date:20110426

Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:


 Now that's a good idea... and one can start by simply scanning all the
 comment sections of websites where a CF story ran, and summarize
 each skeptic's question or statement, and counter it with the facts.


I have looked at previous compilations of skeptical assertions, such as this
one:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html

If Rossi succeeds, begins selling units, and it becomes generally known that
cold fusion is real, all of the objections listed here will be voided. They
will be inoperative as Nixon's people put it.

There will be a new set of objections. Many are hard to predict now, but I
have heard some of them already:

1. The device has not yet been extensively tested for safety and it may be
dangerous. (I made this objection myself.)

2. Nuclear energy can never be trusted. We should rely only on solar, wind
and other renewables.

3. It will hurt the energy sector of the economy. (This is what the Japanese
government told Mizuno and other researchers as the reason to turn down
their funding.)

4. It will cost jobs.

5. We cannot afford to replace all automobiles and heaters. It will cost too
much. (This contradicts the previous objection that it will cost jobs. If it
costs too much that means it makes too many jobs.)

6. Giving humanity cold fusion is like giving a machine gun to a baby.
(Rifkin)

I have probably heard others but those are the main ones.

The fossil fuel industry will emphasize #1 and 4 in public, and #3 when
talking to Members of Congress on their payroll; i.e., if you allow this,
we will not cover your re-election campaign costs.

I think I have heard #5 most often. This is factually incorrect. First it
will not cost anything; it will save money. cold fusion is not a free lunch.
I is a lunch you are paid to eat. Second, we have to replace all cars and
heaters anyway, because they wear out. We will have to replace some of the
factory manufacturing equipment earlier than normal.

In my opinion, the only objection listed here with any merit is #1. This
problem can be rectified by extensive safety testing. This will probably
cost hundreds of millions of dollars but compared to the benefits and cost
savings this is a trivial sum of money. Cold fusion will say this much every
hour or so for the rest of human history.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

I wrote:

cold fusion is not a free lunch. I is a lunch you are paid to eat.


Not me! *It* is a lunch you are paid to eat.

this is how experts describe compact fluorescent light bulbs in Scientific
American. their point was that not only to the balls consume less
electricity but they're much cheaper to install and maintain because they
last so long. In an office building or factory, the main expense associated
with light bulbs is electricity, followed by the cost of replacing them.
Furthermore, the equipment cost of a compact fluorescent light bulb over the
lifetime of the bulb is cheaper than an incandescent bulb.

The same kinds of economics will apply to cold fusion. The equipment itself
will eventually be cheaper than today's equipment. In my book I estimated
the cost of fuel based on the present and likely future cost of heavy water.
I reckoned that the cost of fuel would drop from $2,500 per person in the
U.S. to around $1. The Rossi device uses hydrogen instead of deuterium, so
the cost is so close to zero it is not worth considering.

Rossi claims that the nickel will have to be changed out periodically, every
six months or so. I doubt it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

2011-04-26 Thread Akira Shirakawa


On 2011-04-26 16:20, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Rossi claims that the nickel will have to be changed out periodically,
every six months or so. I doubt it.


Not only the powder, it's the whole reactor vessel that has to be 
replaced periodically. In my opinion this is probably also a safety 
measure in order to avoid long-term problems due to prolonged exposure 
to heat, relatively high internal pressures and hydrogen embrittlement, 
and also to avoid potential health hazard due to nickel powder exposure.


However it could also be that, disguised as a safety measure, this might 
be a way to replace something else in the reactor that deteriorates over 
time and that is fundamental for it to properly operate.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote:


 Not only the powder, it's the whole reactor vessel that has to be replaced
 periodically. In my opinion this is probably also a safety measure in order
 to avoid long-term problems due to prolonged exposure to heat, relatively
 high internal pressures and hydrogen embrittlement . . .


Based on other hydrogen systems, I expect it will last a lot longer than 6
months. It will if it is engineered right. The catalyst should last longer
if they put more into the cell.

It may be that early versions of the device will require more frequent
service and replacement, but I expect that after a while it will go for a
year or two without replacement.

As I recall, the very first jet aircraft engines flew for only 10 hours or
so before extensive overhauls were needed. If you did not overhaul them,
they exploded.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Space has no time dimention

2011-04-26 Thread Alan J Fletcher



At 10:50 PM 4/25/2011, Mark Iverson wrote:

FYI: 
Here's an article for all you
theorists...
Scientists suggest spacetime has no
time dimension

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html

-Mark 
No problem ... progressing from one state to another is pretty much what
Loop Quantum Gravity does.
We already have a whole bunch of 'emergent' properties (heat ... and
possibly gravity), so having time as 'emergent' isn't SUCH a big
deal.
Unfortunately it probably does away with one of my 'favorite'
cosmologies, where we are twisting in a 4D+ space-time, so that
individual dimensions can change from space-like to time-like.

Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

2011-04-26 Thread Ron Wormus


So you don't believe the Ni is transmuted to Cu?
Ron

--On Tuesday, April 26, 2011 10:20 AM -0400 Jed Rothwell 
jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:




Rossi claims that the nickel will have to be changed out periodically, every 
six months or so. I
doubt it.


