Re: [Vo]:This is a Test
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Thank you for not adding all the livelong day G I prefer See the little pufferbellies all in a row. Seriously ... Check out ORC http://www.infinityturbine.com/ORC/ORC_Waste_Heat_Turbine.html This looks interesting for conversion of low heat to electricity is a Rossi type reactor Hmmm, 85% efficiency is remarkable! T
Re: [Vo]:probably, the Rossi demos have a complex control box with thermal controls that lower the electric input power when the reactor gets too hot: Cede: Murray 2011.02.09
So, Rich, Your original post also copies Scott, his daughter and Uncle Hal. Any reason you're not makin' it right with them? T
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does hold water
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: My guess is there is a need to maintain a gradient in order to start the reactor and that is the work of the PLCs. BTW, the gradient is pure speculation on my part. I just know that when you exit infinite improbability space abruptly, you create shocked whales and reticent petunias. If only the petunias could be more forthcoming, we might learn something useful about the universe in general and the Ecat in particular. T
Re: [Vo]:Imagine a teakettle
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Jed, it's a container, with all the walls at several hundred degrees C or higher; the bottom's in contact with the burner and is probably at about 1000 C. There is nothing inside the container except gas: Gaseous water. Yet you are claiming the gas inside the container can't be hotter than 100 C! If it gets any hotter, the vapor expands and more of it leaves the container. Water vapor at 1 atm cannot be hotter than 100 deg C. The inside of the pot is much hotter of course, since there is heat radiating from the bottom. I meant that if you isolate the steam and take its temperature, it will be 100 deg C. It is, of course, impossible to do that inside the kettle itself. You can only measure some average temperature of the metal and vapor. You have to spray some water in, have it exit the by a hose, and measure the temperature some distance from the hot metal. The kettle temperature might be 500 deg C, but the steam will never be more than 100 deg C, unless you confine it and raise the pressure. That's magic -- it violates the laws of thermodynamics bigtime. How can water vapor be so magical? No other gas behaves that way -- no other material behaves that way! All gas behaves that way. There is no violation of thermodynamics, because the vapor occupies more and more space, until eventually it is close to a vacuum inside the kettle. Confine it so that it cannot occupy more space and then the temperature rises. Reduce the pressure around the water to the vacuum of interplanetary space and the liquid boils at any temperature. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does hold water
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Oh, I seem to remember that self - sustain meant working at only 100 W electrical input. Celani said that on Monday. That was his somewhat arbitrary definition of self-sustaining, during his talk. However, Levi et al. mentioned that the machine self-sustained completely, with no power, for about 15 minutes. No power and no way to turn it off. They exhausted the hydrogen, filled it with nitrogen, and turned up the cooling water flow. My impression is that it was somewhat out of control. I would not want to try to scale a machine that does that to 1 MW in the near future. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Imagine a teakettle
Hi Jed, What you wrote is true when there is liquid water and steam together in a container - the combination cannot be heated to a temperature higher than 100 deg C without raising the pressure. However once all the liquid has turned to gas there is no longer any limit to what temperature it can be raised to until the molecules dissociate into their component elements. This is analogous to the case of ice and water together in a container. You cannot raise the temperature of the water above 0 deg C until all the ice has melted. Once the ice is melted, then the temperature of the water can easily be raised - until it boils for instance. The reason for both of these is the same - the latent heat of the phase change. In the first case it is the latent heat of vaporization, and in the second it is the latent heat of fusion. While there is a mixture of water in two different phases, then all the energy is absorbed by the water changing phase until it is complete, after that the energy added goes directly into temperature rise instead of driving the phase change. Much the same thing happens as you extract energy to lower the temperature. On 2/10/2011 10:43 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Nope. It is 100 deg C. This is well established. The only way you can raise the temperature is to pressurize it. It does not matter what the temperature of kettle surface is.
Re: [Vo]:Imagine a teakettle
jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: What you wrote is true when there is liquid water and steam together in a container - the combination cannot be heated to a temperature higher than 100 deg C without raising the pressure. However once all the liquid has turned to gas there is no longer any limit to what temperature it can be raised to until the molecules dissociate into their component elements. What would keep the molecules in the kettle, assuming the top or spout is open? What would prevent the gas density from declining indefinitely until it is close to a vacuum? My understanding is that the temperature does not rise as long as the volume is free to expand. In any case, with the real world case of the Rossi device or an actual kettle, you can make the metal as hot as you like, but as long as you keep pumping water in, unconfined steam coming out will be 100 deg C. It may not remove all of the heat, in which case the Rossi device (or kettle) will get hotter and hotter, losing heat by other paths. There is no feeback from the Rossi gadget to the cooling water flow, and no change in the flow rate. There is some other feedback to the electric heater control. I do not know how that works. Anyway, this explains why the steam temperature does not change, even though the Rossi device internal temperature is fluctuating, as you see in one of the graphs. People here have assumed that the cooling water has to be removing all of the heat, keeping everything in balance. There is no indication it is in balance. The unchanging steam temperature does not indicate that the machine is magically supplying just enough heat to keep the steam just above 100 deg C. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion What's in a name?
Hi Peter At least and eventually the community at Chennai tries to determine what the PROBLEM with field, see please Krivit's blog - and if you will be so kind, my comment to it. If you would be so kind as to point me to the specific reference. It isn't obvious to me what reference you are referring to. I am not willing to wade through hours and hours of personal opinions... not without a definite purpose in mind. Time is too precious. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion What's in a name?
