time line. There is nothing pathological about that line of thought nor do I think it to be useless bickering. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model
Peter: There's a bit of a language barrier here... I was not suggesting that you actually repeat the analysis, or do something a little different... but I think most readers will understand my point. Again, thanks for taking time to run the analysis and report your results... -Mark -Original Message- From: Peter Heckert [mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 1:37 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model Am 11.12.2011 21:51, schrieb Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint: Peter: Thanks for taking time to RAISE the SNR! What can we conclude from your analysis? Well, at first reading, it seems reasonable, so it is at least helpful and might swing the 'accuracy meter' a little over to Rossi's favor, however, I don't think its conclusive. But that seems to be the norm in this case, that the only conclusive thing we can conclude from what facts we do have, is that nothing is conclusive! I APPLAUD your efforts here since what you did is EXACTLY what this discussion group is for... tomorrow you could run some more test cases with this software and come to the opposite conclusion, which I would also applaud! It's unfortunate that some people on this list just don't understand that... No. I can say you, that I did not test exactly the same model, because I could not find this. I tested if the orders of magnitude are possible with water and nothing more and I confirmed it. And no, I cannot do other tests. Say I use double the flow rate, then I get an efficiency of 98% instead of 99%. This doesn't matter. I'm not interested in peanut counting and will not do this. Any test with similar magnitudes will give similar results. Why should I repeat it? The result is plausible. Only an experiment with the real thing could bring new findings, but i doubt it. I agree Peter, -mark
RE: [Vo]:Rossi plans to muzzle the university project for at least a year
No, not name calling. it is a valid term according to many definitive references, this one from Webster's Online Dictionary: The terms Pathological skepticism and Pseudoskepticism were coined, by Marcello Truzzi (sociology professor at Eastern Michigan University), in the early 1990s in response to the skeptic groups who apply the label of Pathological Science to fields which Truzzi thought might be better described as protoscience. http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/Pathological+skepticis m?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/Pathological+skeptici sm?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlqcof=FORID%3A9ie=UTF-8q=Pa thological+skepticismsa=Search#906 cof=FORID%3A9ie=UTF-8q=Pathological+skepticismsa=Search#906 Bill Beaty, the founder and administrator of vortex-l, has his take on it as well: http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/pathskep.html If a person has only recently (past 12 months) learned about lenr-canr.org, or New Energy Times, or read Eugene Mallove's expose of MIT's fraudulent publication, then I'd consider them 'LENR-under-informed'. I would include you, Mary, in that category; NOT the patho-skeptic group. Sorry if you got than impression. You are a newbie when it comes to LENR, as many here are, and yes, you have apparently made an attempt to bring yourself up to speed on LENR research. Great! But all of the 'regulars' here on Vortex have been following and discussing LENR for 22 YEARS; first on the usenet newsgroup, sci.physics.fusion, and then on vortex after it was created. I still have some dot-matrix printouts of CF conversation threads from way back in 1989/1990. And regarding name-calling, I believe you have made more than one reference to those who choose to bring up the positive side of the Rossi/DGT soap-opera as being 'true believers'. Sort of like what happens to indiscriminate believers? http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg56672.html Which is a sarcastic jab at anyone who is on the supportive side of the 'battle'. So who is doing the name calling? I think I took the high road and used the term, 'under-informed', which is an accurate description, and it at least gives credit to those people, such as yourself, who have started to read the immense amount of material that is out there and at least begun to come up to speed on the past 22 years of LENR research. -Mark From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:56 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi plans to muzzle the university project for at least a year On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Mary, and many LENR-under-informed or patho-skeptics, point to things like this as evidence to support their beliefs Name calling now? Nice. What, exactly is a patho-skeptic? Someone who doubts a convicted felon who makes extravagant claims and then won't provide definitive proof that is extremely easy, safe and cheap to come by? Nor is there any evidence that Defkalion, as they claimed, provided devices to the Greek authorities for safety and efficacy testing and certification. A member of the Greek Parliament from Xanthi attempted to find the relevant agencies and ask them about it and everyone he asked about it said they never heard of any such tests. First, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As it turns out, you're the one who is under-informed. The reference to the lack of application within the Greek administration is here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51035.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51035.html If the Greek government bureaucracy is anything like the US, inquiries from members of Parliament get the highest priority because Parliament controls much of the funding for the agencies. And the inquiry did not reveal any application which strongly suggests that the application does not exist. Defkalion was also asked repeatedly in their forum to give the name of the agency, a contact person within an agency who can confirm that an application was filed, a copy of the application, ANYTHING demonstrating that they filed as they claimed. They have not produced one iota of evidence. Absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence when a proper search has been made and evidence should have been uncovered if it existed. Where did that phrase you apparently quoted out of context come from anyway? Second, How many people did this person ask? I can't imagine that a member of the Greek Parliament is posting on Vortex or any other 'discussion group', so what do we know about the person who made that statement? Do they PERSONALLY know the member of Parliament? Is this second-hand, third-hand, or even fourth-hand information? Your assertions are wrong. See the above reference. Some here are so eager
RE: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model
We do have a language barrier here... sorry! Can someone translate my point to Peter? If I understand you right, you don't want anything being tested this way. And Rossi does not want it. This is strange. No, that is NOT what I meant... I think your analysis was a GOOD effort! -Mark -Original Message- From: Peter Heckert [mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 2:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model Am 11.12.2011 22:57, schrieb Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint: Peter: There's a bit of a language barrier here... I was not suggesting that you actually repeat the analysis, or do something a little different... but I think most readers will understand my point. I dont understand your point. If I could test the ecat I would do it in the same way. If it works I would confirm it. If it does not work I would not confirm it. This is what I did with the heatexchanger software, inside the frame of my possibilities. If I understand you right, you dont want anything being tested this way. And Rossi does not want it. This is strange. At some day, however, it must happen. Peter
RE: [Vo]:Rossi plans to muzzle the university project for at least a year
Mary wrote: Someone who doubts a convicted felon who makes extravagant claims and then won't provide definitive proof that is extremely easy, safe and cheap to come by? Oh brother. not that again. As usual, the material regarding Rossi's questionable history has been rehashed numerous times on this forum, as well as the second part of that statement... SNR decreasing. Further comments to the discussion between Mary and myself: The reference to the lack of application within the Greek administration is here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51035.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51035.html If the Greek government bureaucracy is anything like the US, The Greek govt is in utter turmoil, much worse than the U.S., plus it is highly socialistic, which I would argue greatly exacerbates the corruption. So like I said, using that as evidence is like walking out on a very flimsy limb. And even MORE to my point, I can provide rational opposing points when discussing such circumstantial or ad-hoc 'evidence' so those kinds of discussions are USELESS, and just end up in bickering. inquiries from members of Parliament get the highest priority because Parliament controls much of the funding for the agencies. And if one of those govt officials thinks that the technology is a threat to their power, or even more importantly, of strategic importance to the country, they can put a kibosh on any further mentioning of it via official channels. Defkalion was also asked repeatedly in their forum to give the name of the agency, a contact person within an agency who can confirm that an application was filed, a copy of the application, ANYTHING demonstrating that they filed as they claimed. They have not produced one iota of evidence. If you honestly think that is proof, then I think you're way off. It proves nothing! They are a company, and they do not have to provide ANY information that they are not legally obligated to provide, and answering questions on a company forum are NOT LEGALLY required. That I can GUARANTEE. It might look suspicious, it probably pisses you off, but it is not proof! Absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence when a proper search has been made and evidence should have been uncovered if it existed. As explained above, there are as many reasonable explanations for and against, why that search, at the time it was done, didn't bear fruit. That is not evidence of absence. Where did that phrase you apparently quoted out of context come from anyway? What phase are you referring to? -mark
[Vo]: FYI: ...modifying the very character of the interactions
Some news about engineering atomic interactions, which ties in with my contention that nuclear and electron interactions can be achieved at much lower energies if one knows what frequencies and harmonic relationships are involved: Atoms dressed with light show new interactions, could reveal way to observe enigmatic particle http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-high-angular-momentum-long-lived-atomic. html Our technique is a fundamentally new method for engineering interactions, and we expect this work will stimulate new directions of research and be of broad interest within the physics community, experimental and theoretical, said Spielman. We are modifying the very character of the interactions, and not just the strength, by light alone. NOTE the statement, We are modifying the very character of the interactions To continue the excerpt: The JQI team, including Nobel Laureate William Phillips, is truly international, with scientists originating in the United Kingdom (lead author Ross Williams), Canada (Lindsay LeBlanc), Mexico (Karina Jiménez-García), and the US (Matthew Beeler, Abigail Perry, William Phillips and Ian Spielman). The researchers now will switch from observing bosonic atoms (with a total spin value of 1) to fermion atoms (those with a half-integral spin). Combining the boson techniques demonstrated here with ultracold fermions offers considerable promise for creating systems which are predicted to support the mysterious Majorana fermions. Lead author and JQI postdoctoral fellow Ross Williams says that BECs aren't essential: While it's true we collided two BECs in the current experiment, this was not necessary to demonstrate the modified interactions. In an ideal thought experiment the experiment could have been done with just two particles, repeated many times. Synthetic partial waves in ultracold atomic collisions by R. A. Williams, L. J. LeBlanc, K. Jiménez-García, M. C. Beeler, A. R. Perry, W. D. Phillips, I. B. Spielman, Science Express, 8 December 2011. -mark
RE: [Vo]:RFC: Localised Electrodynamic Lattice reaction hypothesis
GJB: If your hypothesis started with some (peer-reviewed, or not) references, could you please provide some links or abstracts on those? -Mark From: GJB [mailto:kiw...@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 3:16 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:RFC: Localised Electrodynamic Lattice reaction hypothesis Hi All, I'd just like to put this hypothesis out there to get some feedback and see where the major flaws are: - Small spheres with dielectric-metal interfaces only support surface plasmon polaritons with the spherical harmonic waves of the l=1 mode (the lowest), implying that normal component of field enhancement effect occurs purely at the two poles (North and South). So only two reaction sites per sphere but very intense field enhancements happen there, with the whole energy of the wave being concentrated temporarily at only these two sites. Some estimates put the field strengths at such sites at around 10^11 V/m - The free electron density wave normal field component penetrates ~10 nm into the metal but ~100nm into the dielectric, i.e. v. high normal accelerations at reaction sites - Potential dynamic voltages normal to the metal surface generated could then be of the order 10 kV - Free protons that occur near the surface at reaction sites will also be accelerated by the enhanced surface plasmon polariton normal components, i.e. on the rebound the protons will be accelerated and have large velocity components perpendicular into the metal at the local reaction sites - The surface plasmons have frequencies of order 10^14-10^15 Hz so the normal acceleration of protons away from and into the metal is taking place a high number of times per second, i.e. even low probability fusion events become likely in short (human) time scales. - The number of these reaction sites are directly proportional to the number of spheres (or pointed pyramids, etc) in a reactor - The driving mechanisms that excite the surface plasmon resonances could be electrons from currents (having drift velocity) in electrolytic cells or infrared radiation in thermally driven cells (this is a weak area since surface plasmon polaritons will require specific frequencies of radiation for excitation) It is like a Inertial Electrostatic Confinement fusion model in some respects, but it is electrodynamic/lattice in essence since it uses the field of the free electron coherent surface plasmon waves to accelerate normally the protons, and the lattice to confine the nucleons of the metal targets. So call it Localised Electrodynamic Lattice fusion. Worth pursuing? kiwigjb
RE: [Vo]:Jeds comment on Polywater...well...
Couldn't agree more Ron. I guess Jed didn't see my posting on this over a year ago regarding Dr. Gerald Pollack's talk on structured water titled, Water, Energy, and Life: Fresh Views From the Water's Edge That presentation can be seen on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVBEwn6iWOo Dr. Gerald Pollack, UW professor of bioengineering, has developed a theory of water that has been called revolutionary. The researcher has spent the past decade convincing worldwide audiences that water is not actually a liquid. Pollack explains his fascinating theory in this 32nd Annual Faculty Lecture. The most abundant molecule on the surface of the planet still holds some secrets to discover. -Mark From: Ron Kita [mailto:chiralex.k...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2011 9:29 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Jeds comment on Polywater...well... Greetings Vortex, Usually I am agreement with Jed, but polywater was not exactly a mistake. The New Scientist had an excellent article on Wacky Water..not actually polymerization , but clustering of associative mocules: http://www.fa-firmasu.com.tr/images/WACKY%20WATER.pdf Hexamer clustes etc are discussed. I think that the research into polywater, did give an additional insight as to the structure of water. Waterisn t as simple as most people think. Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat production in the US has begun
Normally I would also agree, however, the way things are going in this country, I don't think the Fed'l govt would care one iota, and the courts either, if they regulated something that another Dept of the govt deemed impossible... hell, I think it wouldn't even need to be diff't Depts... or, they'll just make up some double-talk and do what they want anyway. -mark -Original Message- From: Steven Johnson [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2011 12:55 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat production in the US has begun From Robert Leguillon wrote: I contend that the action cannot be prohibited without being acknowledged. Spot on. Thats what is so amusing about it. Svj -orionworks.com
RE: [Vo]:Yo: Peter Heckert! Is a 0.1 mm gap a problem or not?