- Jed

[Vo]:Weak Winds for Brits

2011-04-26 Thread Jones Beene

According to this story, wind energy in England, is not living up to
expectations.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361316/250bn-wind-power-industry-gr
eatest-scam-age.html

attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:21 of april 2011 test

2011-04-26 Thread Alan J Fletcher



At 11:31 AM 4/25/2011, Mattia Rizzi wrote:
With 'this
week' i mean between 18 april and 21 april. 
Carlos Perez 

April 25th, 2011 at 3:45 PM 
Dear Ing. Rossi:

I would like to know if Dr. Hanno Essen and/or Dr. Sven Kullander have
carried out further tests to your E-Cat device after the test conducted
on March 29 in Bologna (if i remember well) or else the approximate date
that those further tests are expected to happen.
In addition I would also like to know the aproximate date on which they
will publish a report based on those tests.
Thank you very much, Mr. Rossi.
Carlos.

Andrea Rossi 

April 26th, 2011 at 1:50 AM 
Dear Mr Carlos Perez,
Prof Sven Kullander and Orof. Hanno Essèn will test in Sweden will make
more tests with our E-Cat in Sweden within this year.
Warm Regards,
A,R.

Re: [Vo]:21 of april 2011 test

2011-04-26 Thread Mattia Rizzi

Rossi don't discose all the truth.
This is my e-mail to Mats Lewan (NyTeknik) and his response:

Dear Mattia,

I'm gathering info on this and will report within a week.

Mats

 

Från: Mattia Rizzi [mailto:mattia.ri...@gmail.com] 
Skickat: den 24 april 2011 12:35
Till: Lewan Mats
Ämne: Abot Rossi's E-Cat and new experiments

 

Dear Mats Lewan,

i know that there was a new experiment  with the Energy Catalyzer this week. 
Can You provide some information, like where the test has been done (Sweden or 
Italy, if it was inside an university, etc)?

Thank you very much.

Re: [Vo]:Why the US will become a banana republic if we do not import or allow cold fusion

*“I do not think the Pentagon and its many friends are going to stand by and
do nothing while other countries develop military technology that can
destroy our entire fleet of airplanes and ships in one afternoon at no risk
to the enemy.”*

* *

* *

*You have neglected a potential very important roadblock to cold fusion
development, the US military, air tight regulatory control, security
classification, and the proprietary use of cold fusion technology by the
military industrial complex.*

* *

*Nuclear fission and fusion have suffered from government management that
prohibits private exploitation of these energy producing technologies
because of second use fears. Even the sale of thorium is controlled because
it is slightly radioactive.*

* *

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I wrote something that seems contradictory, but isn't. I said:

 * It is possible that vested interests may block the development of cold
 fusion in the US for decades.

 * If this happens we will soon become a banana republic that imports all
 important technology from other countries.

 If cold fusion is blocked, the way electric cars have been, that means we
 will not be importing it from other countries. It will not be available
 anywhere in the U.S. At least, not for several years, until the levees
 crack, and we are inundated by cold fusion powered technology from other
 countries. Yet even before this happens we will be forced to import just
 about everything from other countries, because most goods and services will
 be cheaper and better thanks to cold fusion. Even if you leave the energy
 source in France or China, and import only the widget, the embodied energy
 in the widget is still a major contributing factor to the cost.

 Cold fusion will have a large impact on all goods and services, not just
 technology directly related to energy. Obviously it will improve things such
 as automobiles and power generators and other primary sources of energy. But
 it will also have an impact on gadgets which have no direct relation to
 energy, such as spoons, food, movies, electronics, medicine and scientific
 research. The importance of energy to scientific research was illustrated
 yesterday on NHK. Many buildings and facilities at Tokyo National University
 are closed, and many research projects on hold because of the daily power
 failures and the need to conserve energy. There are signs on some of the
 large computer networks  (parallel processor computers?) saying Do not turn
 on this equipment because they do not have enough electricity.

 Countries using cold fusion will be able to produce anything better and
 cheaper than we do. Nowadays, people who make traditional goods such as
 wooden furniture or clothing benefit from the use of electricity and
 computers. Cheap electricity gives them a competitive advantage. Free
 electricity will give them an even greater advantage. The cost of goods in
 the U.S. will be higher than other countries if our factories are still
 powered by coal, wind and uranium while they are powered by cold fusion.
 Companies in China manufacturing furniture for the US market pay much less
 for labor, and probably less for materials such as wood. The only thing
 standing between them and total domination of our market is the cost of
 transporting the goods to the US. With cold fusion, the cost of
 transportation will be so close to zero it will be negligible.

 As I said, an automobile or generator can be thought of mainly as an energy
 generating machine. If Ford, GM and GE are not allowed to develop cold
 fusion automobiles they will soon be bankrupt and we will be importing
 importing power generators, heaters, automobiles, tractors railroads and so
 on -- all primary energy producers. A large fraction of all machines fall in
 that category and many more soon will, as machines such as cell phones and
 portable computers become self powered.

 It is hard to imagine a situation in which GE stands passively and allows
 the Congress and big oil to put it out of business. I think it is more
 likely GE will move its manufacturing and most of its business overseas
 where cold fusion is allowed, to become mainly a European or Chinese
 company.