From Peter: ... The essence is that Cold Fusion is unfortunately in a deep, diversified, damned trouble See my original post. I rest my case. ... but perhaps there is a way out. Yes, perhaps there is. The evolution of science is a patient but impartial mistress. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Outline for prosaic black-box generation of higher than chemical heat
Consider a well-insulated box. It contains a reservoir holding a substance with high specific heat and high melting point. Into the reservoir, and through a tube into the box, may flow water, and steam may escape. Internal controls may regulate flow. Hot air may be used to initially heat the substance. How much heat may be stored in the substance and used to vaporize water? It is certainly not limited by chemistry. No claim is made by me that such a device has been used to demonstrate heat generation, only that it is possible, and not particularly difficult.
Re: [Vo]:Outline for prosaic black-box generation of higher than chemical heat
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Consider a well-insulated box. It contains a reservoir holding a substance with high specific heat and high melting point. Into the reservoir, and through a tube into the box, may flow water, and steam may escape. Internal controls may regulate flow. Hot air may be used to initially heat the substance. How much heat may be stored in the substance and used to vaporize water? It is certainly not limited by chemistry. No claim is made by me that such a device has been used to demonstrate heat generation, only that it is possible, and not particularly difficult. Where's the rest of your post? You mean that's it?! I read the entire thing. :-) T
Re: [Vo]:Outline for prosaic black-box generation of higher than chemical heat
I am a chemist (chemical engineer, actually) Can you give some practical examples and heat balances for them? Thanks! Peter On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Consider a well-insulated box. It contains a reservoir holding a substance with high specific heat and high melting point. Into the reservoir, and through a tube into the box, may flow water, and steam may escape. Internal controls may regulate flow. Hot air may be used to initially heat the substance. How much heat may be stored in the substance and used to vaporize water? It is certainly not limited by chemistry. No claim is made by me that such a device has been used to demonstrate heat generation, only that it is possible, and not particularly difficult. Where's the rest of your post? You mean that's it?! I read the entire thing. :-) T
Re: [Vo]:Imagine a teakettle
On 02/10/2011 08:28 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au mailto:jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: What you wrote is true when there is liquid water and steam together in a container - the combination cannot be heated to a temperature higher than 100 deg C without raising the pressure. However once all the liquid has turned to gas there is no longer any limit to what temperature it can be raised to until the molecules dissociate into their component elements. What would keep the molecules in the kettle, assuming the top or spout is open? What would prevent the gas density from declining indefinitely until it is close to a vacuum? My understanding is that the temperature does not rise as long as the volume is free to expand. Your understanding appears to be incomplete. Ideal gases, and, to a good approximation, all real gases, obey the law: PV = nRT That means, for a given quantity of gas, the pressure on the gas, times the volume it occupies, is equal to the number of moles of gas (the quantity), times a constant 'R', times the absolute temperature (degress Kelvin). A mole of gas is about 6.02 * 10^23 molecules. If we have a ten gallon tank filled with air, with a small opening, then, when the tank is at room temperature (300 degrees, roughly), we'll have 15 psi * 10 gallons = n0 * R * 300 where the number of *molecules* of gas in the tank is n0 * 6.02 * 10^23. (I leave it to someone else to calculate what the numeric value of n0 is, and I don't know the value of the constant R when we're using pounds per square inch and gallons, so I'll just continue to call it 'R'.) If I then heat the tank to 400 degrees, the air inside will also be heated, by conduction from the walls of the tank. The air will, of course, expand, and we'll probably notice a whistling sound as air rushes out of the tank through the small opening. When it all comes to equilibrium there will be less gas in the tank -- a smaller number of moles. Since we've heated the gas to 4/3 the original temperature, the volume will have expanded by 4/3, so a lot of the gas will have escaped, and the number of moles which will still fit inside the tank will be 3/4 what it was before. So, for the gas which remains inside the tank, we'll have 15 psi * 10 gallons = (3/4)*n0 * R * 400 The temperature has increased by 4/3, the number of moles remaining in the tank has dropped by a factor of 3/4, the pressure and volume are the same as they were to start with, and the equation balances. But you can't make it balance if you assume the temperature didn't increase! As the tank is heated, gas expands and escapes -- you can hear it whistling out. That means n, the number of moles of gas inside the tank, gets smaller. Since the pressure and the volume inside the tank haven't changed, in order for PV = nRT to continue to balance, the temperature *must* have increased.
RE: [Vo]:The New Thorium Cycle ?