Mary: If you have a PayPal acct, I will gladly donate $20 to the cause. Just so the people funding the effort and the person performing the tests all agree beforehand, Can someone put together a brief document with: -tests to perform -rough diagram of the test setup -test procedures I don't think we need anything too sophisticated as far as the boiler. a tea kettle boiling on the stove would be sufficient, with a hose connecting the pour spout to the primary side of the heat exchanger. -Mark From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 10:31 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Yo: Peter Heckert! Is a 0.1 mm gap a problem or not? On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I'll tell you but you won't do it. Get a countercurrent heat exchanger and hook up the primary input to a good healthy flow of dry steam. If you purchase one and ship it to me, I will try it. My address is at LENR-CANR.org. I found some heat exchangers -- anyone know if one of these is identical or equivalent to Rossi's? If so, I will consider sending one to Jed. What may hold me back is that however the T out thermocouple placement issue resolves, it doesn't help that much with verifying that Rossi's October 6 test was legitimate. Anyway, here is the link to the heat exchangers: http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8 http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8keywords=plate+heat+exchangertag=googhydr -20index=apshvadid=7905675585ref=pd_sl_5bhlqv6vgj_b keywords=plate+heat+exchangertag=googhydr-20index=apshvadid=7905675585r ef=pd_sl_5bhlqv6vgj_b
RE: [Vo]:Attenuation of decay rate in E-Cat
Axil: Let me take a stab at your question: Why should coherent protons be any better at thermalizing gamma radiation than ordinary protons? (Especially if that coherence is limited to pairs). The coherent photons are acting as a resonant antenna. I'm sure many have played around with resonant circuits, and antennas. Coupling of energy from the radiowave into an antenna requires a harmonic match. At the end of my comments is an excerpt from research into how quantum coherence in plant biology operates to achieve very high efficiencies in the energy transfer in photosynthetic proteins. My recent readings only enhance my suspicions that resonances (i.e., coherence) are fundamental to LENR and why the channeling of the nuclear energies goes into much lower energy (thermal) 'sinks' instead of coming out as high energy particles. In normal condensed matter, there is little to no real coherence which is harmonically related to the energy packets coming out of a nuclear process, thus, that packet of energy exits the condensed matter before being absorbed (coupled) into other energetic elements of the condensed matter. no resonant antennas to receive the energy. The normal picture of coherence in bulk matter, is basically, none. Non-coherence. There is some, but what does exist is very fleeting in time and not spatially localized; it's just randomly happening in small areas, all throughout the bulk matter, and only for very short times. Thus, there is a extremely small chance that a particular fleeting instance of quantum coherence will be in the same location as a burst of a quantum of nuclear energy passes by on its way out of the bulk matter. Thus, extremely low probability of any interaction; of any transfer of energy. Note this statement from the excerpt below, These coherences therefore dephase before even the fastest energy transfer timescales Coherence also influences 'interferences', both destructive and constructive. Note specifically this statement from the excerpt below, destructive interference in a coherent system might disallow transfer to a trap state or constructive interference might enhance transport to the target state. So quantum coherence can indeed affect energy coupling/transfer from one energy level to another. Any method to create long-lasting (i.e., stable) areas of quantum coherence (i.e., resonant antennas) within condensed matter that hang around long enough to get hit by quanta ejected from nuclear processes, will act to channel/couple the expelled nuclear energies into the lattice instead of that energy exiting the bulk matter as gammas or neutrons or the typical particles expected from hot fusion. Summary: Just think of quantum coherences as resonant antennas, but blinking in and out of existence throughout the bulk matter. Very low probability for any energy transfer from nuclear ejecta, thus ejecta exit bulk matter intact. Find a way to create coherences that are harmonically related to the nuclear ejecta, and which hang around long enough to get hit by those ejecta often, and you will have drastically altered the branching ratios one would expect from 'normal' hot fusion. -mark Coherence, therefore is a relatively fleeting quantity. In photosynthetic complexes, the coherence between ground and excited states that is excited by the optical field persists for only 70fs at 77K (liquid nitrogen) and about 20fs at room temperature [18]. These coherences therefore dephase before even the fastest energy transfer timescales (about 150-300 fs) become relevant. However, coherences between excited states apparently persist much longer based on experimental observations. Such coherences are created by any fast excitation process, which by definition will not commute with the Hamiltonian and will generally couple the ground state to multiple excited states. Ultrafast laser pulses have this property, but so will other forms of excitations such as spatially localized hopping processes. Before the coherence among excited states dephases, the excitation maintains a superposition character and does not yet behave like a simple mixture of excited states. While not a formal definition of coherence, this notion of superposition character provides a simple interpretation for the observable effects resulting from quantum coherence. In particular, quantum beating in observables that do not commute with the Hamiltonian is a direct consequence of this superposition character. Perhaps less obvious, yet equally enlightening is the effect of quantum interference. Whenever the ensemble maintains some average phase, interference - either constructive or destructive - must be considered. For example, destructive interference in a coherent system might disallow transfer to a trap state or constructive interference might enhance transport to the target state. This effect arises because
RE: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Mary yet again proves that there are now 101 ways to say the same thing. we all agree the tests could have been done much better with little effort. I think that's enough repetition that most readers know your opinion on the issue. Stop wasting bandwidth and our time unless it's a point you HAVEN'T made before. =m From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 8:25 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe All this discussion would be moot if Rossi had bothered to make a run using the electrical heater to calibrate the measurement system. It wouldn't rule out cheating but it would rule out cheating by deliberate or accidental measurement errors.
RE: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
No, Mary, the endless repetition from the same person of the same old thing is what annoys me. In one of your posts, where you interspersed your comments with the other person's, I counted 4 or 5 instances where you repeated the same basic point, but 5 different ways. Yeah, we get it, ok? RE: The real waste of bandwidth is the endless repetitious guessing about what Rossi really did and really showed. I wouldn't call it 'guessing'. The majority of the discussions of the data that IS available, is backed up by spreadsheets, FEM modeling, and other sincere quantitative efforts to establish a better estimate as to how likely Rossi's claims are. How many calculations have you done in all of your numerous posts? I strongly suggest you read the founding principles of this discussion group here: Vortex-L email discussion group, unconventional physics amasci.com/weird/wvort.html Did you happen to notice the title (from my web search for vortex-l) has the phrase, 'unconventional physics' in it? Did you happen to notice that the second folder's name in that URL is '/weird/' ? Those two clues alone should make it clear that this is a discussion group that prides itself on discussing the technical aspects of unusual claims. for the most part, we try not to focus on the personalities behind the unconventional claims, nor speculate on personal motives, unless CLEAR FACTUAL evidence exists to question the person's character. We enjoy taking what data we DO HAVE, and discussing it, and EACH OF US, ON OUR OWN, WILL DECIDE HOW MUCH CREDIBILITY WE ASSIGN TO THE DATA/CLAIMS. You seem to think that just because I one day bring up an issue which is supportive of one of the Rossi demos, means that I believe everything he says or has shown. No. In fact, I think I was the one who started the whole question of the close proximity of the secondary thermocouple to the steam inlet. A true seeker of truth is able to bring forth facts which both support or detract from what he/she thinks is going on in any situation. I think most Vorts are very capable of that kind of objective thinking. unfortunately, some are not. Due to your limited experience with this forum, and contrary to what you have suggested, in many instances this forum HAS HELPED to bring to light the problems or errors made by people making extraordinary claims; it is anything but a mutual admiration, or 'true believers' society. Most of the regulars have an extensive amount of time invested in technology careers, and then have spent a lot of their spare time researching and even experimenting with unconventional things. The fact that many Vorts feel there is enough evidence to warrant govt funding of LENR research is NOT because they 'believe' it; it's because they have read the papers and discussed the possibilities, talked to the scientists, attended conferences, and MADE UP THEIR OWN MIND that there is a reasonable chance that SOMETHING unusual is happening which needs further, dedicated effort. Others prefer to let the journal editors, or the majority', do their thinking for them. How many LENR papers have you read? How many conferences have you attended? How many scientists have you emailed? Now, if you want to label those of us with that opinion as 'true believers', be my guest, but we have done more to educate ourselves about the material than you or Cude combined. I'm in the process of responding to other points of your post; I'll post that shortly. For some reason you think that it's a major catastrophe if some newbie on this forum happens to see a supportive post, and goes away with a, god-forbid, positive impression of LENR/Rossi/DGT! Its bordering on a pathological sense that it's your duty to make sure that doesn't happen. that's fine too, and it is your right to try to save people from their own ignorance or stupidity, if that's the way you enjoy spending your free time, but I for one would graciously request that you do it on some other forum! If you come across some NEW material on Rossi/DGT or other unconventional physics that you think is interesting, then by all means post it! Then that NEW information can be added to the Collective along with its analysis. -Mark From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 11:04 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Mary yet again proves that there are now 101 ways to say the same thing. we all agree the tests could have been done much better with little effort. I think that's enough repetition that most readers know your opinion on the issue. Stop wasting bandwidth and our time unless it's a point you HAVEN'T made before. Rossi's failure to provide adequate data when it is easy to do so really annoys you, does it? I can understand why
RE: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Mary: Regarding why I don't mind the comments from people proposing possible ways it IS happening. Most of those postings are providing some models, some calculations. something of substance which, although however speculative, at least that speculation is backed by some numbers. Would you care to count the number of times you have included any calculations in your posts, versus say, AlanF, or RobertL, or Horace, or even Cude? Not to mention that those supportive posts are spread out over at least 8 to 12 people. so yes, there might be close to the number of speculative positive posts as your redundant this-is-very-likely-a-scam posts, but at least there is something to learn from what analyses have been done in those posts compared to yours, which as far as I can see, contain nothing of value that I didn't know after the very first demo or two. Here are a few numbers to go along with this analysis: Below is a sampling of the more 'talkative' Vorts. The date on the right is the date of first posting. ( I changed to Win-7 on 8/13, so my vortex history only goes back that far, but its more than sufficient to make my point) Akira 156since 8/14 AlanF3588/13 AussieGuy28211/7 Dave Roberson 25810/17 Horace 4588/14 Josh Cude24811/14 JonesBeene 75 8/15 Jed1142 8/14 Iverson 1428/19 Mary Yugo 53111/10 FranR74 8/17 RobL 1438/31 Now, just sorting by number of posts, Jed comes in way at the TOP!! (He needs to get laid more often) J MaryYugo comes is second with 531. Jed has done more to be a cheerleader for the LENR community than any other member on this forum, and probably anywhere. He has devoted innumerable hours and significant expense to maintain and keep current the lenr-canr.org website as the repository for LENR materials for anyone wanting to learn more and do their own thinking. He has contributed much of value to the discussions and in keeping us up-to-date on happenings. Now let's look at the number of postings/month. Mary posted all 531 messages in only 1 (one) month, whereas Jed's 1142 were posted over 4 months. So Mary has DOUBLE the posting rate of Jed/month. What can we conclude from that? Besides the fact that Mary needs to get laid twice as much as Jed J, when one looks at the USEFUL new information, or the quantitative analyses, or NONREPETITIVE nature of the content of the person's posts, I think it's obvious who is wasting more bandwidth, and our time. Re: my not objecting when people endlessly project about what they will do with an E-cat when they get it There are VERY few of those, and if you are specifically referring to our 'poster from down under', AussieGuy, with about half the posting rate as you, HE IS THE ONLY ONE ON THE ENTIRE LIST THAT HAS ACTUALLY MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO BUY ONE, AND HAS AGREED TO PROPERLY TEST AND REPORT HIS FINDINGS! Even with all your redundant postings, I would not be singling you out if you were putting together a group to buy and test an E-Cat; or taking time and money to have traveled to Italy to see first-hand. I would be applauding you.. RE: my not objecting .when they theorize at length *how* it works when nobody can be sure *that* it works. My first response to this point was handled in a previous posting about an hour ago, but let me summarize: 1) Vortex-l was founded TO DISCUSS UNCONVENTIONAL PHYSICS; LENR, and more specifically the e-Cat, falls into that category. If you want to discuss conventional physics, then what the hell are you doing here? 2) The vast majority of posts that are analyzing how it works, are people who have taken time to do modeling or spreadsheets with what data we do have, and by taking people's eyewitness reports as accurate, trying to provide some level of confidence that we can apply to the claims. That IS useful because we all learn from it; we learn about FEM, about heat transport in metals and the importance of thermocouple placement. 3) Tell me Mary, what useful technical knowledge have we gained from ANY of your 531 posts in the last month??? Nothing that comes to mind; nothing I didn't already know way back in January after the first Rossi demo. Jed's well intentioned experiments won't help either unless he gets himself a heat exchanger or properly simulates it with a nice heavy steam-heated copper block on which to move his thermocouples around. At least he got off his ass and took time to learn something, and share that knowledge. YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT BITCH, WHINE AND MOAN about the same few things. Despite that, if you come across any NEW info on Rossi/DGT/LENR, positive or negative, then by all means make a post and provide a reference or link so
RE: [Vo]:Purchase of a 1 MW high temp E-Cat plant
What can we do if Rossi is wrong? As much as you want! Rossi is one out of hundreds of people who have worked with LENR, so we can support others so they can continue the work, learn the physics so it can be optimized and controlled, so a definitive test can be done. In the meantime, I don't know about you, but I still have a day job and a mortgage to pay, so life goes on.. If you feel really inspired, get a group together in your area to pool your money and equipment and start doing some experiments! -Mark From: Giovanni Santostasi [mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 5:58 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Purchase of a 1 MW high temp E-Cat plant I will be glad to apologize to Rossi if he is right. What are we going to do if he is wrong? Giovanni
RE: [Vo]:Purchase of a 1 MW high temp E-Cat plant
I think the media will take real good care of roasting him alive if he is scamming all of us. as he should be if that's the case. This is too important to not be serious about it. -m From: Giovanni Santostasi [mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 6:15 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Purchase of a 1 MW high temp E-Cat plant I meant what to do to Rossi ! G On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: What can we do if Rossi is wrong? As much as you want! Rossi is one out of hundreds of people who have worked with LENR, so we can support others so they can continue the work, learn the physics so it can be optimized and controlled, so a definitive test can be done. In the meantime, I don't know about you, but I still have a day job and a mortgage to pay, so life goes on.. If you feel really inspired, get a group together in your area to pool your money and equipment and start doing some experiments! -Mark From: Giovanni Santostasi [mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 5:58 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Purchase of a 1 MW high temp E-Cat plant I will be glad to apologize to Rossi if he is right. What are we going to do if he is wrong? Giovanni
RE: [Vo]:Attenuation of decay rate in E-Cat
Hi Robin, Sorry, guess I was focusing on the question, not the questioner!! :-) Let me deal with the second question first, and I'll follow up tomorrow on Q1. Robin's second question: 2) If such ensembles are fleeting, then one might expect at least some gamma rays to escape, yet few to none are detected? Well, if you're talking NON-LENR conditions, i.e., ordinary conditions, then the ensembles are indeed fleeting, never interact with any gammas, which results in the gammas exiting the condensed matter and flying off to kill grad students! :-) But as I stated, Any method to create long-lasting (i.e., stable) areas of quantum coherence (i.e., resonant antennas) within condensed matter that hang around long enough to get hit by quanta ejected from nuclear processes... So LENR is creating conditions inside the metal lattice that cause the 'lifetime' of the ensembles to be much longer than normal, or possibly even to be stable to the point of continuous coherence over time, so (nearly) all gammas and neutrons deposit their energy on the way to the 'outside', and NOT all at once, but drained of numerous quanta and eventually all their energy into the lattice before they get to the edge. When the last quantum of energy is coupled into a resonant element, the gamma ceases to exist... after all, there is NO particle once the energy is transferred elsewhere; the localized, oscillatory motions of the vacuum are perceived as a particle when doing certain experiments/measurements, but there is nothing physical left separate from the energy. At that dimension and time scale, there is NO physical matter... only numerous oscillators coupled together in various and complex ways... which is also why QM (i.e., 'wave functions' and probabilities) does such a good job of describing things at that level. -Mark
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
I never said it was 'exotic'. And I never attempted to explain something as simply claiming it was a resonant phenomenon. Stop putting words in my mouth. This whole discussion started with your statement: Resonance is very much a part of brute force physics. In what way? Explain. -Mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 11:56 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: The simple fact is, that given the SAME amount of 'push' at regular intervals, a resonant system will achieve what appears to be extreme amplitudes whereas the non-resonant push of the SAME amount of force, can NEVER achieve any lasting, That's what I said. I didn't say resonance was not important, only that it is not exotic, and in fact is elementary, and you can't just explain something you don't understand by saying: Oh, it's a resonant phenomenon. And by the way, those big particle accelerators rely on resonance too.