 As I said before, I think the benefits of cold fusion will be so obvious to
 so many people that political opposition from oil companies and others will
 soon crumble. The American public howls when politicians propose increasing
 the gasoline tax by five cents. It is hard for me to believe the public will
 stand by passively while politicians allow large corporations to take $2,500
 out of every person's pocket indefinitely. That includes children, by the
 way. For a family of four we are talking about a $10,000 tax every year for
 life, levied by big oil  coal. I cannot imagine the public will stand for
 it. But strange things do happen. We do sometimes allow powerful people a
 great deal of leeway for no good reason.

[Vo]:A Simple Assessment of Rossi Credibility

2011-04-26 Thread Wm. Scott Smith


We are missing the obvious: Rossi et al have enough investors to scale-up to 
marketable magnitudes of power, if what they say is true. At the end of the 
day, the market doesn't really care where you got the electricity that you are 
selling. People understand electricity. At least in the US, the Laws already 
require the power companies to purchase privately-produced power. Even if the 
power companies get around that. He can still make a great deal of money 
generating and selling power on-site to large consumers, electricity is the 
biggest expense in producing aluminum.

Once he sells serious amounts of electricity, people will listen, you just 
can't fake MW of power. I really think he can eventually scale things and 
automate them to the point where everyone can have their own generator for 
vehicles and home-use. All he has to do to avoid infringement is to keep the 
price of the licenses cheaper than the litigation price of stealing it. He can 
always start cranking up the fees gradually as he becomes more and more 
financially able to fight infringers with ever deeper pockets.
Personally, I was more impressed with the smaller units that lacked the lead; 
prior to that, I wondered if it was simply an isotope reactor.
ScottWm. Scott Smith

Re: [Vo]:Why the US will become a banana republic if we do not import or allow cold fusion

Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 *You have neglected a potential very important roadblock to cold fusion
 development, the US military, air tight regulatory control, security
 classification, and the proprietary use of cold fusion technology by the
 military industrial complex.*


I do not think this will be a problem, for several reasons:

Cold fusion is being developed in other countries by civilians. Nothing
about cold fusion is classified now and it is too late to classify it. There
are only a few proprietary uses of cold fusion by the military, such as
making tritium for thermonuclear weapons. These will be of no value in the
civilian market, so it will not matter if they are kept secret. Nearly all
of the advantages cold fusion will give to weapon systems will be similar to
those that steam engines gave to naval vessels in the Civil War. That is to
say, they will be conventional civilian technology applied in ways that
happen to have military value.

This is discussed in my book in chapter 11.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Simple Assessment of Rossi Credibility

2011-04-26 Thread Alan J Fletcher



At 10:58 AM 4/26/2011, Wm. Scott Smith wrote:

Personally, I was more impressed with the smaller units that lacked the
lead; prior to that, I wondered if it was simply an isotope
reactor. 
They were just nekkid eCats ... they would be enclosed in lead underwear
before being used.

Re: [Vo]:Weak Winds for Brits

There are some errors in this article:

The most glaring dishonesty peddled by the wind industry — and echoed by
gullible politicians — is vastly to exaggerate the output of turbines by
deliberately talking about them only in terms of their 'capacity', as if
this was what they actually produce. Rather, it is the total amount of power
they have the capability of producing. . . . The point about wind, of
course, is that it is constantly varying in speed, so that the output of
turbines averages out at barely a quarter of their capacity . . .

No one hides the difference between nameplate and actual capacity, with wind
turbines, or with nuclear reactors for that matter. Actual is closer to 32%
for most land installations. If they installed them in a spot with 25%, they
should not have.


When you consider, too, those gas-fired power stations wastefully running
24 hours a day just to provide back-up for the intermittency of the wind,
any savings will vanish altogether.

A gas-turbine plant is not turned on if it is not generating electricity. If
they are used provide back-up power, they are not wastefully running 24
hours a day.


Then, of course, the construction of the turbines generates enormous CO2
emissions as a result of the mining and smelting of the metals used, the
carbon-intensive cement needed for their huge concrete foundation.

The energy payback period for wind turbines is about 3 months, which is
considerably shorter than for gas fired or nuclear plants.


There is no way we can hope to make up more than a fraction of the
resulting energy gap solely with wind turbines, for the simple and obvious
reason that wind is such an intermittent and unreliable energy source.

Demand is also intermittent and unreliable. That is why the nuclear power
plants are not useful above baseline (~30%). You cannot turn them off
(unlike gas turbines).


No one would dream of building wind turbines unless they were guaranteed a
huge government subsidy. 

No one would dream of building a nuclear or coal-fired plant without
subsidies. No one would dream of building a nuclear plant unless the
government covered the entire cost of liability, for reasons which are
obvious from the Brown's Ferry, Three Mile Island, Connecticut Yankee
and Fukushima accidents. No one would build a coal fired plant if they were
held liable for the 20,000 killed by the smoke every year in the U.S. The
amount they would have to pay to victims families would make this the most
expensive source of electricity by far.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:21 of april 2011 test

2011-04-26 Thread Andrea Selva

I don't know why but I keep feeling (Red) fish smell 

2011/4/26 Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com

  Rossi don't discose all the truth.
 This is my e-mail to Mats Lewan (NyTeknik) and his response:


 Dear Mattia,

 I’m gathering info on this and will report within a week.