--- On Tue, 2/8/11, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net Subject: RE: [Vo]:The New Thorium Cycle ? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2011, 9:52 PM Thanks for the information George. As you know, there is little way to avoid further speculation in this group, but I am going to try to abstain, as it is probably counterproductive at this stage. Jones What about this comment found at http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread459969/pg1 The Nazi Bell was in fact an Accelerator Driven nuclear reactor (ADS device) to breed Uranium U233 from Thorium 232 for an A-bomb. Nazi Germany was not in 1944 looking for anti-gravity breakthroughs. Anyone who follows the history of Nazi Germany will realise that Germany had very limited resources and in 1944, all efforts were being directed towards breakthough wonder weapons. In particular huge resources were poured into nuclear weapons development. Dornberger disclosed under British internment that Hitler had told him the V2 was destined to have a far more important warhead than mere explosives. Nazi Germany faced a long uphill slog to create an A-bomb from plutonium or uranium enrichment, but with a high energy Proton generator in the Nazi bell, Germany could bombard Thorium 232 to produce Uranium 233 which could easily be used in a gun detonator type, A-bomb. By using Thorium the Nazis could breed Uranium 233 for a bomb without costly enrichment. The ADS reactor is a whole lot smarter and faster than building Oak Ridge and Hanniford etc. You don't need to enrich Uranium with an ADS. Throw in some Thorium oxide and some Beryllium oxide. Spin some mercury around it under very high voltage and the Beryllium donates neutrons to the Thorium to become Uranium 233. So simple. -Original Message- From: George Holz Jones Beene wrote: [JB] There are some heavy hitters in DoE and the major Universities behind thorium as a replacement for uranium. But that is for use in an expensive breeding cycle which has most of the negatives of any fission scheme. [GH] The company behind the thorium + uranium cycle is Lightbridge. The improvements this fuel provides are very significant and solve many of the major problems with present reactors with just a change in the fuel rods. Read about the technology on their website. http://www.ltbridge.com/technologyservices/fueltechnology/designs [snip] [GH] At the risk of encouraging further speculation, here are some more details about the Cincinnati Group results. The device used zirconium electrodes and high current AC electrolysis resulting in both high temperature (280 F) and significant pressure ( 4 atm.) inside the bolted together mostly metal device. Extensive analysis work was done in several labs mostly by ICP/MS. The starting solution was thorium nitrate. The thorium was apparently transformed into titanium and copper with 10x as much titanium as copper. The isotopic ratios of both elements were very far from normal. Much information is available in IE Vol. 3 No. 13 No. 14 double issue 1997. George Holz Varitronics Systems
[Vo]:Higgs Debut
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/09/us-science-cern-idUSTRE7185AQ20110209 (Reuters) - Scientists at the CERN research center seeking answers to key mysteries of the cosmos said on Wednesday they would be moving ahead cautiously this year to avoid any possible breakdown in their giant LHC machine. But they indicated that in 2012, if all goes well, they would step up the energy of particle collisions that most feel is vital to bring them near to finding the almost mythical Higgs boson and evidence for the existence of dark matter. more Something else happens that year . . . ? T
Re: [Vo]:Higgs Debut
On 02/10/2011 11:19 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/09/us-science-cern-idUSTRE7185AQ20110209 (Reuters) - Scientists at the CERN research center seeking answers to key mysteries of the cosmos said on Wednesday they would be moving ahead cautiously this year to avoid any possible breakdown in their giant LHC machine. But they indicated that in 2012, if all goes well, they would step up the energy of particle collisions that most feel is vital to bring them near to finding the almost mythical Higgs boson and evidence for the existence of dark matter. more Something else happens that year . . . ? Oh? Will that be the year the Tibetan monks finally inscribe name number 9,000,000,000 in the book?
[Vo]:Mia culpa on gas temperatures
Several Distinguished Scientists have informed me that I am wrong, and that gas will not expand indefinitely, but that it will rise in temperature even when it is unconfined. There is a limit to how much it can expand. Compression heats it and decompression cools it, but only up to a limit. You cannot decompress indefinitely. Anyway, in the actual Rossi system, you have water transitioning into steam, and that explains why it remains close to 100 deg C despite fluctuations in internal temperature. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Higgs Debut
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Oh? Will that be the year the Tibetan monks finally inscribe name number 9,000,000,000 in the book? I thought they had a computer working on that. :-) T . . . overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.
[Vo]:Here Comes Skynet
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12400647 Robots to get their own internet By Mark Ward Technology correspondent, BBC News European scientists have embarked on a project to let robots share and store what they discover about the world. Called RoboEarth it will be a place that robots can upload data to when they master a task, and ask for help in carrying out new ones. Researchers behind it hope it will allow robots to come into service more quickly, armed with a growing library of knowledge about their human masters. more
[Vo]:Krivit praises Miles while dismissing his results