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Of course resonance is simple physics, and is the foundation for all 'flavors' of spectroscopies, however, that is NOT what I was referring to when I used resonance in this statement, You are reasoning from the physics of brute force, which is all that nuclear physicists know. The physics of resonance can achieve the extreme energy levels required with very small, but properly timed/oriented, inputs. I would have thought with my clear statements about using extremely intense magnetic fields and smashing particles head on at extremely high velocities, it would have been obvious that I was referring to something specific, and not a 'general' concept of resonance. Why does nuclear physics use (BRUTE FORCE) particle accelerators? Because they are boxed in by the thought that the ONLY way to overcome the coulomb barrier is extreme force. Well, ya, that certainly is one way, but my point is that one could achieve the same end using much more modest energies if the device used resonance. That's all. it's certainly not meant to be a full blown explanation of exactly how to achieve that. So how do particle accelerators use resonance to overcome electrostatic repulsion? -mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 12:40 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I never said it was 'exotic'. And I never attempted to explain something as simply claiming it was a resonant phenomenon. Stop putting words in my mouth. This whole discussion started with your statement: Resonance is very much a part of brute force physics. In what way? Explain. Semantic discussions are rarely useful, but I took the meaning of brute force from the context in which you used it, when you said: You are reasoning from the physics of brute force, which is all that nuclear physicists know. The physics of resonance can achieve the extreme energy levels required with very small, but properly timed/oriented, inputs. If all that nuclear physicists know is brute force physics, then resonance is very much a part of brute force physics, because all nuclear physicists are intimately familiar with resonance. It's an elementary phenomenon taught in freshman physics, and permeates all branches of physics, including nuclear physics, in phenomena such as resonant gamma ray absorption or emission (in the Mossbauer effect, as one of many examples). To move beyond the semantics of brute force, your argument was that resonant phenomena made the concentration of thermal energy a millionfold in nickel powder absolutely possible (in caps), and that this was something nuclear physicists would not think of because it is outside their knowledge (which is where I got exotic from).
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
JC: Thx for the explanations, relevant or not, however, I still think that the discussion wandered from my initial point, which was, given proper conditions, one can disrupt the natural balance within a nucleus and cause unexpected results using much lower levels of energy by using resonance rather than brute force. I have to spend time on paid work so let's just agree to disagree. Aside from that, your comment that the large accelerators go way beyond the energy necessary for overcoming the Coulomb Barrier seems to be only partially right. In the following article, the physicist states: In other words, even the most massive stars, at the incredible pressures and temperatures found at their cores, cannot fuse nickel and hydrogen nuclei together. http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_w e.php?utm_source=feedburner http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_ we.php?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+Sciencebl ogsChannelEnvironment+%28ScienceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Environment%29 utm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsChannelEnvironment+%28Sci enceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Environment%29 So, even the most powerful accelerator built cannot overcome the CB for the vast majority of atomic elements. -Mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 2:04 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I would have thought with my clear statements about using extremely intense magnetic fields and smashing particles head on at extremely high velocities, it would have been obvious that I was referring to something specific, What specific, exactly? and not a 'general' concept of resonance. Why does nuclear physics use (BRUTE FORCE) particle accelerators? Because they are boxed in by the thought that the ONLY way to overcome the coulomb barrier is extreme force. You know, you don't need much energy (on the scale of accelerators) to overcome the Coulomb barrier; that's why you can buy bench top neutron sources that use ordinary fusion produced by accelerating deuterons through a simple electric field. The energy in big accelerators is needed to produce more exotic reactions and particles that don't exist in nature (except in stars or supernovae). Well, ya, that certainly is one way, but my point is that one could achieve the same end using much more modest energies if the device used resonance. The device does use resonance. But if you've got a way to look for the Higg's boson without big accelerators, you're a shoo-in for a nobel prize. I'm honored to have argued with you. But, as I said before, just saying resonance doesn't make something possible. You're going to have to be specific, or there's no cigar. That's all. it's certainly not meant to be a full blown explanation of exactly how to achieve that. No. It's not an explanation at all. It's just a vague wish. It's like saying we'll use zero-point energy, or pink unicorns, without any concept of how exactly. So how do particle accelerators use resonance to overcome electrostatic repulsion? Again, accelerators are many orders of magnitude beyond breaching the Coulomb barrier. But, as one example, from the first sentence in wikipedia on cyclotrons: Ion cyclotron resonance is a phenomenon related to the movement of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ions ions in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field magnetic field. It is used for accelerating ions in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron cyclotron,... Or in the article on particle accelerators: As the particles approach the speed of light the switching rate of the electric fields becomes so high that they operate at microwave frequencies, and so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavity_resonator RF cavity resonators are used in higher energy machines instead of simple plates. Basically, in any cyclic accelerator, the acceleration has to be in sync (resonance) with the particle motion. Otherwise there's interference and dissipation.
RE: [Vo]: Of Rydberg and Radiofrequencies...
In addition, the RF would have a near instantaneous effect, whereas Mary's suggestion would have a very significant time-lag. thus, as Axil pointed out, a much greater likelihood of runaway. From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 9:36 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Of Rydberg and Radiofrequencies... Your suggestion may be possible when a automated fail safe control system is developed (maybe by National instruments) to provide some sort of negative feedback control on heat output. IMHO, until such controls are put in place, a runaway meltdown using the strategy you suggest is likely at some juncture. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Is there a connection? There is a connection. The purpose of the RF generator is to maintain Rydberg Matter excitation for as long as possible during the self-sustain mode when the internal heater is shut down. Wouldn't it be simpler to route some heat from the thermal output back to the input -- maybe through some sort of heat exchanger? Instead of doing like Rossi did during his first set of experiments -- dumping it in a bucket or into a wall.
RE: [Vo]: Of Rydberg and Radiofrequencies...
Mary, I seriously doubt that the RF generator is being used for inductive heating. We obviously don't have an explanation as to the exact effect the RFG is having, but if it is having an effect, then it's likely not for direct heating. a few possibilities are, the 'breathing' that McKubre refers to in the recently posted video (i.e., forced, oscillatory mass movement of protons into and out of the metal lattice to achieve high loading ratios), OR, to generate very high E-fields between the Ni tubercles. or ?. -m From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 10:07 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Of Rydberg and Radiofrequencies... On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: In addition, the RF would have a near instantaneous effect, whereas Mary's suggestion would have a very significant time-lag. thus, as Axil pointed out, a much greater likelihood of runaway. It's doubtful that Rossi exhibited anything that would have enough RF power to melt down the core in all the E-cats in the megawatt plant at once. Where would he store that much power? Anyway, wouldn't stopping the coolant flow be the best way to melt down a runaway core? The more one looks at the concept of a safety heater, especially one that runs at appreciable power levels during most supposedly exothermic runs, the worse it smells.
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
JC: You continue to claim that accelerators use resonance, and therefore that my comment, Why does nuclear physics use (BRUTE FORCE) particle accelerators? Because they are boxed in by the thought that the ONLY way to overcome the coulomb barrier is extreme force. is somehow faulty. You continue to make irrelevant points. Sure, application of the energy used to accelerate the particles must be applied in a resonant manner to reach the velocities in the most efficient manner, so a form of resonance is used in accelerator design. That is irrelevant. The END RESULT is brute force smashing things together. there is NO resonance in that! That is, and always has been, my point. The actual interaction of the particles is by brute force, NOT RESONANCE. JC writes: And I maintain that you're saying resonance like a magician says abbra cadabra. Without specifics, it's meaningless. To answer this sad excuse for a rebuttal, the specifics comes from proposing a hypothesis, and then following that hypothesis to see where it leads and whether it could be reasonable from a physics perspective; and then conducting experiments to test the hypothesis. That is the scientific process. Your attitude reeks of closed-minded, theoretically-impossible-so-why-bother-even-thinking-about-it. We'd all be living in caves and throwing spears with that attitude. -Mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 10:32 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: JC: Thx for the explanations, relevant or not, however, I still think that the discussion wandered from my initial point, which was, given proper conditions, one can disrupt the natural balance within a nucleus and cause unexpected results using much lower levels of energy by using resonance rather than brute force. And I maintain that you're saying resonance like a magician says abbra cadabra. Without specifics, it's meaningless. Aside from that, your comment that the large accelerators go way beyond the energy necessary for overcoming the Coulomb Barrier seems to be only partially right. In the following article, the physicist states: In other words, even the most massive stars, at the incredible pressures and temperatures found at their cores, cannot fuse nickel and hydrogen nuclei together. So, even the most powerful accelerator built cannot overcome the CB for the vast majority of atomic elements. The *temperatures* and *pressures* in stars are not enough. An accelerator does not give energy to particles by heating them up, but by accelerating them in electromagnetic fields. You need to think outside the box, and consider the power of resonance, and not just brute force heating. You can fire a proton from a small cyclotron at 50 MeV to produce Cu from Ni, no problem. And in the LHC, protons collide at multi-TeV energies, and even for fixed targets, you can get protons close to 1 TeV. The temperature corresponding to 1 TeV would be more than a quadrillion kelvins (10^16 K). There are no stars that hot. Even 50 MeV corresponds to a trillion degrees, far above star temperatures. So, yes, accelerators go way way way beyond the energy needed to breach any Coulomb barrier in nature.
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Collisions can be resonant too. Please explain. -Mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 1:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: The END RESULT is brute force smashing things together. there is NO resonance in that! That is, and always has been, my point. The actual interaction of the particles is by brute force, NOT RESONANCE. Collisions can be resonant too, but the goal of the experiments is energetic collisions, so accelerators use resonance to achieve the goal. And again, if you have an idea of how to produce exotic particles or probe the subatomic world in another way, I'm sure you'd find an audience. But if you just say use resonance, you're gonna get ignored.