 Mats



 *Från:* Mattia Rizzi [mailto:mattia.ri...@gmail.com]
 *Skickat:* den 24 april 2011 12:35
 *Till:* Lewan Mats
 *Ämne:* Abot Rossi's E-Cat and new experiments



 Dear Mats Lewan,

 i know that there was a new experiment  with the Energy Catalyzer this
 week. Can You provide some information, like where the test has been done
 (Sweden or Italy, if it was inside an university, etc)?

 Thank you very much.

[Vo]:I had thought E-Cat might be clandestine Fission

2011-04-26 Thread Wm. Scott Smith

I was impressed by no lead, because we then knew there was no surreptitious 
fission going on; for example, radioactive isotopes, such as strontium. Isotope 
Reactors do not rely on chain reactions, like newly-spent nuclear fuel rods, it 
is the relatively short-lived isotopes that can produce much heat even in the 
absence of a chain reaction.

Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:05:21 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: a...@well.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Simple Assessment of Rossi  Credibility

At 10:58 AM 4/26/2011, Wm. Scott Smith wrote:

Personally, I was more impressed with the smaller units that lacked the
lead; prior to that, I wondered if it was simply an isotope
reactor. 

They were just nekkid eCats ... they would be enclosed in lead underwear
before being used.

Re: [Vo]:If Rossi could speak freely, what would he say.

*“How confident are you about the tungsten vs nichrome question for element
material? is SiC another reasonable possibility? Or is it too dangerous to
have any C around?”*

* *

I have no confidence at all. The construction of the internal heater/cathode
is the most intricate and problematic part of the Rossi Cat-E design.



It is true that tungsten has been used in designs similar to the Rossi
reactor, but the engineering priority is long service life of the internal
heater.



Very high hydrogen gas pressure complicates the question. The material
heating element will deteriorate through erosion in a gas atmosphere so
clever design of the internal heater is required to maximize service life.



Nichrome serves very well operating in the open air as heating elements in
our toasters and ovens, so in an amateur operation like Rossi’s reactor
development he may well use Nichrome.



An expert cathode developer might well use tungsten, since it is usually
found in commercial gas filled tube products.



It is my opinion, the six month service life replacement period is not
caused by the need to replace the catalyst. It is needed to renew the
internal heater. This heater will suffer a high level of erosion because of
the high pressure hydrogen atmosphere. In addition, strain placed on the
cathode imposed by power on/off cycling will take a toll on the internal
heater.



A SiC heating element is a possibility. There are a large number of possible
heating element materials that can be used.



To make reactor control easy, the key design point is to come up with a
cathode design that has a linear production characteristic of electron
emissions as the driving current is increased.





*“Can you further explain the potential benefit of Thorium?”*

* *

It is critical to keep the surface of the nickel powder scrupulously clean.
If the cold fusion reactions are caused by nanometer sized holes in the
catalyst, it is important to keep those holes as free of gaseous poisons as
possible so that few are clogged up by garbage floating around in the
hydrogen atmosphere.



When Thorium oxide is coated with a thin layer of carbon, its evaporation
rate is low which will help keep the Cold Fusion reaction efficient over the
service life of the catalyst.





The lack of “secret catalyst” elements found in the Cat-E ash initially
confused me. This lack of contamination leads me now to the conclusion that
the “secret element” acts at a distance from the surface of the nickel
powder and is not found within it or not  even very  near this surface. This
is why Rossi feels safe in giving the ash to outsiders for spectroscopic
analysis.



The place where the secret catalyst lives is in the heating element of the
internal heater.



*“Finally, I have a question about the radiation shielding layers... if the
reactor is operating between 400 and 600C optimally, how can the lead
shielding remain solid? or if the borated water solution is used, won't that
vaporize?”*

* *

The lead shielding must be insolated from the water loop by a layer of air
or fiberglass. Doing a lack of coolant accident where the water coolant
boils off, when the copper pipes get hot, the lead shielding will be
protected from melting by this insulation layer.**



To stay operational through an overheat excursion, the copper pipes can get
no hotter than the melting point of the solder that fills their connections.

* *

* *

* *

* *

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 6:57 AM, .:.gotjosh ene...@begreen.nu wrote:

 Thanks for this post Axil, i have some comments and questions below...

 On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 05:25, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 *
 *

 *“With temperature above the set the reactor is automatically stopped”*

 *
 *

 *It the temperature continues to rise above another set point, the
 control box releases the hydrogen gas into the water loop piping though the
 controlled opening of an electrically controlled valve. This action vents
 excess heat to the outside environment and serves to depress the reaction.
 *

 **


 in my design i will prefer bimetal valves for solid state non-electronic
 control if possible.
 eg: http://www.emsclad.com/examples/thermal-controls.html

 * *

 *“How much would the temperature of the metal rise?”*

 * *

 *The nickel oxide powder will have a substantial amount of hydrogen
 stored in the lattice interstices at the surface of the nickel oxide powder
 where the oxygen has been depleted by the erosive action of hydrogen
 impingement at the surface or into the surface to some depth of the powder.
 *

 What do you say the previous question(s) about H2O production between H2
 and the O from NiO ?