This is exceptionally weird, even for Steve Krivit: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/02/07/missing-cold-fusion-from-new-energy-times/ I posted a note here mentioning that the best evidence for helium is the work of Melvin Miles. Krivit said that New Energy Times has found Melvin Miles’ reports of helium to be well-supported and unambiguous. Yet he continues to claim that cold fusion cannot be fusion. I responded: Well, if helium is the product, then assuming deuterium is the starting material, that makes it fusion by definition. Deuterons fuse together to become helium. Krivit responded with a vigorous attack on McKubre. I responded with a message he does not wish to post: Assume for the sake of argument all of [this attack on McKubre is] true. It has no bearing on the results reported by Miles, Gozzi and others who confirmed helium, and therefore it has no bearing on whether the Pd-D system fuses deuterium to form helium. If you agree that Miles is correct, then it seems to me that unless you think the starting material is something other than deuterium, you agree it is fusion. Perhaps I misunderstand your position. I cannot make head or tail of Krivit's views on why cold fusion is not fusion. How can anyone agree that Miles is well-supported one moment, and then claim they don't indicate fusion the next moment?!? What else could they possibly indicate? Miles himself has no doubt the helium proves it is fusion. I think even Huizenga would agree. Perhaps Krivit's views are in tune with the Windom - Larsen theory. I don't know anything about that theory. If it claims the Pd-D process does not convert deuterium into helium then it is wrong. A theory has to conform to the known facts. Krivit's attack on McKubre is outrageous nonsense. As Lomax pointed out, it is not good for the field that someone with such weird notions is taken seriously by the mass media. I don't worry about Krivit. This field has any number of both enemies and misguided supporters. I cannot tell which he is, but I expect one more can do little harm. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Here Comes Skynet
Terry sez: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12400647 Robots to get their own internet By Mark Ward Technology correspondent, BBC News European scientists have embarked on a project to let robots share and store what they discover about the world. Called RoboEarth it will be a place that robots can upload data to when they master a task, and ask for help in carrying out new ones. Researchers behind it hope it will allow robots to come into service more quickly, armed with a growing library of knowledge about their human masters. more ...and within a nanosecond determine that wet ware is a rly bad idea! Purge!!! Purge!!! Purge!!! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Outline for prosaic black-box generation of higher than chemical heat
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Consider a well-insulated box. It contains a reservoir holding a substance with high specific heat and high melting point. Into the reservoir, and through a tube into the box, may flow water, and steam may escape. Internal controls may regulate flow. Hot air may be used to initially heat the substance. How much heat may be stored in the substance and used to vaporize water? It is certainly not limited by chemistry. It is limited by electron bonds, which is to say chemistry in the largest sense. You can store heat in a solid until it melts, or a liquid until it vaporizes. The higher the specific heat, the more you can store. Of all ordinary substances, water has the highest specific heat. It can store about 10 times more energy than metal. If you pressurize the water, you can make it hot enough to boil water. I would heat it with an electrical resistance heater rather than hot air. Energy is stored by this method in many conventional systems. For example, some solar thermal energy plants store heat in hot oil, so they can continue generating when clouds temporarily cover the sun, or for a while after sunset. No claim is made by me that such a device has been used to demonstrate heat generation, only that it is possible, and not particularly difficult. Not difficult at all, but the energy density is low. I think it is lower than a battery or most chemical fuel. It would be a little tricky to have something like this produce the output performance of the Rossi device. You would have to have a secret remote control that vectors most of the cooling water around the heat source at first, and then gradually sends the water to carry off the heat from the hot material. To store 23,107 kJ, you would have to have a much larger mass of material than you can fit into the Rossi device. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Krivit praises Miles while dismissing his results
Jed, You are overlooking helium as being supplied by alpha emission from Pd, instead of from fusion. This has been the WL stance - yes, there is helium but it comes from alpha emission following a beta decay of other weak force interaction. That was my reason for re-presenting the Forsley presentation from Mizzou/2009 yesterday. He finds numerous channels for fusion, and by implication, there are numerous possible nuclear reactions other than fusion, all at the same time. All in the same experiment. This flies in the face of Ockham, but Forsley is entirely correct IMO, even if he did not go as far as he could at that time. This field cannot be simplified into an either/or situation. Ockham has no place in this field - LENR it is inherently complex. Krivit and his sponsors are half-right (but half-wrong), as is anyone who says that LENR is pure fusion and nothing else. There are clearly both weak-force reactions, and multi-channel fusion going on, at the same time, and in the same experiment. Forsley nailed it in 2009. End of debate for me (and also for many others who are a lot better qualified). This is a growing consensus on this. Jones From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 9:15 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Krivit praises Miles while dismissing his results This is exceptionally weird, even for Steve Krivit: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/02/07/missing-cold-fusion-from-new-energ y-times/ I posted a note here mentioning that the best evidence for helium is the work of Melvin Miles. Krivit said that New Energy Times has found Melvin Miles' reports of helium to be well-supported and unambiguous. Yet he continues to claim that cold fusion cannot be fusion. I responded: Well, if helium is the product, then assuming deuterium is the starting material, that makes it fusion by definition. Deuterons fuse together to become helium. Krivit responded with a vigorous attack on McKubre. I responded with a message he does not wish to post: Assume for the sake of argument all of [this attack on McKubre is] true. It has no bearing on the results reported by Miles, Gozzi and others who confirmed helium, and therefore it has no bearing on whether the Pd-D system fuses deuterium to form helium. If you agree that Miles is correct, then it seems to me that unless you think the starting material is something other than deuterium, you agree it is fusion. Perhaps I misunderstand your position. I cannot make head or tail of Krivit's views on why cold fusion is not fusion. How can anyone agree that Miles is well-supported one moment, and then claim they don't indicate fusion the next moment?!? What else could they possibly indicate? Miles himself has no doubt the helium proves it is fusion. I think even Huizenga would agree. Perhaps Krivit's views are in tune with the Windom - Larsen theory. I don't know anything about that theory. If it claims the Pd-D process does not convert deuterium into helium then it is wrong. A theory has to conform to the known facts. Krivit's attack on McKubre is outrageous nonsense. As Lomax pointed out, it is not good for the field that someone with such weird notions is taken seriously by the mass media. I don't worry about Krivit. This field has any number of both enemies and misguided supporters. I cannot tell which he is, but I expect one more can do little harm. - Jed