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Nope, let me look into it... thx. -Mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 1:29 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: “Collisions can be resonant too…” Please explain… Here's an abstract from PRL, which I found with 10 seconds of google. Have you heard of it? Resonant collisional energy transfer between atoms with small relative velocity is shown to have such long collision times, ∼0.17 μs, or equivalently such narrow linewidths, 6 MHz, that it may be used to make spectroscopic measurements. Specifically, we report the use of the sharply resonant collisional energy transfer ns+(n-2)d→np +(n-1)p, between velocity-selected K atoms to determine an improved value, 1.711?5(5), and the K np-state quantum defect.
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
I bet you crack yourself up, don't you. Darn, I've already wasted the time. but fortunately I've already found some interesting abstracts that mention drastic changes in branching ratios and enhanced energy transfer in resonant or near-resonant systems. which was my point. -Mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 2:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Nope, let me look into it... thx. I meant google. Have you heard of google. Don't bother looking in to the particular resonant collisions. It's just an example of where collision energy can be tailored to match energy levels in inelastic collisions. Nothing particularly relevant beyond that.
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
JC wrote: Say what? That's just gibberish. I seriously doubt that Zawodny has any idea what that sentence means, if it means anything at all. A physical effect is allowed by a breakdown in a mathematical approximation? What that sentence does is make people's eyes glaze over, and think it sounds sophisticated enough that it must be true. That certainly is one possibility. but it's just as plausible that your and MY's eyes glaze over because you don't have enough in-depth knowledge of the relevant physics to fully understand what's being proposed. And he also smugly states: Honestly, if a talk so devoid of hard results or plausible mechanisms were presented in any other field, it would be laughed off stage. One can only hope this is not representative of much of the research that goes on at NASA. Cude, you're such an A$$ sometimes. this was only an internal workshop. It was most likely background for others who might be interested in helping. It most certainly was NOT a full description of all the LENR work that they have done. How the hell do you know what data they have or don't have? What experiments they've done or not done? Have you talked to Bushnell or Zawodny in order to verify your speculations BEFORE making such condescending remarks behind their back? We all know the answer to that question, don't we! -mark
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Joshua wrote: So, random atomic motion representing a fraction of an eV per atom is somehow supposed to be concentrated by a factor of much more than a million by some resonant phenomenon. ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE. You are reasoning from the physics of brute force, which is all that nuclear physicists know. The physics of resonance can achieve the extreme energy levels required with very small, but properly timed/oriented, inputs. Tesla generated electrical discharges over 130 feet long when in Colorado Springs in 1899. That represents many 10s of millions of volts when his primary coil was operating at some very small fraction of that. He had VERY crude materials to work with and very limited electrical equipment (much of which he had to build). Despite the primitive resources, he was able to generate the EXTREME voltages and currents BECAUSE OF RESONANCE. Ever hear of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw For most, theory is a transparent box. those inside don't know they're inside, or that there's even an outside! -Mark
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Hi Axil, Gee, I don't even remember whether I posted that one or not, but what's important is that there is plenty of evidence that extraordinary CONDITIONS frequently produce results that don't make sense. Nice to know that someone has seen my FYI postings to be potentially useful. Why did I post that particular article??? When I read thru the latest science headlines, I just get a feeling that certain ones have some importance beyond the obvious. Is it 'intuition'? Not sure about intuition. some ascribe to it some kind of 'magical' qualities. I'm think more along the lines that the subconscious mind is much more aware of things and 'sees' the connections which the conscious mind does not. thus, the light bulb going on seems magical to the conscious mind, but is perfectly clear why to the unconscious mind. -m From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 9:31 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint posted a study on Rydberg matter a few weeks ago which stated that this special form of exotic hydrogen (alkali matter) can amplify quantum mechanical properties of atoms by some 11 orders of magnitude; that is 10 to the 11th power. The Coulomb barrier cannot protect the nucleus of the atom from proton intrusion when exposed to such a huge and powerful masking force. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: JC wrote: Say what? That's just gibberish. I seriously doubt that Zawodny has any idea what that sentence means, if it means anything at all. A physical effect is allowed by a breakdown in a mathematical approximation? What that sentence does is make people's eyes glaze over, and think it sounds sophisticated enough that it must be true. That certainly is one possibility. but it's just as plausible that your and MY's eyes glaze over because you don't have enough in-depth knowledge of the relevant physics to fully understand what's being proposed. But my failure to understand something does not make it any more plausible to me. Someone could come along and claim to have a theory that explains perpetual motion machines, but I wouldn't believe it just because he could string a bunch of sophisticated buzz-words together into an incomprehensible sentence. You need 780 keV at a single atomic site to induce electron capture by a proton. This is allegedly induced by heating the lattice. So, random atomic motion representing a fraction of an eV per atom is somehow supposed to be concentrated by a factor of much more than a million by some resonant phenomenon. No amount of jargon makes that plausible. WL present all sorts of equations to justify the idea, but they don't actually calculate a reaction rate for a given hydrogen loading in Pd or Ni. People are skeptical of cold fusion because of the Coulomb barrier. The big selling point about the WLT is that it is supposed to be more plausible because it avoids the Coulomb barrier. The problem is it introduces a much bigger energy barrier. So then, the same skeptics should be more skeptical of WLT, not less skeptical. Why should telling people they are not sophisticated enough to understand the mechanism be any more effective for the WLT than for breaching the Coulomb barrier? It's another matter to pitch it at theoretical physicists, but people like Bushnell and Krivit pitch it at their lay audiences. And the last time I checked, no theoretical physicists of any stripe were citing WL, even though it would be breakthrough physics if it were right. Even among LENR advocates, the theoretical physicists like Hagelstein don't give it much respect. this was only an internal workshop. It was most likely background for others who might be interested in helping. It most certainly was NOT a full description of all the LENR work that they have done. How the hell do you know what data they have or don't have? What experiments they've done or not done? It's true. It's possible they have evidence that he did not present. They might have done an experiment where gamma rays that otherwise go right through a nickel powder, are blocked when it's heated in an atmosphere of hydrogen under pressure. Or other experiments that make WL more believable. But if he's trying to attract helpers, wouldn't it make more sense to present evidence like that? The presentation looks pretty similar to the one he gave in 2009. No indication of progress at all. But again, maybe he's got a reason for hiding it. Maybe, but I doubt it. Anyway, based on what's available, I remain skeptical.
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement, Resonance is very much a part of brute force physics. I think I need to explain resonance to you. Resonance is an interesting phenomenon where SMALL INputs of force or energy into a system results in VERY LARGE OUTputs. There is nothing resonant about using EXTREMELY powerful magnets cooled with liquid helium to accelerate atomic particles to EXTREMELY hi velocities and smashing them head-on into each other. The amount of energy INTO the system is EXTREME and the energy out is paltry. The situation there is opposite the definition of resonance. It's more akin to breaking a wine glass with a 12,000 lb wrecking ball, which is not resonance. This is an odd instance of how my 'intuition' leads me to what I seek/need. After reading your reply, I did some paying work, and then began doing some web browsing and reading other Vortex postings, and after ~30 mins, I ended up at the CMNS website; have no idea why I ended up there. In the first document I opened up, which was the latest online issue of their journal, I came across the following article by Hagelstein, which I think is most relevant to the issue of resonant atomic/nuclear processes. Note his comment, When we augment the spin-boson model with loss, we see that the coherent energy exchange process improves dramatically [10]. In perturbation theory we see that this comes about through the removal of destructive interference, Coherent Energy Exchange in the Strong Coupling Limit of the Lossy Spin-Boson Model http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/publications.htm The following lengthy excerpt is from Vol. 5, --- Hence, experiment suggests that the energy is probably nuclear in origin, and that perhaps deuterons are somehow reacting to make 4He. The big problem with such a statement is that there are no previous examples in nuclear physics of nuclear reactions making energy without commensurate energetic particles [7]. So, whatever process that is responsible for the effect is one that hasn't been seen before. There are no previous relevant models in the nuclear physics or condensed matter physics literature, and most scientists believe the literature that does exist rules out any possibility of such an effect. This situation would change radically if there were a known mechanism which could take a large nuclear scale MeV quantum and convert it efficiently into a large number of optical phonons. Such a scenario would be consistent with recent two-laser experiments [8,9], where two weak lasers incident on the cathode surface initiate an excess heat event when the beat frequency is matched to zero-group velocity point of the optical phonons, and the excess heat persists after the lasers are turned off. The excess heat effect initiated with a single laser does not persist. The picture which has been proposed to account for this is one in which the two lasers provide an initial excitation of the optical phonon modes which the new process requires; then, when the lasers are turned off, the new process channels energy into the same modes which sustains the effect. To make progress given such a picture, we need to understand the conditions under which a large nuclear energy quantum can be converted into a large number of optical phonons. Once again, there is no precedent for this; however, it does seem to be what is going on in these experiments, and this motivates us to explore theoretical models which exhibit such an effect. Coherent energy exchange as a physical effect under conditions where a large quantum is divided into many smaller quantum is known in NMR and in atomic physics; it is predicted in the spin-boson model. However, the effect in the spin-boson model is weak, and we need a much stronger version of it to make progress with the excess heat effect in the Fleischmann-Pons effect. When we augment the spin-boson model with loss, we see that the coherent energy exchange process improves dramatically [10]. In perturbation theory we see that this comes about through the removal of destructive interference, which drastically hinders the effect in the basic spin-boson model. In a set of recent papers [10-13], we have been discussing the model, and building up tools and results to try to understand coherent energy exchange when the coupling is stronger and when more quanta are exchanged. In the preceding paper [13], we introduced the local approximation for the lossy spin-boson model, which provides us with a powerful tool with which to address the strong coupling regime. In this work, we continue the analysis by first introducing a numerical algorithm which allows us to obtain eigen- functions, self-energies, and indirect coupling matrix elements in the strong coupling regime. As will be discussed, once we began assembling the results from systematic calculations we noticed that the system appeared to obey scaling laws in the
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Thx for taking time to post that reference Axil. I'm visually oriented, so some of the charts do look familiar. -m From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 10:32 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit So sorry, I should have included a reference to that paper for the convenience of Mr. Cude. http://physics.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.84.031402.pdf Best regards, Axil snip
RE: [Vo]:Ni producer
Whoa, ALL the shares? That is a most unusual transaction... Swiss company, eh... wanna bet they've been talking to Essen and Kulander? Looks like the LENR-energy-generation equivalent of OPEC will be in Switzerland! This is getting more and more interesting by the day... -m -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 12:44 PM To: VORTEX Subject: [Vo]:Ni producer Hi, The (private?) Swiss company Glencore has acquired all the shares of the largest Australian Nickel producer Minara. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Cude replied with the following 'reasonable sounding' rebuttal, but it is faulty at a fundamental level. It is not a valid comparison... I think he was just accusing someone else of that same thing. I guess it depends what you mean by brute force physics. To me, when I push a child on a swing, I'm using brute force physics. And I know intuitively that if I push at the natural frequency of the pendulum, the amplitude of the oscillation is much higher. That's resonance. If I push at a random frequency, energy will be dissipated, and the child will cry. Resonance allows the efficient storing of energy, so it can be built up after multiple cycles. The faulty reasoning here is s simple that I can't believe Cude isn't aware of it. which means he is either a pathological skeptic, being consciously aware of only the elements of a debate which support his beliefs (theory), or, he is consciously using faulty, but reasonable sounding rebuttals, to maintain other people's skepticism, or, just trying to appear to win a debate. Here is how his 'rebuttal' is so blatantly faulty: Pushing a person on a swing does indeed involve force (not brute force), and if timed right, as Cude agrees, involves resonance. That is obvious. What also should be obvious to Cude, and is why his rebuttal is laughable, or worse yet, deceptive, is that in order to achieve the SAME amplitude of the swing when the 'push' is given in resonance with the swing's oscillations, as opposed to when it is not resonant, the latter would have to push EXTREMELY hard in order to get the person to swing to the same height, and then, that amplitude would likely be destructively reduced by the next, wrongly timed, hard push; so one might get occasional large amplitudes in a non-resonant system, but never continuous large amplitudes as in a resonant system. The simple fact is, that given the SAME amount of 'push' at regular intervals, a resonant system will achieve what appears to be extreme amplitudes whereas the non-resonant push of the SAME amount of force, can NEVER achieve any lasting, significant amplitude. This is physics 101, and why Cude couldn't see that is most revealing. -Mark
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
The only set of slide notes in the presentation said the following about WLT: The theory makes specific, testable predictions. Predictions that can be inexpensively verified. -mark
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]: Defkalion: We have Rossi's formula
Key statement by DGT in the Ny Teknik article is the following: It's very simple but they didn't think about it. (...) We solved the problem. Because the problem is that he cannot spread the reaction all over the pipe, and all the heating is concentrated in the middle, Xanthoulis told Ny Teknik. Three points come out of that statement: 1) The cylindrical cores had a problem with dissipation of the heat, and were thus unstable. 2) That is why Rossi's latest cores are rectangular and flat, only 1cm thick. 3) That is why DGT has accused Rossi of using DGT IP in the latest E-Cats. The unstable cores had a good chance of a run-away condition, with subsequent melting of the Ni powder and self-extinguishing. I know there was some discussion and questions raised by the Collective about this issue: how to get the heat to the reactor walls and out to the water, so at least #1 makes a lot of sense. Also, such a simple solution doesn't speak well of the 'problem-solving' skills of Rossi or his crew! If it's all a hoax, gotta ask yourself, why would Rossi go to all the trouble of completely changing the reactor? If the thing is NOT producing any excess power, and if the Ni powder is NOT melting, WHY go to all this trouble to change reactor design? Oh well, 1+1 still doesn't = 2. -Mark