 * *

 * *

 *When the heat sink of the water coolant is removed, this nuclear
 reaction in the lattice interstices will continue until the temperature of
 at the surface of the powder reaches the melting point of nickel. The
 lattice interstices will begin to close as nickel migrate to these lattice
 interstices sites displacing

Re: [Vo]:Weak Winds for Brits

2011-04-26 Thread Terry Blanton

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
 According to this story, wind energy in England, is not living up to
 expectations.

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361316/250bn-wind-power-industry-gr
 eatest-scam-age.html

Of course storage technology could have a major effect on the
viability of PV and Wind energy.

From http://www.theeestory.com/

Six years after leading the Kleiner Perkins effort to invest in
EEStor, billionaire venture capitalist Bill Joy has finally commented
publicly about the investment at the MIT Enterprise Forum of Cambridge
this past Thursday evening.

(see video)

After the fireside chat, Joy answered questions from a small crowd of
people for over an hour.

Question:
So, are you still hopeful about EEStor?

Bill Joy:
Oh yeah. I mean these things are hard so there is always a chance they
won't work. But we're very uh .. We'll see. I don't know anything
that isn't in the press.

Question:  a person team somebody that already may already have a
solution that hasn't been discovered, is that something you think is
possible? Like a crowdsouring ... somewhere in world that's working


Bill Joy:
It doesn't tend to work that way. It proceeds from somebody who has
deep expertise in a domain who acquires interdisciplinary
collaborators. Thats a better formula. There are no child prodigies in
these fields that involve physics and chemistry.

You really just have  you mentioned Carl Nelson he is like 90
years old an MIT PhD material scientist, who is one of the inventors
under EEStor. If you don't have someone like Carl. I mean you ask
Carl, tell me something about hafnium. Carl will talk to you for 15
minutes about hafnium. He knows something about every element in the
periodic table. He can tell you off the top of his head what its
crystal forms are and alot of interesting properties. I mean you have
to be intimate with the periodic table to do this kind of stuff. You
have to know  you really have to have had a career. With somebody
like that, he's probably the oldest founder I ever backed. But you
just have dinner with him and you realize he really understands what
he is doing with materials.

Now what they are proposing to do is wild. And there's lots of reasons
in which some of these things could fail to be commercialized. I'm not
saying whether it's worked or not and if we've announced it or not,
I'm just saying it's hard. What they're trying to do ... obviously,
it's took years ... to get  since they  first  it's not
easy to do these things. So ... but the worthwhile things usually are
hard and they always take longer.

end excerpt

I love the way he stuttered.

Also, there's a letter regarding an overdue FOIA request to the DoE on
rumors from SNL.

(no, not saturday night live)

T

Re: [Vo]:If Rossi could speak freely, what would he say.

As to the question in the subject header, we don't know, without 
knowing the secrets he's keeping, whether his real reasons are 
legitimate or not.


As I wrote from the beginning on this, there is no limit to human 
ingenuity, so fraud cannot be ruled out except by the normal 
process: truly independent examination and probably replication. If 
Rossi were selling E-Cats, that worked, it would be all over. But 
he's not, not yet.


It is not unlawful for Rossi to lie about what he's doing, as long as 
he doesn't lie to investors. So it is possible for some provided 
information to be misleading. At this point, if he's for real, he has 
strong motives to distract those who *are* trying like crazy to 
figure out the secret. And there is no particular value to full disclosure.


And, of course, if he's not for real, if this is fraud, he has even 
more reason to present confusing information.


What we can rule out, from all the evidence, is experimental 
artifact, accidental error, mere misinterpretation of results. This 
is either for real or it is fraud, because all the reasonable error 
modes are ruled out, it would take seriously active deception. That's 
about as far as I can go, and I find, from what those I trust have 
been saying, deception has become pretty unlikely, as to the heat 
being produced.


Unlikely is not impossible.

But as to any details, deception is still on the table. He has very 
good reasons to not disclose, even to mislead or distract.


If nothing else, this has smoked out some POV-pushers on Wikipedia, 
editors who have clearly betrayed their fixed POV, as they push for 
content that reflects it, on the Energy Catalyzer article.

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:If Rossi could speak freely, what would he say.

Control of the Rossi reaction is a complicated thing.



The energy density pumping mechanism you site may be only one mechanism of
many that play into the complicated interplay of many factors in which the
Cat-E might be controlled.



Rossi’s revelation that the “secret catalyst” makes the Rossi reaction “go”
is an argument against your theory being the sole or even the primary
controlling factor. He states that without this secret element, nickel
powder does not produce a sustained reaction.



But he also says that the Reaction can continue without the application of
external stimulus being applied. This is where the mechanism you site might
come into play. I also think this is a mode that Rossi does not want the
Cat-E reaction to enter.





I think the “secret catalyst” is a spillover catalyst that turns H2 into H-
and forces this H-into the crystal lattice of the nickel powder. In the
beginning, this might have been only a “startup” mechanism.



But the reactor melted down more than he would have liked where once is too
much.



I believe that Rossi had to somehow disable energy density pumping to
positively control his reactor the way that he wants to.



If energy density pumping is full blown, the reactor may sometimes enter an
uncontrolled mode where it takes off on its own nickel (pun intended) and
melts down.



As an engineering imperative, I have a feeling that Rossi decided to
centralize control of the reactor in the control box where he can adjust or
shut off control power as required.