[Vo]:Levi's interpretation still full of holes
Rich Murray wrote: probably, the Rossi demos have a complex control box with thermal controls that lower the electric input heater power when the reactor gets too hot You concede to easily. I don't believe there is any feedback in that system because the wires are all heavy power cables, not control wires, and because when the power was shut down (in test 1), the temperature remained pinned to the boiling point (without any regulation), and because the input power is varied manually (in test 2) over a wide range 1.2 kW - 400 W - 1.5 KW, completely inconsistent with a fine temperature control. But the obsession with the control box is a red herring anyway. Even if it is regulated, my thesis is not weakened. 1. The wetness of the steam is unknown The fact that the temperature is pinned at the boiling point (slightly elevated because of increased pressure in the conduit) means we don't know how much liquid is present in the exiting fluid. If it were substantially above the boiling point, then there would be a case to argue that the steam is dry. No evidence is presented in Levi's report that the steam is dry. He simply states that it is based on an air quality monitor (scare-quotes are his). But the point of a demonstration is to demonstrate, not to pronounce. He doesn't say what physical quantity is measured, nor what the value is, let alone how it changes with time. It would be so easy to allow the temperature to go to 110C to *demonstrate* that the steam is dry, but failing that, if there is some reason that 100C is an optimum temperature, they could have proved dryness by showing the reading on that monitor, and then showing (off-line) what it reads when steam is wet and when it is dry. Dry steam can be produced by boiling water and passing the steam through a conduit heated to 110C (say) in a flame. It would also be useful to see how that measurement evolves after the boiling begins, because the exiting fluid should change gradually from pure liquid to drier and drier steam as the power increases. 2. The power gradients are not believable. It is a simple truth that heating the water to boiling requires about 1.2 kW, and vaporizing all of it requires 10 kW. The only way to increase the power delivered to the water is to heat the conduit to a higher temperature. An 8-fold increase in the power delivered requires an 8-fold increase in the temperature difference between the fluid and the heating element (the conduit presumably). But this takes time, and we have an idea of how fast things heat up by looking at the gradient before boiling is reached. By that measure, the power might increase by at most a factor of 2 in 40 minutes; far short of what is needed for complete vaporization. We know it doesn't even increase that much, because in mid plateau, the temperature actually dips below boiling for a few minutes. (The dip seems to correlate with the reduction on the input power to 400W.) The obvious and reasonable interpretation, based on the mid-plateau dip, and the fact that the temperature (in test 2) decreases immediately when the power is shut down, is that the temperature of the heating element(s) is just above that necessary to maintain boiling temperature in the exit fluid. That means that only a small fraction of the fluid is being converted to vapor. The steam is very wet.
Re: [Vo]:Here Comes Skynet
Or beware of VIKI from I ROBOT. harry - Original Message From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, February 10, 2011 12:09:38 PM Subject: [Vo]:Here Comes Skynet http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12400647 Robots to get their own internet By Mark Ward Technology correspondent, BBC News European scientists have embarked on a project to let robots share and store what they discover about the world. Called RoboEarth it will be a place that robots can upload data to when they master a task, and ask for help in carrying out new ones. Researchers behind it hope it will allow robots to come into service more quickly, armed with a growing library of knowledge about their human masters. more
Re: [Vo]:Krivit praises Miles while dismissing his results
From Jones ... This field cannot be simplified into an either/or situation. Ockham has no place in this field – LENR it is inherently complex. Krivit and his sponsors are half-right (but half-wrong), as is anyone who says that LENR is pure fusion and nothing else. There are clearly both weak-force reactions, and multi-channel fusion going on, at the same time, and in the same experiment. Forsley nailed it in 2009. End of debate for me (and also for many others who are a lot better qualified). This is a growing consensus on this. ... all the more reason to cease what appears to be efforts to vilify the term cold fusion - and presumably all that this catchy little place-holder term is alleged (by certain parties) to stand for. Trashing what cold fusion allegedly means (as if it couldn't possibly mean anything else) strikes me as an unproductive objective. It accomplishes very little other than to muddy the waters even more than they already are. I need a new filter for my aquarium. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Krivit praises Miles while dismissing his results
The theory is the helium is the end of a sequence of fissions initiated by palladium nuclei absorbing neutrons. harry From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, February 10, 2011 12:15:12 PM Subject: [Vo]:Krivit praises Miles while dismissing his results This is exceptionally weird, even for Steve Krivit: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/02/07/missing-cold-fusion-from-new-energy-times/ I posted a note here mentioning that the best evidence for helium is the work of Melvin Miles. Krivit said that New Energy Times has found Melvin Miles’ reports of helium to be well-supported and unambiguous. Yet he continues to claim that cold fusion cannot be fusion. I responded: Well, if helium is the product, then assuming deuterium is the starting material, that makes it fusion by definition. Deuterons fuse together to become helium. Krivit responded with a vigorous attack on McKubre. I responded with a message he does not wish to post: Assume for the sake of argument all of [this attack on McKubre is] true. It has no bearing on the results reported by Miles, Gozzi and others who confirmed helium, and therefore it has no bearing on whether the Pd-D system fuses deuterium to form helium.