RE: [Vo]:Put your money where your mouth is - for charity
Patrick Ellul asks: Is there anyone else who is game enough to put his real identity behind this? I think what would include most anyone on this list, except Mary, and perhaps Cude. To hide behind the veil of anonymity on a discussion group such as this is cowardly. I have followed vortex-l since the 90s, and can't remember any dispute between contributors which might have caused one to be fearful of 'retaliation'; perhaps some of the real ol-timers could provide further comment. At the worst, you'd have to buy everyone a round of drinks at the dime box saloon. real dangerous indeed! ;-) -Mark
RE: [Vo]:Put your money where your mouth is - for charity
Being the sensitive, compassionate person that I am, how about we all contribute to Mary's share, so this costs her no $, after all, these are financially trying times. I'll contribute $20 to the possibility of Mary Yugo whoever she really is losing her anonymity. Any takers? -mark From: Patrick Ellul [mailto:ellulpatr...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 7:38 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Put your money where your mouth is - for charity Agree Daniel. Yet some skeptics are not willing to put their true identity behind their skepticism, even for such a simple challenge. Regards, Patrick
RE: [Vo]:Next customer -- public, NE USA
Wouldn't that be a hoot if it was good ol Dr. Mills. I hear BLP had to cut back on space heating to save money, and their technology is a little behind schedule, and over budget! :-) -Mark
RE: [Vo]:Next customer -- public, NE USA
Wait a minute... Hey, AussieGuy, is Aussie your first or last name? :-) Can't remember if you've identified yourself to the Vort Collective or not!! Come on, what's good for the goose is good for the gander! Or vice-a-versa... -Mark
RE: [Vo]:Krivit provides details of deal Celani offered Rossi and Rossi's rejection of it
Mary, you must be real naïve about the business environment You claim that, Ripoffs are far from inevitable and in fact rarely happen from big companies when dealing with established inventions and inventors. And when it does happen, the companies often end up losing in court-- losing big. See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns Well, I went to the Kearns webpage and it took him 12 YEARS to get a judgment in the first case, which was appealed, but Ford lost, so even though he finally won, and got paid a good amount, IT WAS VERY EXPENSIVE AND TOOK OVER A DECADE TO GET ANYTHING. This is very typical the big companies will drain you of every penny here are the 2 paragraphs from that website about the lawsuits = RE: Robert Kearns He sued Ford Motor Company in 1978 and Chrysler Corporation in 1982 for patent infringement. The Ford case went to trial in 1990. Ford lost, though the court held that Ford's infringement was not willful (meaning that damages for infringement would not be enhanced). Ford agreed to settle with Kearns for US$ 10.1 million with an agreement of no further appeals. After the settlement with Ford, Kearns mostly acted as his own attorney in the subsequent suit against Chrysler, even questioning witnesses on the stand. The Chrysler verdict was decided in 1992, and was a victory for Kearns. Chrysler was ordered to pay Kearns US$ 18.7 million with interest.[7] Chrysler appealed the court decision, but the Federal Circuit let the judgment stand.[8] The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.[9] By 1995, after spending over US$ 10 million in legal fees,[10] Kearns received approximately US$ 30 million in compensation for Chrysler's patent infringement.[7] == Im not a real networking kind of guy, so my network of scientific/techy people is not all that large. Despite that, I know one inventor that started to get royalties from a small chemical company for an inexpensive way to manufacture isoflavones. The royalty checks stopped after just three months because the small chemical company was bought by ADM, and ADM refused to honor the royalty contract. My inventor friend eventually won his case, but it was very time consuming and expensive. I also know a guy who has spent $7M on a lawsuit against Chevron up at Lake Tahoe, and he still is barely hanging on by his fingertips. And all the evidence clearly shows that the Chevron station in Incline Vlg (long since closed) has leaking gasoline storage tanks and caused serious underground pollution youd think it would be a clear-cut case, but they can drag it out for YEARS and make you spend millions and bury you in paperwork and court filings. And finally, my own personal experiences on the Boards of several small startups has been a real eye-opener as to what the legal environment is like should disputes arise. Avoid any litigation if at all possible Im afraid most of your business suggestions (more like assertions) show a clear lack of real-world experience -Mark
RE: [Vo]:Krivit provides details of deal Celani offered Rossi and Rossi's rejection of it
Mary, As is typical with your MO, you're shooting from the hip. You just make up stuff so it appears you have rebutted a person's points, and in this case, you've really f*cked up. The part you chose to miss is that Kearns was a precedent. You missed the whole meaning of the statement you claim I chose to miss. You are referring to the following statement: Kearns' position found unequivocal support in precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals and from the Supreme Court of the United States. See, e.g., Reiner v. I. Leon Co., 285 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir. 1960) This is NOT, I REPEAT, NOT saying that Kearns' case established precedent! Infringement lawsuits have been going on for at least 200 years! WHAT IT IS SAYING is that he had unequivocal support from cases out of the U.S. Court of Appeals and the SupCt!!! One of the cases which Kearns relied on (as precedent) was even cited for you!!! See, e.g., Reiner v. I. Leon Co., 285 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir. 1960) I.e., he ended up winning his cases because he was able to cite several PREVIOUS cases similar to his AS PRECEDENT. Don't quit your day job because you'd make a horrible lawyer. Finally, I did NOT choose to miss anything. Your statement implies that I intentionally left that out. I did NOT. Before hitting 'Send', I suggest you scrub your postings of all negative implications when they pertain to people other than you. -Mark
RE: [Vo]:Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd D system in 1991
World demand for nickel peaked in 2006 at 1.4 million tonnes; it is now down to about 1M tonnes. 300K tons is not going to be that hard to supply... and the transition from petroleum-based energy to CF/LENR (if it happens, and is not delayed for decades by legal battles) will ramp up over several years, so there shouldn't be any problem with supplying the basic fuel (Ni and H). Of course, the price of Ni is going to see a pretty drastic increase, so Rossi's estimates of costs are probably not realistic except for the very short term. -mark -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat [mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 5:35 PM 300 kTon of Ni fuel to replace all usage of fossil fuels for energy. AG
RE: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
Mary wrote: If I call you to come see I can fly and I sit there and flap my arms, and I do this or different people do this a hundred times, are you going to come the hundredth and first? The example isn't quite so silly as it seems if you remember the claims for transcendental meditation and flight. Mary, this is such a pathetic analogy as to be laughable. in your arm-flapping example you're dealing with macroscopic elements and classical physics. It is just laughable to compare that with what could be happening in cold fusion, or magnet motors or water as a fuel, where, certainly in the CF case we are likely dealing with quantum mechanical interactions, and this could also be involved in the latter cases. -mark From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 12:23 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish) On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Can you read English? Please show me where I was advocating one of those dubious breakthroughs! I wasn't advocating anything. How you got that notion from my posting is a mystery to me! You also haven't responded to my statement that just because most of those breakthroughs have been proven false/fraud, doesn't mean that you can just label all such claims the same. Each has to be proven on its own - we do agree on that. If I call you to come see I can fly and I sit there and flap my arms, and I do this or different people do this a hundred times, are you going to come the hundredth and first? The example isn't quite so silly as it seems if you remember the claims for transcendental meditation and flight. See Yogic Flying: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TM-Sidhi_program
RE: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
Mary stated, There is nothing in any discipline I know about suggesting that either of those tasks are doable. Your argument was OK up to this point because you qualified it with [that] I know about I have absolutely no problem with that statement. Then your subjective bias came in and stated: There is NO evidence anyone has EVER done or could do it. [I've capitalized your sloppy wording] You are way too sloppy/liberal with your wording, and no good scientist nor engineer makes a habit of using those kinds of statements. How the hell do you know everything that has been tried? Have you studied all of the claims out there regarding those kinds of devices? I bet you haven't even looked into 1/100 of them to any sufficient detail, and I mean visiting the person making the claims and not reading about someone else's experience with the claimant. That statement of yours is PURELY rooted in a BELIEF that science has discovered all the fundamental laws with nothing really new out there to discover! I hate to burst your bubble, but that is an indefensible position... Let me give you an education about the laws you so faithfully believe are inviolate and all-encompassing... The 'law' of Conservation of Energy (COE) REQUIRES that you can IDENTIFY and MEASURE all forms of energy in a system. That is a key ASSUMPTION of COE. Since you CANNOT prove that some additional form of energy doesn't exist, you CANNOT rule out the possibility that the law could APPEAR to be violated by an unidentified form of energy; science would then find a way to IDENTIFY and MEASURE the new form of energy, and the COE would seem to be back to its good ol inviolate status (yeah, right). This is not a personal opinion; it is a fundamental aspect of the COE. We now have strong, repeatable evidence of the existence of the zero point field. I have personally met with and discussed the matter with one of the mathematicians who has done much of the fundamental math in this area, and who came up with a derivation for f=ma (if you do not understand the significance of that statement, then this is going to be meaningless to you). He agreed that he has not yet (theoretically) found a way to convert zero-point energy to one of the common forms of energy known to modern science, but, HE ALSO STATED THAT HE HAS NOT FOUND ANYTHING IN THE MATH TO PROHIBIT SUCH A CONVERSION. Now, unlike your sloppy phrasing, that is the CAREFUL and PRECISE wording that one sees commonly from someone who is not in love with the theoretical side of science. I've been around scientists and engineers all of my post-graduate and professional career (30 yrs), and I have come to some conclusions about how carefully a person phrases their statements (especially when talking tech), and just how good a scientist or engineer they are. Bottom Line: You cannot rule out other forms of energy, and thus, APPARENT violations of the COE. Thus, you cannot use violations of COE to invalidate a device, a priori. You then state: Free energy generation from magnetic motors is incompatible with the laws of thermodynamics. If you do not now understand why that statement of yours is WRONG, then I'm just wasting my time trying to raise your awareness... you can continue living in that box, or you can choose to step outside every now and then and commit heresy... nothing to be afraid of... it doesn't hurt... and you can always go back inside if it gets too scary. -Mark -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 4:46 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish) On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Mary wrote: If I call you to come see I can fly and I sit there and flap my arms, and I do this or different people do this a hundred times, are you going to come the hundredth and first? The example isn't quite so silly as it seems if you remember the claims for transcendental meditation and flight. Mary, this is such a pathetic analogy as to be laughable in your arm-flapping example youre dealing with macroscopic elements and classical physics. It is just laughable to compare that with what could be happening in cold fusion, or magnet motors or water as a fuel, where, certainly in the CF case we are likely dealing with quantum mechanical interactions, and this could also be involved in the latter cases. I disagree. Let's leave cold fusion out. As far as running a car on water and making a magnet-based device which yields free energy, those do not deal with any known interactions, quantum mechanical or otherwise. They are pure fantasy or fraud. There is nothing in any discipline I know about suggesting that either of those tasks are doable. There is no evidence anyone has ever done or could do it. There is no reason whatever to believe it any more than that I could have discovered how to fly
RE: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
Peter wrote: Scientific experiments must be documented for eternity, not for a single day. This is something that Rossi seemingly not understands. I can't believe these kinds of statements are still made! What Peter doesn't understand, and has been mentioned by numerous people, numerous times on this forum, is that Rossi is NOT INTERESTED in doing a scientific experiment. What part of NOT INTERESTED don't you understand? So much wasted bandwidth. unfortunately, the signal to noise ratio has plummeted on Vortex, with people pointing out the obvious, or same thing, over and over. For all the NEWCOMERS (meaning those who only started posting to Vortex-l in the last 9 months). Vortex has been around a long time, with many of the same contributors. Try asking yourself Why?. In fact, this year has seen the passing of at least two of the ol'Timers... they will be missed. If you don't know about the 'dime box saloon', then you have no idea why this forum has lasted so long and what the 'regulars' like about it. What is MOST VALUED here is rational discussion (NOT REPETITION), and especially if it includes references and calculations. or keeping the rest of us informed about the latest technical/scientific developments that might interest the group. Let's try to keep the speculative and repetitive postings to a minimum, ok? Happy Thanksgiving to those living in the USA. To the rest of the world, Happy 'In-The-Moment'! -Mark From: Peter Heckert [mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de] Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 11:11 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish) snip Scientific experiments must be documented for eternity, not for a single day. This is something that Rossi seemingly not understands. Peter
RE: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
No one is suggesting we ignore it! And who's to say that one of those magnet motors or water cars doesn't do what is claimed? This forum is primarily interested in discussing the facts and evidence, preferably with supporting references and calculations, in order to establish the level of credibility of the claims. It is SELDOM a black or white situation. just because past claims of magnet motors and water cars have been shown to be mistaken or fraudulent, doesn't mean that ALL such claims can be concluded to be the same. IF you think that, then you have no idea how science operates. This forum prefers to discuss the salient points rationally and everyone can come their OWN conclusions. we don't need you or JC or anyone else to point out the obvious in an attempt to save us from a scammer. -Mark From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 12:43 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish) snip I can't agree with ignoring other bad science and technology fraud. The average person in the street won't know that water cars (adding on board generation of hydrogen to the air-fuel mix) don't work and they are sending scammers tons of money-- the exact amount isn't clear. Several prosecutions for fraud have happened due to water car claims but news ones keep sprouting up all the time. There are not enough investigators and the crimes are comparatively not severe enough so many are never prosecuted. This may not be a suitable place to discuss those frauds but they certainly need to be discussed somewhere!