He calls his Cat-E reactor an energy amplifier because the small amount of
energy used to control the Cat-E is amplified greatly in the power output of
the reactor.









* *


On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Roarty, Francis X 
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:

 On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 05:25, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:



 *“With temperature above the set the reactor is automatically stopped”*



 Axil,

 We see the Mill’s powder in the Rowan confirmations totally
 run-away but yet we get mixed messages about the Rossi reactor which IMHO
 may reflect the bond state of the gas population. It seems
 counter-intuitive but instead of just throttling back this Rossi type of
 reaction we MUST remove heat, not only to store the energy gain but it seems
 we have to cool the disassociated atoms enough that nature takes over and
 they reform molecules allowing us to repeat the cycle over and over again. I
 am not saying the reaction stops without cooling but only that it slows
 itself down proportional to the population that is in molecular form. The
 random motion of gas relative  to Casimir geometry changes the energy
 density being experienced by the gas molecules. Atoms are simply reoriented
 by this change in energy density  but those atoms sharing covalent
 bonds (molecules)  are held by the covalent bond in the same
 orientation they possessed when the molecule formed. This pressure the
 covalent bond feels when energy density changes discounts the energy needed
 to disassociate the molecule such that it can occur at a much lower
 temperature - when these atoms later re-form a new molecule they release the
 full energy associated with hydrogen atoms dropping to the lower molecular
 energy state including even the energy contributed in the previous
 cycle from the combination of gas motion and change in energy density. We
 are getting a full refund for a purchase discounted by the constant motion
 of gas.

 Fran



 *From:* gotjos...@gmail.com [mailto:gotjos...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *
 .:.gotjosh
 *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2011 6:58 AM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:If Rossi could speak freely, what would he
 say.



 Thanks for this post Axil, i have some comments and questions below...

 On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 05:25, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:



 *“With temperature above the set the reactor is automatically stopped”*



 *It the temperature continues to rise above another set point, the control
 box releases the hydrogen gas into the water loop piping though the
 controlled opening of an electrically controlled valve. This action vents
 excess heat to the outside environment and serves to depress the reaction.
 *



 in my design i will prefer bimetal valves for solid state non-electronic
 control if possible.

 eg: http://www.emsclad.com/examples/thermal-controls.html

 * *

 *“How much would the temperature of the metal rise?”*

 * *

 *The nickel oxide powder will have a substantial amount of hydrogen stored
 in the lattice interstices at the surface of the nickel oxide powder where
 the oxygen has been depleted by the erosive action of hydrogen impingement
 at the surface or into the surface to some depth of the powder.*

 What do you say the previous question(s) about H2O production between H2
 and the O from NiO ?

 * *

 *When the heat sink of the water coolant is removed, this nuclear reaction
 in the lattice interstices will

[Vo]:Most objections to cold fusion will not survive commercialization

Gene Mallove and I used to say that if we only had a demonstration kit we
could persuade the world that cold fusion is real. I think Rossi has shown
we were wrong. Even a good demonstration does not persuade the world, at
least not overnight. But there is no denying that commercial cells will
eventually persuade most sane people it is real.

Self-appointed experts will agree the machine is real but they will say it
has no significance. These people do not matter. I remember in 1964 the day
after the Chinese detonated their first atomic bomb. Our fourth grade
teacher told the class about it during current events. She seemed upset. One
of the students said, Don't worry. My dad says it is nothing. Hardly big
enough to blow up someone's backyard. Do you think so? the teacher said,
seemingly relieved. That was a U-235 bomb with a 22-kiloton yield. (China
today boasts that it was the third country to make a bomb. They forgot
England and France. See:
http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_26054.htm)

I have been looking over the objections to cold fusion. I find only a
handful will survive that event. Most are predicated on the notion that cold
fusion does not exist or that it will never become practical, such as the
ones I listed here:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html

There are a few other categories. At the 60 Minutes someone said that we
have already given cold fusion plenty of funding, it had its chance and is
no longer deserves attention. That was a novel objection.

The Wikipedia Cold Fusion article consists of many incorrect technical
assertions, such as the idea that recombination may explain many of the
results, or that cold fusion might be a chemical reaction. In the Energy
Catalyzer article someone asserts the machine does not work because the
Patent Office rejected the patent. Another novel objection!

Many say that it cannot be real because Nature and other major journals
refuse to print articles on it. I suspect most of these objections will go
away even before Nature prints something.

There are some specific objections to Rossi which will soon go away,
especially the idea that he is probably a scammer. (Unless he really is a
scammer, in which case he will soon go away!)

Someone in the Rossi article on Wikipedia states boldly, as if it were a
matter of settled fact: The excess energy can be explained as error or
fraud. Can it indeed? As far as I know no one has actually explained how
this could be error or fraud. These people confuse the act of making an
assertion: I can explain X with the act of actually explaining X. Saying
does not make it so.

The models presented by Alan Fletcher are so unrealistic they can be
dismissed in my opinion. For example, any form of fluid combustion calls for
regulators and burners, which cannot fit in ~1 liter. Anyway, these will
vanish if customers report the machines work as advertised.