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation still full of holes
Dear Joshua, a) Have you calculated HOW wet must be the steam in order to invalidate the experiment i.e. to make it underunity beyond any doubt? b) Let's take the good part of it, as engineers how has to be built such a generator for VERY WET steam? It can have some uses e.g in the textile industry. 3) How does dare Focardi to speak about vapore secco based on a measuring instrument (not adequate?) when actually he had vapore umido? Thank you, Peter On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Rich Murray wrote: probably, the Rossi demos have a complex control box with thermal controls that lower the electric input heater power when the reactor gets too hot You concede to easily. I don't believe there is any feedback in that system because the wires are all heavy power cables, not control wires, and because when the power was shut down (in test 1), the temperature remained pinned to the boiling point (without any regulation), and because the input power is varied manually (in test 2) over a wide range 1.2 kW - 400 W - 1.5 KW, completely inconsistent with a fine temperature control. But the obsession with the control box is a red herring anyway. Even if it is regulated, my thesis is not weakened. 1. The wetness of the steam is unknown The fact that the temperature is pinned at the boiling point (slightly elevated because of increased pressure in the conduit) means we don't know how much liquid is present in the exiting fluid. If it were substantially above the boiling point, then there would be a case to argue that the steam is dry. No evidence is presented in Levi's report that the steam is dry. He simply states that it is based on an air quality monitor (scare-quotes are his). But the point of a demonstration is to demonstrate, not to pronounce. He doesn't say what physical quantity is measured, nor what the value is, let alone how it changes with time. It would be so easy to allow the temperature to go to 110C to *demonstrate* that the steam is dry, but failing that, if there is some reason that 100C is an optimum temperature, they could have proved dryness by showing the reading on that monitor, and then showing (off-line) what it reads when steam is wet and when it is dry. Dry steam can be produced by boiling water and passing the steam through a conduit heated to 110C (say) in a flame. It would also be useful to see how that measurement evolves after the boiling begins, because the exiting fluid should change gradually from pure liquid to drier and drier steam as the power increases. 2. The power gradients are not believable. It is a simple truth that heating the water to boiling requires about 1.2 kW, and vaporizing all of it requires 10 kW. The only way to increase the power delivered to the water is to heat the conduit to a higher temperature. An 8-fold increase in the power delivered requires an 8-fold increase in the temperature difference between the fluid and the heating element (the conduit presumably). But this takes time, and we have an idea of how fast things heat up by looking at the gradient before boiling is reached. By that measure, the power might increase by at most a factor of 2 in 40 minutes; far short of what is needed for complete vaporization. We know it doesn't even increase that much, because in mid plateau, the temperature actually dips below boiling for a few minutes. (The dip seems to correlate with the reduction on the input power to 400W.) The obvious and reasonable interpretation, based on the mid-plateau dip, and the fact that the temperature (in test 2) decreases immediately when the power is shut down, is that the temperature of the heating element(s) is just above that necessary to maintain boiling temperature in the exit fluid. That means that only a small fraction of the fluid is being converted to vapor. The steam is very wet.
[Vo]:self-sustaining Rossi device?
Jed Rothwell wrote: Celani said that on Monday. That was his somewhat arbitrary definition of self-sustaining, during his talk. However, Levi et al. mentioned that the machine self-sustained completely, with no power, for about 15 minutes. No power and no way to turn it off. They exhausted the hydrogen, filled it with nitrogen, and turned up the cooling water flow. Levi describes this in his report, but there he doesn't mention the nitrogen; only that the hydrogen was closed, and 15 minutes later, the cooling water flow rate was increased. But the temperature remaining at 100C for 15 minutes is not evidence that the reaction is continuing. In test 1, it seems like they actually heated the conduit (and whatever infrastructure) to above the temperature needed to produce boiling. Judging by the temperature gradient just before boiling, they could easily have reached twice the power necessary for boiling. That's still far short of what's needed for dry steam, but more than enough to keep the temperature of the expelled fluid at boiling for some time after the power is shut down.
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation still full of holes
On 02/10/2011 02:23 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Joshua, a) Have you calculated HOW wet must be the steam in order to invalidate the experiment i.e. to make it underunity beyond any doubt? b) Let's take the good part of it, as engineers how has to be built such a generator for VERY WET steam? It can have some uses e.g in the textile industry. 3) How does dare Focardi to speak about vapore secco based on a measuring instrument (not adequate?) when actually he had vapore umido? Addressing just point (3), please leave out the term dare here. There's no need to escalate this to the realm of an ad hominem. If the steam turns out to have been wet, then the dryness measure was botched: A mistake was made, nothing more. Note that there was apparently just one parameter on whose measurement the dryness conclusion was based, so it's not /a priori/ inconceivable that the measurement was done incorrectly. If that measurement turns out to have been done wrong, it won't be the first botched measurement in the history of experimental science, and it also won't be the last. Mistakes happen. This is an example of why replication is so important. If three other researchers tried to replicate this, at least one of them would undoubtedly improve on the steam dryness measurement methodology, and either find a problem with the original measurements or provide additional support for the claim that the original measurements were correct.