RE: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
Agreed AG! In fact, on several of the earlier tests, the reactor was lifted up off of the table so one could see that there were no hidden wires or pipes attached. SO, there are only two possibilities here: 1) Mary is aware of this and purposely is spreading mis-information, 2) Mary isn't aware of it, and is, thus, ignorant of at least SOME critical FACTS, and therefore, shouldn't be making such sweeping, all inclusive statements which imply being fully aware of all those facts. -mark -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat [mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 12:55 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish) I did say I was not going to reply to you but your last statement is just 100% BS. The reactor and the Blue Box sat on a table. There was ONE power cord that was plugged into the wall. It went to the Blue Box (then the RFG was inside the Blue Box) and then to the reactor. There were no other power connections. They measured the TOTAL power being drawn by the WHOLE system by measuring the current at the mains plug. So STOP with the extra power statement. They are BS and you know it. AG On 11/25/2011 7:04 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: Another possible problem with the paper at http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf is that they don't say where and how they measured input power with their ammeter. Maybe they say it elsewhere. Rossi has two heaters in the device -- a startup heater in the middle and a safety (?!?!) heater around the coolant jacket. I'd like to be able to exclude that maybe Kullander, Essen et al did not measure both heaters and instead only looked at one while Rossi was actually putting plenty of power into the other one. Did they measure from the line cord supplying the entire device? Or just from the wire going to one of the heaters? I took a quick look but didn't see in their report how they measured input power. Maybe I missed it. I also looked at the figures but they don't show it either. NyTeknik's Lewan showed images of his power measurement during the demo he received and it was a clamp on ammeter on the power line to the entire equipment. I do recall that. But there were other infelicities with that show. My suspicion is that KE did it correctly with the line cord but that either Rossi had a hidden way to provide more power to the device or that he spiked the reaction mixture somehow. Obviously I have no way to know. This continuing discussion emphasizes yet once more why independent tests are required and why they need to run a longer time.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi denies Defkalion has any technology-- again
Good one Terry! -m -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 1:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi denies Defkalion has any technology-- again On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: If Rossi's kludge turns out to be really cold fusion, I'm going to become partial to absinthe. Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder. T
RE: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish)
Mary stated: I'd love to see those supporting references and calculations you advocated. If you don't know of exceptions, you should regard such claims as highly suspicious and rather than accepting them at face value when someone makes the claims, you should insist that they be particularly cautiously and thoroughly evaluated. Can you read English? Please show me where I was advocating one of those dubious breakthroughs! I wasn't advocating anything. How you got that notion from my posting is a mystery to me! You also haven't responded to my statement that just because most of those breakthroughs have been proven false/fraud, doesn't mean that you can just label all such claims the same. Each has to be proven on its own - we do agree on that. You seem to have too strong a reliance on the theory side. theory is only a guideline. There have been numerous instances where the well established and proven natural laws HAVE INDEED BEEN BROKEN OR SERIOUSLY REVISED! How the hell do you think science has advanced? Do NOT make the mistake of falling in love with theories. they are destined for eventual overthrow. Gotta Git. got a date with some turkey's breasts, prime cow ribs, bourbon sweet potatoes and fermented grapejuice! -m From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 1:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish) On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: It is SELDOM a black or white situation. just because past claims of magnet motors and water cars have been shown to be mistaken or fraudulent, doesn't mean that ALL such claims can be concluded to be the same. IF you think that, then you have no idea how science operates. Magnet motors that claim overunity (Goldes, Steorn, Aviso, Dennis Lee, Bedini and who knows how many more?) and running a car purely on ordinary water (HHO scams and the like) would break well established and proven natural laws. In addition to that fact, most such claims in the past have turned out to be mistakes, self deceptions and/or rank criminal deception for profit (scams). A few have not yet been resolved as to their nature. And ALL are unproven, as far as I can determine. If you know of any exceptions, I'd love to see those supporting references and calculations you advocated. If you don't know of exceptions, you should regard such claims as highly suspicious and rather than accepting them at face value when someone makes the claims, you should insist that they be particularly cautiously and thoroughly evaluated. That is what Sagan meant when he said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
RE: [Vo]:New Youtube videos from SRI features a lecture by McKubre
Thanks Mary! That is a welcome contribution!! Happy Thanksgiving, -mark From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 2:48 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:New Youtube videos from SRI features a lecture by McKubre Link below is to the first video. These are from Nov 15 and I have not seem them mentioned here before -- sorry if this turns out to be redundant. No time to view it all or to list all the videos. I think there are 8, each from around 6 to 10 or so minutes long. Why not all at once? I don't know. If someone has time, I'd like to know where the Rossi coverage is. I watched the first video and he promises to give some time to that issue: www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtweR_qGHEc
RE: [Vo]:Andrea Rossi replies to Nobel prize winner Brian Josephson (Focus.it)
Akira: Just want to thank you for taking time to monitor what's being said at various websites and then taking time to update the Vort Collective... it is much appreciated! -Mark -Original Message- From: Akira Shirakawa [mailto:shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 10:30 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Andrea Rossi replies to Nobel prize winner Brian Josephson (Focus.it) Hello group, Here is Rossi's answer to Brian Josephson on an English article from Focus.it. (Brian Josephson joins Francesco Celani's call for further scientific tests of Andrea Rossi's E-Cat, but Rossi has different plans) http://www.focus.it/scienza/ecat-cold-fusion-andrea-rossi-replies-to-nobel-prize-winner-brian-josephson-956_C12.aspx Cheers, S.A.
RE: [Vo]:[OT] Avian Recipes
... and pathological skeptics. One person's True Believer is another person's Pathological Skeptic. -mark -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 11:08 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Avian Recipes On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Roarty, Francis X gives those blackbirdies one major high . . . until they come down, er, so to speak. Sort of like what happens to indiscriminate believers?
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat guy: Hire a local HVAC engineering company!
AG: Correct, and Cude is guilty of the same kind of statements... in one post he states that there has been NO improvement in CF/LENR evidence at all since 1989. This is total BS... just look at Jed's website for hundreds of papers, many of which have heat in excess of 10 to 100 times the accuracy of the calorimeter. No, MY and JC are polluting the good technical discussions on vortex with regurgitation of the same old points... which we are all aware of, and have been since the very first test in January. -Mark -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat [mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2011 5:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat guy: Hire a local HVAC engineering company! What you wrote is so full of incorrect statements as to finally label you as a confirmed basher. The heat storage theory has been totally busted. The E-Cat was lifted off the table and onto a scale to measure the pre test weight. There is no way any heat storage could have been hidden during that process. The human hands and arms on the E-Cat module would have detected it. As for ..he barely allowed the lid to be lifted? You must think we are thick. The top lid was TOTALLY removed. AG
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat guy: Hire a local HVAC engineering company!
JC, you used the specific wording, .the evidence has not improved at all. That is the kind of statement I'd expect from a pathological skeptic. or someone totally ignorant of the research. which you are not. ignorant of the research, that is. Here are three elements of LENR research which show your not improved at all statement to be total BS. or worse, intentionally misleading to those readers who are not as knowledgeable about what has been accomplished by the LENR research community: 1) Calorimetry has drastically improved, which has only served to improve the signal-to-noise (i.e., confidence level) of the results, so even if your claims that the amount of heat hasn't improved (which I don't agree with), the chances that the excess heat was due to error is much reduced due to the excellent calorimetry that has been developed to make the measurements. NASA has confirmed the excess heat to their satisfaction. only a pathological skeptic would argue against excess heat. 2) Knowledge about what criteria must be met to get successful results has definitely come out of the research. 3) Due to #2, repeatability has most definitely improved since FP's work; some labs have reported better than 80% repeatability. What bothers me about you is that you are quite knowledgeable about physics in general, and about some of the LENR research, and yet you make statements that are so blatantly wrong and misleading. With the knowledge you have about LENR research, you must be aware of these facts, but you choose to mislead by not including relevant points which don't support your POV. which don't support your agenda. Over the past 6+ months, your postings have less good technical analyses, and more of the above kinds of statements.. -Mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2011 10:29 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat guy: Hire a local HVAC engineering company! On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: in one post he states that there has been NO improvement in CF/LENR evidence at all since 1989. This is total BS... just look at Jed's website for hundreds of papers, many of which have heat in excess of 10 to 100 times the accuracy of the calorimeter. According to Storms book, PF claimed 27 W output in 1989 (and I recall a gain of 10 or so from reading the paper a long time ago). I haven't seen significant progress beyond those results. It's interesting to read the account of Energetic's first big success in 2004. They measured about 20 W and a gain of 20 or so, and they were dancing in the lab. So, it is reason for celebration to essentially match the 1989 results. And since 2004, the reported Energetics' results that I've seen have not come close to their 2004 high-water mark. There have been some higher claims in the interim, like Patterson's (although even that was in the 90s), and now of course Rossi's. And in Rossi's case, the evidence does not bear up under even modest internet scrutiny.
RE: [Vo]: UK's DECC Monitoring the sector (LENR)
Mary stated, In other words, they don't believe Rossi either, on the evidence that he's provided. You're so adept at pointing out the obvious. -m From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 8:54 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: UK's DECC Monitoring the sector (LENR) On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co wrote: I recently contacted DECC (UK equivalent of DoE) to get their view on what they thought about the ecat, and to see if they had even heard of it. I got quite an interesting reply. Trigger for further action is an interesting phrase. DECC is aware of this alleged power source: the DECC CSA, David MacKay FRS, has read some of the literature and has met Sven Kulander, who has reviewed an experiment and whose report is on the Defkalion website. The CSA's judgment is that it is appropriate for DECC to maintain a watch on this sector, with the key trigger for further action being the publication of the work in a reputable peer-refereed journal, including full details so that academic scientists can replicate the results. SNIP In other words, they don't believe Rossi either, on the evidence that he's provided.
RE: [Vo]:Book: Rossi's eCat
The internet has provided a critical impulse of momentum to the E-Cat saga... Now the cart is rolling downhill and has run over the horse! The ONLY thing that will stop it is a tree (clear evidence that the E-Cat is all a scam). Like the Prez of Iceland recently said, The internet is more powerful than any other form of media. -mark -Original Message- From: Robert Leguillon [mailto:robert.leguil...@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 4:59 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Book: Rossi's eCat *facepalm* The year 0 P.R. (Post Rossi)? I hope the horse will overtake the cart, and regain it's rightful station.
[Vo]: Why did Rossi use the RF generator??? Hi-frequency electrolysis paper out.
At Physics Today. http://physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v64/i11/p17_s1 High-frequency electrolysis begets spontaneously combusting nanobubbles The key is to feed the bubbles a balanced diet of hydrogen and oxygen before they have a chance to grow. Ashley G. Smart November 2011, page 17 Permalink: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.1319 I know this probably doesn't apply to the 1MW test, but perhaps for the previous one that used the RFG. So Rossi could be producing and burning the fuel at the same time, internally. does he even realize it? -Mark
RE: [Vo]: Is the ECAT out of the bag?
David Roberson wrote: I recall an old phrase attributed to Sherlock Holmes along the lines of Once all of the probable answers have been proven wrong, then it must be the improbable. Someone among the vortex will correct my phrase and that is a good thing. My wording is incorrect, but that is not the important issue. Eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer. -S.H.
RE: [Vo]: Is the ECAT out of the bag?
Dave Roberson asks: “What happens to the energetic gammas that are generated by the transitions between states? They seem to gloss over that detail and talk about some unusual mechanism that converts them into infrared radiation. It would be an incredible coincidence for all of these gammas to be consumed in this way. At least a small fraction of them would escape.” Although I cannot give you a quantitative answer, I would suggest the following possibility: There are numerous (and obvious) evidences that the basic elements which make up an atom (i.e., p+, e-) have an oscillatory character about them; e.g., the entire field of absorption/emission spectroscopy, lamb shift, and numerous other ‘flavors’ of spectroscopy. What happens when you shine light of a non-resonant frequency at a target atom? Most likely, nothing… Why? Because the oscillations occurring in the atom and the light hitting it are not harmonically related. One of the crucial reasons the mainstream physics community uses to dismiss LENR is that one cannot overcome the coulomb barrier at such low temperatures. That may be true if you’re trying to interact with the atom in a brute force way… i.e., hitting it with a sledge-hammer. The principle way in which physicists have learned about nuclear physics has been thru the use of various kind of particle accelerators. Make no mistake, a particle accelerator *IS* an atomic/nuclear sledge-hammer. The entire nuclear physics community is thus trained into thinking that that’s the only way to get two nuclei to interact – with a sledge-hammer. My suggestion as to your question, is that once certain conditions come about in the LENR (and perhaps Ni-H) systems, there is a resonant condition (or conditions, plural) present which drastically changes the branching ratios to favor other interactions. Which would also explain why it was so difficult to reproduce in the early years…. i.e., it takes very specific oscillatory frequencies, and so 99.99% of the time, regardless of what you do to your experiment, you never achieve the proper harmonic relationships for the effect to manifest. Another clue that is hinting at this suggestion is that one can get very large amplitude responses from a system by putting in very LOW amounts of energy **that is harmonically related** to the oscillation one is trying to affect inside the nucleus. So I would posit that one can get a proton to interact with the Nickel nucleus at low energy IF one knows how to bring the two objects into some kind of harmonic/resonant relationship… and the coulomb barrier is then a non-issue. Perhaps it needs to be in a harmonic relationship with BOTH the electrons of the Ni atom as well as what’s going on in the nucleus… which makes it all the more difficult to accomplish. -Mark
[Vo]: Some more Sherlockiana...