People object presently because there have been no independent replications
of this particular nickel catalyst. There have been other nickel catalysts
but they did not produce such dramatic results. This objection has merit in
my opinion, but it is a minor problem given the quality of the verifications
and the magnitude of the reaction. It is a bit like quibbling that the
atomic bomb might not be real in 1945, when only the US could make one.

Here at Vortex, I suppose Beene will eventually give up the notion that
calorimetry can fail by a factor of 1000 or 10, 5, 76 or whatever number has
popped into his head most recently. In any case, he is never pointed to any
specific reason why it can fail by this factor. That is, he has not show
which of the four parameters are wrong by this factor (or what combination
of parameters). He points only to a theory proposed by his invisible expert.
 If this theory is correct the calorimetry must have failed, and the theory
must be right so it must have failed. This turns the scientific method
upside down. There are many similar upside-down arguments.

If there is continued resistance after cold fusion is commercialized, I
suppose it will be based upon a smaller number of arguments. That's good. It
means we will have fewer targets, and we will need fewer counter-arguments.
As I said, I predict most arguments will be an appeal to fear:

Fear of the unknown. Cold fusion may be dangerous. It is untested. All forms
of nuclear energy are inherently dangerous. (The fact that other sources of
energy are also dangerous is not considered, because people tend to discount
the dangers of existing technology and exaggerate the dangers of new
technology.)

Fear of economic change and technological progress. People will lose jobs.
The stock market may fall. Our economy cannot survive such large changes.
Senator, we may not be able to pick up the tab for your reelection
campaign.

Fear of cold fusion's capabilities. It might be used for a bomb. It is too
powerful to be used responsibly; i.e., giving

Re: [Vo]:If Rossi could speak freely, what would he say.

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:


As I wrote from the beginning on this, there is no limit to human ingenuity,
 so fraud cannot be ruled out except by the normal process: truly
 independent examination and probably replication.


There is another way to rule out fraud. You can allow experts examine the
machine closely and look for the physical equipment needed to commit fraud,
such as hidden wires and pipes. Rossi has done this. There is only a
vanishingly small chance that a fraud might somehow be concealed in the 1
liter cell, and the experts will soon look inside of that, as well. Once
they have done that, fraud will be eliminated as decisively as it would be
if this were independently replicated 200 times.

There is no limit to human ingenuity but there are sharp limits to the laws
of physics and methods of adding energy to this system. It is simple, and
the performance of it has been well understood for nearly 200 years.

Fraud cannot be accomplished except by some physical means, and all such
means are easily defined and checked for with this system (although not with
other systems).

You talk as if fraud is something magical that Rossi could accomplished by
some means not known to science. The whole point of fraud is that it is
something an experienced scientist or engineer will spot instantly the
moment he sees the physical mechanism (the wires or hidden fuel). If Rossi
can make this machine produce massive amounts of energy by some mechanism
not known to science, that means it is not fraud -- by definition. Or, if he
has only managed to make the machine fool conventional flow calorimetry,
that is almost as miraculous. No one can do that.

Levi, Essen et al. are convinced the machine is real because they understand
that there are only a few limited ways to fake a reaction of this nature,
and they are certain they have checked all such ways. I wasn't there, so
that leaves me all-but-certain. I can't imagine a professional scientist so
stupid he does not take elementary precautions such as feeling the hose or
checking the performance of the thermocouples. Levi he said he spent weeks
calibrating. I have spent weeks calibrating various experiments myself, and
I am certain I would have discovered every proposed fraud I have seen
discussed, here and elsewhere. I would have discovered these things in the
first 5 minutes.

Despite assertions here about how easily a scientist or a thermocouple might
be fooled by sleight-of-hand techniques, no such techniques exist and there
are no examples in the history of science when this was done. the examples
that have been given were of tests or demonstrations actually performed by
hand, not by machines.

If Abd thinks that fraud is a serious possibility, I believe he has made a
positive assertion and it requires that he propose a method of committing
fraud and a means of falsifying his proposed method as well. In other words,
a way of proving that his proposed method could not have happened, such as
looking for wires or computing how much energy 1 L of fuel can produce.

Arguments without any supporting evidence or a plausible real-world
explanation or mechanism are not scientific. Declaring out of the blue that
there must be a factor of 1000 error or a factor of 5 error in flow
calorimetry, without showing which of the parameters it applies to and how
it might apply to them is not a scientific assertion. It is meaningless. It
is like saying I am sure that all experimental proof of special relativity
must be wrong by a factor of 1000 and just because I say so that proves it's
true.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:If Rossi could speak freely, what would he say.

The engineering game is a difficult place to set up a successful fraud;
having said that, con-men are most often the smartest men in the room. They
enter banking, the board room, the stock market, hedge funds, the money
management industry, The SEC regulators, or even the Federal Reserve. As Bernie
Madoffhttp://www.google.com/images?rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS329q=Bernie+madoffum=1ie=UTF-8source=univsa=Xei=2FmGTaKEC-O90QG1-7nRCAved=0CEMQsAQoften
purred to his billionaire con-men pals, “and the great whore will
suckle us... until we are fat and happy and can suckle no more.”

If you want to steal lots of money, you go were the money is. Unrelentingly,
with the full throated collusion of government, Big Money remorselessly
extracts the meager savings of the common working man, and these poor
oblivious marks never even know it or even suspect it. So why fear fraud;
it is everywhere, and of all times; it is like an ever-present all
encompassing swarm of mosquitoes on the scent for blood. It is simply the
cost of doing business in today’s world.