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation still full of holes
a) It would appear that if the water is just boiling (the expelled fluid is 1% steam), it is already slightly over unity, assuming we can trust the flow rates, and I have some doubts. But slightly over unity would not be difficult to achieve chemically, especially with a 14 kg bottle of hydrogen connected. 3) How dare he not tell us what he is measuring, and what the result of the measurement is? It's supposed to be a demo. On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Joshua, a) Have you calculated HOW wet must be the steam in order to invalidate the experiment i.e. to make it underunity beyond any doubt? b) Let's take the good part of it, as engineers how has to be built such a generator for VERY WET steam? It can have some uses e.g in the textile industry. 3) How does dare Focardi to speak about vapore secco based on a measuring instrument (not adequate?) when actually he had vapore umido? Thank you, Peter On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: Rich Murray wrote: probably, the Rossi demos have a complex control box with thermal controls that lower the electric input heater power when the reactor gets too hot You concede to easily. I don't believe there is any feedback in that system because the wires are all heavy power cables, not control wires, and because when the power was shut down (in test 1), the temperature remained pinned to the boiling point (without any regulation), and because the input power is varied manually (in test 2) over a wide range 1.2 kW - 400 W - 1.5 KW, completely inconsistent with a fine temperature control. But the obsession with the control box is a red herring anyway. Even if it is regulated, my thesis is not weakened. 1. The wetness of the steam is unknown The fact that the temperature is pinned at the boiling point (slightly elevated because of increased pressure in the conduit) means we don't know how much liquid is present in the exiting fluid. If it were substantially above the boiling point, then there would be a case to argue that the steam is dry. No evidence is presented in Levi's report that the steam is dry. He simply states that it is based on an air quality monitor (scare-quotes are his). But the point of a demonstration is to demonstrate, not to pronounce. He doesn't say what physical quantity is measured, nor what the value is, let alone how it changes with time. It would be so easy to allow the temperature to go to 110C to *demonstrate* that the steam is dry, but failing that, if there is some reason that 100C is an optimum temperature, they could have proved dryness by showing the reading on that monitor, and then showing (off-line) what it reads when steam is wet and when it is dry. Dry steam can be produced by boiling water and passing the steam through a conduit heated to 110C (say) in a flame. It would also be useful to see how that measurement evolves after the boiling begins, because the exiting fluid should change gradually from pure liquid to drier and drier steam as the power increases. 2. The power gradients are not believable. It is a simple truth that heating the water to boiling requires about 1.2 kW, and vaporizing all of it requires 10 kW. The only way to increase the power delivered to the water is to heat the conduit to a higher temperature. An 8-fold increase in the power delivered requires an 8-fold increase in the temperature difference between the fluid and the heating element (the conduit presumably). But this takes time, and we have an idea of how fast things heat up by looking at the gradient before boiling is reached. By that measure, the power might increase by at most a factor of 2 in 40 minutes; far short of what is needed for complete vaporization. We know it doesn't even increase that much, because in mid plateau, the temperature actually dips below boiling for a few minutes. (The dip seems to correlate with the reduction on the input power to 400W.) The obvious and reasonable interpretation, based on the mid-plateau dip, and the fact that the temperature (in test 2) decreases immediately when the power is shut down, is that the temperature of the heating element(s) is just above that necessary to maintain boiling temperature in the exit fluid. That means that only a small fraction of the fluid is being converted to vapor. The steam is very wet.
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation still full of holes
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Addressing just point (3), please leave out the term dare here. There's no need to escalate this to the realm of an ad hominem. Peter is Romanian and I am sure he does not intend the term to be ad hominem. Idioms can make idiots of anyone. I remember when Coke tried to translate Coke adds life! to Chinese. Of course, the Chinese were offended when they read it as Coke brings your ancestors back from the dead! T
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation still full of holes
Good point... On 02/10/2011 03:05 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Addressing just point (3), please leave out the term dare here. There's no need to escalate this to the realm of an ad hominem. Peter is Romanian and I am sure he does not intend the term to be ad hominem. Idioms can make idiots of anyone. I remember when Coke tried to translate Coke adds life! to Chinese. Of course, the Chinese were offended when they read it as Coke brings your ancestors back from the dead! T
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does hold water
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 10 Feb 2011 07:59:12 -0500: Hi, [snip] My impression is that it was somewhat out of control. I would not want to try to scale a machine that does that to 1 MW in the near future. [snip] That's the way all fission reactors operate. Borderline nuclear explosion. (K=1). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation still full of holes
I intended to tell that I think he was convinced that the steam was dry. I have met Focardi several times and he seems a very nice gentleman. His association with Rossi is a very complicated problem (I tell this as a friend of Piantelli, Focardi has worked many years with him.) As regarding logical fallacies as - not the case here- ad hominem attack, appeal to authority and all the other, I study them, but don't practice them. If the Rossi ECat has holes or really works well- you and, hopefully I- will see later this year. I am optimist because I know with certainty that Piantelli's Ni-H cell works reproducibly. Why should Rossi's NOT work? But I don't want to argue. On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Addressing just point (3), please leave out the term dare here. There's no need to escalate this to the realm of an ad hominem. Peter is Romanian and I am sure he does not intend the term to be ad hominem. Idioms can make idiots of anyone. I remember when Coke tried to translate Coke adds life! to Chinese. Of course, the Chinese were offended when they read it as Coke brings your ancestors back from the dead! T
[Vo]:Dr. Mills will present “Thermally Reversible Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a New Power Source”
http://www.blacklightpower.com/new.shtml Dr. Mills will present “Thermally Reversible Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a New Power Source” at the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Conference on February 14, 2011, at 4:10 PM at the Gaylord National Hotel Conference Center, 201 Waterfront Street, National Harbor, MD, in the Chesapeake 10-11 conference room. For the abstract click here. Dr. Mills' PowerPoint presentation is available for viewing.