You’re most welcome… been a Holmes fan since college days… 30 yrs ago! A few other bits of Sherlockiana… Although Holmes said, “Elementary, Watson”, and “My dear Watson”, Holmes never said, “Elementary, my dear Watson.” Sherlock had a smarter, older brother… Mycroft Holmes. Holmes never wore his deer-stalker cap in London… he only wore it when on a case that took him out of the big city. The deer-stalker cap is the one that looks like two baseball caps; one oriented forward as usual, and the other backwards.. i.e., it has two ‘visor’ portions, with one in front and one sticking out the back… no doubt to cause the rain dripping from your cap to fall on the back of your coat and not run down the back of your neck and under your coat. Finally, of all the TV/movie renditions of Holmes and Watson that I’ve seen, I think the PBS Mystery series with Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke as Holmes and Watson, was the closest to what I remember from reading all 56 short stories and 4 novels that Conan Doyle wrote. Jeremy Brett did a very good Holmes… -m From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 8:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Is the ECAT out of the bag? Thanks, I knew I could count on the vortex! -Original Message- From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint mailto:zeropo...@charter.net zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Oct 30, 2011 10:54 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]: Is the ECAT out of the bag? David Roberson wrote: I recall an old phrase attributed to Sherlock Holmes along the lines of “Once all of the probable answers have been proven wrong, then it must be the improbable”. Someone among the vortex will correct my phrase and that is a good thing. My wording is incorrect, but that is not the important issue. “Eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer.” -S.H.
RE: [Vo]:Lewan and other observers unable to confirm claims
At least the thermocouples were placed by the company’s engineer and not Rossi... -mark
[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Fw: [Vo]:500kW generator was also running during the 5 hours!
And those kinds of gensets have watt-hour meters as well… -m From: John Harris [mailto:jfhar...@dodo.com.au] Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 7:33 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Fw: [Vo]:500kW generator was also running during the 5 hours! If I where running the test I would only want one point of power input and that from the genset - this means that the generator must remain running to power the condensor fans, pumps and control electrics. If the gen set where stopped but there was a sizable extension cord run out from the building there would still be questions. Its a no win situation but I think the most practical and easiest to monitor solution is the gen set supplying all the power for a stand alone test. John
[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Rossi's customer
That would make sense due to the excellent LENR research done by the Navy's SPAWAR facility in San Diego. I'm sure a number of high-ranking Navy officers (decision makers) are well aware of SPAWAR's work. Perhaps the 'agreement' states that the technology would be used strictly (yeah, right) for space heating and propulsion. These are no different than what the technology would be used for by the commercial/industrial/public sectors. The Navy probably spends a fair amount of its budget on heating offices and barracks and all of their 'boats'! -m From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:27 AM To: vortex-l Subject: [Vo]:Rossi's customer There has been a rumor floated that the US Navy is Rossi's customer in this week's upcoming E-Cat trial. This rumor is entirely believable. snip
[Vo]: more progress on the 'electron strobe-light'
In the continuing saga of learning what's really happening at the atomistic scale and time-frame, here's a recent article about research which is helping to eliminate what we PERCEIVE as the electron's motion, and replacing it with what is REALLY happening: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-electrons-molecules.html The experiment can be compared to photographs, which, for example, image a bullet shot through an apple. The bullet would be too fast for the shutter of a camera, resulting in a blurred image. Therefore, the shutter is left open and the picture is illuminated with light flashes, which are faster than the bullet. That’s how we get our snap-shot. Yes, except that with electrons, even the speed of the bullet seems like an eternity... quoting further: The research team irradiated nitrogen dioxide molecules (NO2) with a very short ultraviolet pulse. Subsequently, the molecule takes up the energy from the pulse which sets the electrons in motion. The electrons start rearranging themselves, which causes the electron cloud to oscillate between two different shapes for a very short time, before the molecule starts to vibrate and eventually decomposes into nitric oxide and an oxygen atom. In the NO2 molecule, two states of the electrons can have the same energy for a particular geometry – commonly described as conical intersection. The conical intersection works like a dip-switch. snip And then this statement... The special aspect about conical intersections is that the motion of electrons is transferred to a motion of the atoms very efficiently. Might this be relevant as to how the energy from LENR gets into the lattice instead of being ejected entirely as gamma or some other energetic particle? -Mark
RE: [Vo]: more progress on the 'electron strobe-light'
I think the main point of my posting didn't make it out of my head on onto the paper! Let me explain further... The article stated: The research team irradiated nitrogen dioxide molecules (NO2) with a very short ultraviolet pulse. Subsequently, the molecule takes up the energy from the pulse which sets the electrons in motion. The electrons start rearranging themselves, which causes the electron cloud to oscillate between two different shapes for a very short time, before the molecule starts to vibrate and eventually decomposes into nitric oxide and an oxygen atom. Step 1: ...the molecule takes up the energy from the pulse which sets the electrons in motion. Step 1 Corrected: This should really say that the *electrons* take up the energy from the pulse, which increases the electron oscillations. The first interaction is photon to electron, not the molecule. Also, the electrons are in constant motion, so ignore the end of that statement. Step 2: The electrons start rearranging themselves, which causes the electron cloud to oscillate between two different shapes for a very short time Of course. One or more of the electrons has absorbed some energy and this causes it to be out of sync with not only other electron oscillations, but with proton and neutron oscillations. Perhaps the oscillation between two shapes is because the photon of energy that got absorbed gets bounced back and forth between electron oscillations until... Step 3: ...the molecule starts to vibrate and eventually decomposes. Again... of course. The imbalance of the electron oscillations disrupts the delicate balance of harmonics between all the e, p and n oscillations and causes a break in the weakest oscillation coupling (bond). Here is where I wondered about the relevance to LENR... In this example, the laser pulse of energy into the material gets coupled in thru the electrons (the first thing encountered since they effectively are a shield around the nucleus), but then that energy is 'transferred into the molecule', which I translate as 'into the lattice'. The article states that the 'conical intersections' is the key to this photon-to-molecule-to-lattice transfer of energy... And finally, the 64MW question: Can 'conical intersections' be made to occur in the PD and Ni materials that are used in successful LENR experiments??? -Mark -Original Message- From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 10:20 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: more progress on the 'electron strobe-light' In the continuing saga of learning what's really happening at the atomistic scale and time-frame, here's a recent article about research which is helping to eliminate what we PERCEIVE as the electron's motion, and replacing it with what is REALLY happening: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-electrons-molecules.html The experiment can be compared to photographs, which, for example, image a bullet shot through an apple. The bullet would be too fast for the shutter of a camera, resulting in a blurred image. Therefore, the shutter is left open and the picture is illuminated with light flashes, which are faster than the bullet. That’s how we get our snap-shot. Yes, except that with electrons, even the speed of the bullet seems like an eternity... quoting further: The research team irradiated nitrogen dioxide molecules (NO2) with a very short ultraviolet pulse. Subsequently, the molecule takes up the energy from the pulse which sets the electrons in motion. The electrons start rearranging themselves, which causes the electron cloud to oscillate between two different shapes for a very short time, before the molecule starts to vibrate and eventually decomposes into nitric oxide and an oxygen atom. In the NO2 molecule, two states of the electrons can have the same energy for a particular geometry – commonly described as conical intersection. The conical intersection works like a dip-switch. snip And then this statement... The special aspect about conical intersections is that the motion of electrons is transferred to a motion of the atoms very efficiently. Might this be relevant as to how the energy from LENR gets into the lattice instead of being ejected entirely as gamma or some other energetic particle? -Mark
RE: [Vo]:Rossi says he has a European CE mark
There's only one thing to say about all this. mBeep, beep. -m From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 11:03 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi says he has a European CE mark OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: And what's the name of the secret company working for Rossi Runner? ACME? Oh, wait a minute. Isn't that the name of the company Wile E. always special orders from? Exactly! It is high time we file suit to correct this injustice. Here is legal precedent, Coyote v Acme: http://www.torinfo.com/justforlaughs/coyote_v_acme.html . . . Mr. Wile E. Coyote, a resident of Arizona and contiguous states, does hereby bring suit for damages against the Acme Company, manufacturer and retail distributor of assorted merchandise . . . Mr. Coyote seeks compensation for personal injuries, loss of business income, and mental suffering causes as a direct result of the actions and/or gross negligence of said company . . . As this suit shows, Rossi, as the sole provider of these devices, is abusing monopolistic power: As the Court is no doubt aware, Defendant has a virtual monopoly of manufacture and sale of goods required by Mr. Coyote's work. It is our contention that Defendant has used its market advantage to the detriment of the consumer of such specialized products as itching powder, giant kites, Burmese tiger traps, anvils, and two-hundred-foot-long rubber bands. . . . - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Rossi: 1MW prototype has already been tested at full power
No... just one hellacious fog bank hangin over the city... which hasn't happened since the university was built! Just a coincidence... :-) -Mark -Original Message- From: Peter Heckert [mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de] Has anybody seen big amounts of steam at Bologna? Or anamalous heat around Rossis facility?
RE: [Vo]:Rossi: 1MW prototype has already been tested at full power
I beg to differ most strenuously with Mr. Murray's statement: ...largely CF believing community of Vortex-L... Rich, you've been a contributor to this group for quite some time as well. If you haven't noticed by now you aren't as observant as you think. The main thing that attracted me to the Vort Collective was that the regular contributors HAVE READ THE PAPERS they are discussing... especially when it comes to CF and BLP. Thus, their 'belief' that there is something to LENR/CF is based on KNOWLEDGE of the research; and some have even participated in it, myself included (with Tom Droege), not because they read the latest condescending quip in the latest issue of Science or Nature, both of which have no interest in READING the papers submitted by very accomplished scientists. I don't know what your definition of 'belief' is, but what goes on in this group is not my concept of belief...at least, not when it comes to serious subject matter such as mentioned in this post. As Dr. Robert Duncan, Vice Chancellor of Research, Univ of Missouri, said in his 60-Minutes segment, Talk to the scientists, visit their labs, do the calculations for yourself Don't let others do your thinking for you. If more 'scientists' made this their number one rule, we would all probably have e-Cats by now. -Mark -Original Message- From: Rich Murray [mailto:rmfor...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 9:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Rich Murray; Rich Murray Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: 1MW prototype has already been tested at full power As a pragmatic skeptic, within the largely CF believing community of Vortex-L, my meager qualifications re science and technology have snip
RE: [Vo]:How to make Nickel Nano Powder.