[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Dr. Mills will present Thermally Reversible Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a New Power Source
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Has Andrea Rossi become Randell Mills' Steve Jones? Not sure that is the best analogy, or maybe it is right-on ... but looking at pages 37-41 look are so close to the way that one can imagine the Rossi reactor to work (if he had had the funds to do it more professionally) that this seems to be a clear case of forcing your opponents hand ... ... which is where I think you are going with it, even if it is a slight reversal of roles. Looks like Show-and-tell time in charm city, no ?? Rgds, John Munch - Detective, hungry for answers
[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Dr. Mills will present “Thermally Reversible Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a New Power Source”
From Harry: http://www.blacklightpower.com/new.shtml Dr. Mills will present Thermally Reversible Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a New Power Source at the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Conference on February 14, 2011, at 4:10 PM at the Gaylord National Hotel Conference Center, 201 Waterfront Street, National Harbor, MD, in the Chesapeake 10-11 conference room. For the abstract click here. Dr. Mills' PowerPoint presentation is available for viewing. I would assume that this was something Dr. Mills had been planning to do well before Rossi had made his Italian splash on the scene last month. My take on this is that it's simply a talk, a paper presentation... nothing more... nothing less... meaning no actual demonstration of hardware will be revealed or demonstrated. Or am I mistaken on any of these personal speculations. Nevertheless, I do find myself wondering if Dr. Mills Co may have felt motivated to ramp up strategic plans. Maybe push a little harder to get a real dog-and-pony-show on the road ASAP. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Dr. Mills will present Thermally Reversible Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a New Power Source
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ... which is where I think you are going with it, even if it is a slight reversal of roles. Not a LawOrder fan but Belzer does put me in the mind of Mills. Ya gotta think that Randell has had a baloney sandwich despite his funding. The Chinese curse definitely applies. And WTF is going on in Iceland? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/iceland/8311924/Icelandic-volcano-set-to-erupt.html Interesting times. T
Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Dr. Mills will present Thermally Reversible Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a New Power Source
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: And WTF is going on in Iceland? Personally, I'm being audited by the IRS. If I can only put them off for about 20 months, my worries will probably be over. I'm sure it will get worse. T
[Vo]:Fwd: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Dr. Mills will present “Thermally Reversible Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a New Power Source”
Still got that reply to thing, SVJ? T -- Forwarded message -- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com Date: Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Dr. Mills will present “Thermally Reversible Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a New Power Source” To: s...@orionworks.com On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:53 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson s...@orionworks.com wrote: Or am I mistaken on any of these personal speculations. I'm sure you are right on; although, schedule changes might relate to current events. RIght on, right arm, Move On (Michelle really stoked traffic in Atlanta). Somebody needs to listen to Nike and just do it. Me, I'm hoping for an October surprise from anyone. Hey, did you see that Saudi Arabia is overstating their oil reserves by 40%? Now, who is behind that? Surely not Chavez. T
Re: [Vo]:Krivit praises Miles while dismissing his results
Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: The theory is the helium is the end of a sequence of fissions initiated by palladium nuclei absorbing neutrons. Ah. I see. And I gather it involves lithium as well. Does it consume deuterium and produce helium at the same rate as DD fusion would? I guess the lithium depletes, but you could not detect that with the experiments done so far. Experts Tell Me (off line) that technically this would not be called fusion, so score one for Krivit. Beene wrote: There are clearly both weak-force reactions, and multi-channel fusion going on, at the same time, and in the same experiment. I don't know anyone who would argue with that. I don't recall anyone saying that LENR is pure fusion and nothing else so that is a strawman argument. Come to think of it, I recall that Krivit claimed I said that. But I didn't. I agree 100% with Steven Vincent Johnson: Trashing what 'cold fusion' allegedly means (as if it couldn't possibly mean anything else) strikes me as an unproductive objective. . . . It accomplishes very little other than to muddy the waters even more than they already are. Even if the W/L theory is correct, there is no way it will make opponents more likely to accept the results. They don't care whether we call it fusion, or whether it is actually fusion or some complex lithium reaction. They don't believe a word of it no matter what it is or what anyone calls it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Dr. Mills will present Thermally Reversible Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a New Power Source
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting times.. Pyramids and Big Ben are off my Bucket List. T
Re: [Vo]:Outline for prosaic black-box generation of higher than chemical heat
At 12:34 PM 2/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: It would be a little tricky to have something like this produce the output performance of the Rossi device. You would have to have a secret remote control that vectors most of the cooling water around the heat source at first, and then gradually sends the water to carry off the heat from the hot material. To store 23,107 kJ, you would have to have a much larger mass of material than you can fit into the Rossi device. Mmmm. how much water did the device heat to 100 C? I haven't looked at the specific heat numbers, but it looks to me like you could have an internal control that would simply send water into the heat source, it would boil rapidly and leave, so you'd control the amount of steam by how much water you let in. Until the heat source approached 100 degrees C, a constant flow of water would produce a constant flow of steam. Using water to hold the heat would require pressure containment, complicating everything. Instead, you couldn't use a very hot metal? Below melting or even molten? Was that figure 23 MJ? Anyway, rough calculation, I came up with about 10 or 15 quarts of iron just below melting. Did I do that right? That's not all that much volume. And if you use molten iron, it's quite a bit more. Gets more dangerous, of course.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Dr. Mills will present “Thermally Reversible Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a New Power Source”
Look at www.wikipedia.com for Blacklight Power and then the talk page -- the only favorable information in two decades is invariably is put out by BP itself... Rich Murray
Re: [Vo]:Higgs Debut
You laugh, but advanced awareness explorers report that all universes already always all ways remain nonexistent... within single entire creative fractal hyperinfinity... The place on which I stand is hole ground. The birds in the air have their nests in the trees, The foxes on the earth rest in holes in the ground, yea, but the son of man hath no place to lay his head... On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Oh? Will that be the year the Tibetan monks finally inscribe name number 9,000,000,000 in the book? I thought they had a computer working on that. :-) T . . . overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.
Re: [Vo]:Mia culpa on gas temperatures
Given enough energy fast enough, any gas becomes a black hole, and then all science reaches the Duh zone... single source of all that appears objective of all that feels subjective within awareness already remains beyond our time and space beyond the Duh zone... single entire creative fractal hyperinfinity... On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Several Distinguished Scientists have informed me that I am wrong, and that gas will not expand indefinitely, but that it will rise in temperature even when it is unconfined. There is a limit to how much it can expand. Compression heats it and decompression cools it, but only up to a limit. You cannot decompress indefinitely. Anyway, in the actual Rossi system, you have water transitioning into steam, and that explains why it remains close to 100 deg C despite fluctuations in internal temperature. - Jed