Peter wrote: The Nickel oxide powder is reduced to nickel in hydrogen atmosphere under high pressure and high temperature. What nobody noticed is that the janitor accidentally knocked the heater plug from the wall, but since the thing still heats up, who would have thought to look! They've been doing LENR for years and never had a clue... :-) -m -Original Message- From: Peter Heckert [mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de] Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 6:12 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:How to make Nickel Nano Powder. Nickel Nano powder is made like this: Nickel is oxidized. The nickel oxide is milled. The Nickel oxide powder is reduced to nickel in hydrogen athmossphere under high pressure and high temperature. Why doesnt this sometimes explode? Peter
[Vo]: Changing the subject... nuclear-to-electrical, Cockcroft and Walton
I don't know about the rest of you, but I've had enough of the E-Cat fiasco until the end of the month. I was going thru some old papers and found an s.p.f newsgroup article from 1991. yes, I'm kind of a pack-rat when it comes to sci-tech stuff. The article was posted by Bill Goffe at the Univ of Texas, and he was writing about an article he had seen in the NYTimes. The article was written by Glenn Seaborg and Paul Nitze (GS shared a Nobel prize in '51, and Nitze was an arms control advisor to every president from Truman to Reagan). Here is what I wanted to ask the Vort Collective to see what, if anything, is in its consciousness about the following excerpt taken from the Seaborg/Nitze article: In 1932, two British scientists, John Cockcroft and Ernest T.S. Walton, demonstrated that nuclear energy could be generated by the collision of artificially accelerated atomic nuclei in which both the initial and resulting nuclei were nonradioactive. Energy was released in the form of electrically charged atoms. This opens the possibility of converting the nuclear energy directly into electrical energy, avoiding the heat conversion that is common to all electric-power generating processes and that warms the planet. Does Mills mention these two scientists? Is this what Moray's device did? Enjoy, -Mark
RE: [Vo]:Forbes weighs in on the controversial Rossi's eCat phenomenon
Peter left out one minor detail... The purpose of a scam is to make money at other people's expense... If the 1MW demo fails, nobody gets paid, and Rossi has just FLUSHED his entire net worth down the drain. Peter, answer the question as to why Rossi would flush his money down the drain. He had enough money prior to the E-Cat to live very comfortably for the rest of his life... so why risk your entire future by starting a scam, and then doing a demo that can't work and will kill all interest before you get oodles of $? I doubt it’s a scam, but it most certainly can be that because of poor testing procedures, Rossi has tricked himself into believing that this is real, and he has been so convinced of that that he feels he doesn't need to do meticulous testing... -Mark -Original Message- From: Peter Heckert [mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 9:51 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Forbes weighs in on the controversial Rossi's eCat phenomenon Am 17.10.2011 18:35, schrieb OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson: Personally, I think it is ludicrous to assume Oct. 28 is the big day for humanity. The pessimist within me currently speculates that a more likely scenario will be that as Oct 28 arrives and the demo begins Rossi's 1 MW prototype may begin to experience technical difficulties. If its a scam, there is a next logical step: It will fail and they will have somebody guilty for it. There are enough snakes and imbeciles. Everything is prepared ;-)
RE: [Vo]:Primary Flow Calculation
Hi Dave, Anyone who goes thru the trouble of providing calcs to support their position is most welcome! This is a tough, but for the most part, fair and objective collection of characters. not to mention that some of them have been around for near 2 decades on this forum. strong opinions, but backed up by considerable experience with bad science/engineering and an emphasis on facts, not theories. Jump right in! -mark From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 7:49 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Primary Flow Calculation [snip] This is my first post to the vortex and I have my fingers crossed. Dave
RE: [Vo]:More drama: open letter to Christos Stemmenos from Defkalion GT
The sad thing about the conflict between DGT and Rossi is that even if they BOTH had all the resources necessary to mass produce the E-Cat, if they shared their knowledge with each other, the demand is so great that they BOTH could run the manufacturing plants 24/7 and make billions... there is more than enough demand to go around... for numerous manufacturers. -mark
RE: [Vo]:OT: Pendulum Waves
Hi Steven... Mr. Margolin's house pics don't look like southern Nevada at all... I think he is here in Reno because the weblink for his house pics has a folder named 'vch', which is most likely Virginia City Highlands, which is a rural housing development about 20 mins out of Reno to the south. -Mark
RE: [Vo]:OT: Pendulum Waves
Further reading confirmed my suspicions... http://www.jmargolin.com/vch/myhouse.htm The new house I bought is in Virginia City Highlands, about 22 miles South East of Reno and 5 miles North of Virginia City. -Original Message- From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 8:21 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: Pendulum Waves Hi Steven... Mr. Margolin's house pics don't look like southern Nevada at all... I think he is here in Reno because the weblink for his house pics has a folder named 'vch', which is most likely Virginia City Highlands, which is a rural housing development about 20 mins out of Reno to the south. -Mark
RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins
Mr. Higgins did a fantastic diagram of the fat-cat... -mark
RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins
However, I'm not sure if he's got the dimensions of the heat spreaders correct. From all the pics of the fat-cat open, the heat spreader fins look to have a uniform ~3cm clearance from the 4 walls. In Higgins' drawing, he shows the heat spreaders having a much larger clearance on one side... I do not think that is accurate. -mark -Original Message- From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 1:20 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins Mr. Higgins did a fantastic diagram of the fat-cat... -mark
RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins
Hi Bob, I think all us Vorts appreciate the time you've put into the analyses and diagrams... I know you say the diagram is only meant to help visualize things, but from what I've read and seen, it seems pretty accurate; not sure about the pressure limiter. I think the water inlet is on the bottom... I'd like to make reference to the assembly which basically 'sandwiches' the reactor core between identical layers of shielding and heat spreaders, both on top and underneath. We never see this assembly removed, so the only way we know what's underneath the top spreader is from comments made by Rossi; and what you've drawn is the image that I had in mind. I'd like to suggest that you look again at all available pics or videos which have the lid off, and look at the clearance between the spreader and the 4 walls. It sure seems to me that there is a consistent ~3cm gap between the heat spreader and the walls, which would make it rectangular and not the square 30cm x 30cm dimensions that Mats Lewan has reported. One request: could you add some measurement dimensions (in cm) to the diagram? Much appreciate your efforts! -Mark -Original Message- From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 [mailto:bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 1:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins The drawing I included is only meant to be a diagrammatic/schematic representation to help understand the quantities being considered. Regards, Bob Higgins -Original Message- From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 4:27 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins However, I'm not sure if he's got the dimensions of the heat spreaders correct. From all the pics of the fat-cat open, the heat spreader fins look to have a uniform ~3cm clearance from the 4 walls. In Higgins' drawing, he shows the heat spreaders having a much larger clearance on one side... I do not think that is accurate. -mark -Original Message- From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 1:20 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins Mr. Higgins did a fantastic diagram of the fat-cat... -mark
[Vo]: Dennis Ritchie passes
For all you fellow code monkeys out there... Dennis Ritchie died. The inventor of C, designer of a universal language syntax, and a major contributor to UNIX died this week at the age of 60. -m
RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins
Hi Bob, Having some basic dimensioning (height, width, length, etc.) would have been helpful for many of the analyses done to date, however, at this late stage it probably isn't much needed. I am still trying to get Horace to read my articles about the dimensions of the spreader, since Lewan's 30x30 must be an error, and that would significantly affect his volume calculations. Sent them to Jed as well via personal email... Can you please elaborate more on your second point that the 120C steam coming into the external heat exchanger is not affecting the Tout thermocouple... did you do some calcs, or is this a gut feeling, and if the latter, is it from considerable experience with heat-flows? You realize that Tout is a key variable which we'd really like to feel more confident about... Thanks, -Mark -Original Message- From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 [mailto:bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 3:27 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins Hi Mark, I will consider such a drawing. However, the present diagram is not geometrically correct - the internal unit is rotated in the cross-section so as to highlight the fins. What is needed is a proper drawing from the pictures. I just don't know what useful insight would be obtained from spending the time on that. I think it would be more useful to draw a speculative cross-section of the headers of the heat exchanger to have a proper discussion of the heat flow. It is my contention, that because of the high secondary flow, that the heat from even primary hot water would not cause a significant error temperature rise in Tout. This is because the heat conducted through the brass from the primary input would have to travel along the brass shell past the flowing secondary water for at least an inch through a cross-section of about 1/4. The secondary water tube in that section can be considered nearly a perfect sink because of the high flow, and almost all of the heat from the primary will terminate in that water - which is where it is supposed to terminate anyway. Regards, Bob Higgins -Original Message- From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 4:53 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins Hi Bob, I think all us Vorts appreciate the time you've put into the analyses and diagrams... I know you say the diagram is only meant to help visualize things, but from what I've read and seen, it seems pretty accurate; not sure about the pressure limiter. I think the water inlet is on the bottom... I'd like to make reference to the assembly which basically 'sandwiches' the reactor core between identical layers of shielding and heat spreaders, both on top and underneath. We never see this assembly removed, so the only way we know what's underneath the top spreader is from comments made by Rossi; and what you've drawn is the image that I had in mind. I'd like to suggest that you look again at all available pics or videos which have the lid off, and look at the clearance between the spreader and the 4 walls. It sure seems to me that there is a consistent ~3cm gap between the heat spreader and the walls, which would make it rectangular and not the square 30cm x 30cm dimensions that Mats Lewan has reported. One request: could you add some measurement dimensions (in cm) to the diagram? Much appreciate your efforts! -Mark
RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins
Hi Horace, Sorry! I didn't mean to be a pest, but I didn't even get an ACK that indicated you had seen my post (or personal email) about this issue... next time, if possible, just a quick note to indicate that you saw the post or email and are working on it... for a trivial issue I wouldn't care, but this definitely affects some of your calculations in your report, so I wanted to be sure you at least saw that there might be an error in Mat's dimensions. No Hurry... let us know when you've updated your report. -Mark -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 5:59 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins Mark, I am working on getting better or confirming estimates. I am also working on multiple other things at the moment so please be patient. [snip]
[Vo]: William Corliss passes...
FYI for all the ol'timer Vorts. http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/corliss-obit/ For all the newcomers, you might want to read about the librarian of the anomalous. -Mark
RE: [Vo]: William Corliss passes...
Sorry bout that. I now see that the article was earlier this year. July 12. -m From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 10:35 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: William Corliss passes... FYI for all the ol'timer Vorts. http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/corliss-obit/ For all the newcomers, you might want to read about the librarian of the anomalous. -Mark
[Vo]: When is a square, not a square?
Look at all the pictures of the heat-spreader inside the E-Cat, and tell me that the shape of the finned structure is a square and not a rectangle. Now, do you think that Lewan's dimensions for that structure 30 x 30 x 30 are right? -mark
RE: [Vo]:FW: Mills CIHT Published World Patent Application
Why doesn't Mills FINISH JUST ONE PRODUCT AND GET IT TO MARKET! He's like a little kid who gets 90% done with something and then gets bored with it and is off to some new and challenging puzzle... never completing what he starts. The only other explanation is that he's not able to get his technology working reliably in order to make it commercially viable... perhaps due to a flawed theory which, if religiously held to, hampers engineering optimization instead of helping... Can't build a house on a crooked foundation. -Mark -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 6:18 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:FW: Mills CIHT Published World Patent Application I'd like to know how far in the RD cycle BLP's interested parties may have gotten with the CIHT process. I presume BLP has licensed the process to a few companies and that they have been messing around with it for a while now. No doubt it's all hush-hush... industrial secrets and whatnot. There seems to have been very little new news lately. No recent progress reports. This tends to make me feel a little pessimistic. Still, I continue to wish BLP luck. As Jed has already surmised I would think it would indeed be a huge game changer if they could do something soon - like publicly demonstrate a 50 kw prototype. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Please stop making unsupported, physically impossible assertions about stored heat
Both Harry and Robert are missing Jed's point... In order for their thermos analogy to be a proper analogy, it would have to say this: Take a Thermos bottle and insert a thermocouple about 1/3rd of the way into it. Pour in boiling water to fill up the thermos to 1/2 way. The steam generated from the boiling water causes the TC to increase its temperature reading. Give the thermocouple about 5 minutes to stabilize. What is going to happen to the TC readings from now on, even as the boiling continues? If you want, pour some more boiling water, perhaps thru a tube so you don't touch the TC, and see if the TC readings increase significantly. Jed (via Newton) is saying that the TC readings will not increase significantly as seen in the E-Cat. -Mark -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 8:17 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Please stop making unsupported, physically impossible assertions about stored heat Pour some boiling water into a thermos. For how long does the water continue to boil? Harry On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: Jed, Don't miss the fundamental argument of heat storage. Great care was taken to insulate the E-Cat, and keep heat from escaping. If you think that this is impossible, I have an experiment for you. Make a scalding hot 1/2 cup of coffee. Put it into a Thermos. See how long it takes to cool. Repeat the experiment with a larger volume of coffee. People are saying that 20 liters of boiling water in a container specifically designed to hold heat, surrounding large hunks of metal exceeding 124C (after all, they must be hotter than the water to heat it) has stored energy. Rossi, in one of the videos or his blog (can't remember) said there was about 20 liters of water. At .91 s/g flow rate, it would take more than 6 hours to replace the water in the E-Cat. Think eye-dropper of cold water into a scalding hot pot. You come across as demeaning when you dismiss these arguments for violating the laws of physics. The only temperature increases that you are seeing are on the secondary, which necessarily must be incorrect. More than likely, HH is right, and the changes seen are the results of slugs of hot water overflowing the E-Cat. The measurements at the secondary MUST BE incorrect. If the measurements are correct, the E-Cat would run dry and the temperature would have to rise.
RE: [Vo]:FW: Mills CIHT Published World Patent Application
SVJ responded: OTOH, to be fair to BLP, it's my understanding that the facility is not financially structured to creating prototypes for industry and consumers. Just proof-of-concept experimental devices that aren't in their own right something that can be commercialized - not without a lot of expensive RD engineering involved. BLP doesn't possess sufficient cash reserves for that kind of operation. It's through the licensing of their research findings that they hope to cash in when others sign up with licensing fees and subsequently start paying royalties. Yes, BLP's business model is the same as the startup I've been with for several years, namely, technology/IP development, not manufacturing. We develop the technologies, patent them, but then license the IP to manufacturers. So my comment why doesn't Mills focus on one thing and finish it means, Why doesn't Mills get at least ONE technology licensed off to someone who WILL get it to market. The license agreements with several entities that BLP has announced have gone nowhere... i.e., those licensees are expecting a completed device, and are not expected to do the engineering to make a low-cost, mass produced product. So what good are those licensees except to generate interest when BLP has run out of $ and needs to raise more? ... not without a lot of expensive RD engineering involved. BLP doesn't possess sufficient cash reserves for that kind of operation. Have to disagree... Mills has raised well over $60M and has been at it for 20+ yrs, and that is more than enough $ and time to have focused on ONE product, and complete it to the point where someone one willing to come in and complete the design and begin manufacturing. On the other hand, he does have the molecular modeling software that they at least have productized, but I don't know how well it works nor how much revenue it generates... I think the most likely explanation is that Mills is wed to his theoretical framework and instead of accepting that it has led them down non-productive paths and wasted time and investor's $, he continues to follow it, but then thinks of a different way to apply the theory and off he goes down another doomed RD path. Just venting... -Mark