Do you remember the Enron affair? Lest we forget, Enron Corporation is an
energy trading, natural gas, and electric utilities company based in
Houston, Texas con game that employed around 21,000 people by mid-2001,
before it went bankrupt.

Fraudulent accounting techniques allowed it to be listed as the seventh
largest company in the United States, and it was expected to dominate the
trading it had virtually invented in communications, power, and weather
securities.

Instead, it became the largest corporate scandal in history, and became
emblematic of institutionalized and well-planned corporate fraud.

Enron cynically and knowingly created the phony California electricity
crisis of 2000 and 2001.

There was never a shortage of power in California. Using tape recordings of
Enron traders on the phone with California power plants, the film chillingly
overhears them asking plant managers to get a little creative in shutting
down plants for repairs.

Between 30 percent and 50 percent of California's energy industry was shut
down by Enron a great deal of the time, and up to 76 percent at one point,
as the company drove the price of electricity higher by nine times.

Energy merchants regularly tape trader conversations to keep a record of
transactions.

In one transcript a trader asks about all the money you guys stole from
those poor grandmothers of California.

To which the Enron trader responds, Yeah, Grandma Millie, man. But she's
the one who couldn't figure out how to (expletive) vote on the butterfly
ballot.

Yeah, now she wants her (expletive) money back for all the power you've
charged right up — jammed right up her (expletive) for (expletive) 250
dollars a megawatt hour, the first trader says.

In another, a trader said, The magical word of the day is 'burn, baby,
burn,' in reference to a fire in California under a power line that caused
a transmission outage, letting Enron take advantage of an increased demand
for electricity.

Do you pay your taxes; do you put money in the bank; do you have a mortgage,
do you give to charity; do you pay your electric bills, do you contribute to
church; do you have any money in your wallet? I bet you are being defrauded
this very minute; don’t know about it; and are not concerned about it in the
least.

The only protection we have against fraud is the unceasing application of
clear thinking against all the information we can get our hands on. So far
from my perspective Rossi is holding up amazingly well to all analytic
cynicism out there. But we must never let our guard down; where the strong
must always protect the weak; for fraud walks eternal among us.

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:

As to the question in the subject header, we don't know, without knowing
the secrets he's keeping, whether his real reasons are legitimate or not.

As I wrote from the beginning on this, there is no limit to human
ingenuity, so fraud cannot be ruled out except by the normal process:
truly independent examination and probably replication. If Rossi were
selling E-Cats, that worked, it would be all over. But he's not, not yet.

It is not unlawful for Rossi to lie about what he's doing, as long as he
doesn't lie to investors. So it is possible for some provided information to
be misleading. At this point, if he's for real, he has strong motives to
distract those who *are* trying like crazy to figure out the secret. And
there is no particular value to full disclosure.

And, of course, if he's not for real, if this is fraud, he has even more
reason to present confusing information.

What we can rule out, from all the evidence, is experimental artifact,
accidental error, mere misinterpretation of results. This is either for real
or it is fraud, because all the reasonable error modes are ruled out, it
would take seriously active deception. That's about

Re: [Vo]:If Rossi could speak freely, what would he say.

Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

The engineering game is a difficult place to set up a successful fraud;
 having said that, con-men are most often the smartest men in the room.


McKubre is brilliant and he has 22 years of experience working with flow
calorimetry, but he could not devise a method of faking a result with a flow
calorimeter that I would not spot in the first five minutes. I mean that.
The whole point of a calorimeter is to lay bare all energy inputs and
output. It is to simplify the equation and narrow down the possibilities so
that there can be no significant undetected source of heat. This is done to
make the results accurate, but it also has the effect of making the machine
very easy to check for legerdemain.

A person could design a complex machine with many inputs and outputs, and
wires and hoses running every which direction. This machine probably could
fool me. It would take me a while to trace down inputs and outputs. I doubt
such a thing could fool McKubre or EK, but it could fool me. However, a
flow calorimeter DOES NOT HAVE wires and hoses running everywhere. It has
ONE input and ONE output and exactly 4 parameters. If there is another
input, it stands out like a sore thumb. A calorimeter is as simple as an
energy system can be. That is the whole point of it. If they could make it
even simpler, and eliminate other possible sources of error (or fraud -- it
amounts to the same thing) they would make it simpler.

No one is so smart he knows a way to defeat industry standard machines and
techniques used worldwide for a century.


Do you remember the Enron affair? Lest we forget, Enron Corporation is an
 energy trading, natural gas, and electric utilities company based in
 Houston, Texas con game that employed around 21,000 people by mid-2001,
 before it went bankrupt.



 Fraudulent accounting techniques allowed it to be listed as the seventh
 largest company in the United States . . .


Accounting techniques and like cannot be compared to a machine such as a
calorimeter. Machines must obey the laws of physics. An accounting system
can have any value stuffed into memory by the programmer at any stage in the
process. For this reason, a computerized voting system is permanently
suspect. There is no such thing, even in principle, as a computerized voting
system that cannot be corrupted.

(Granted, some are a lot easier to corrupt than others. They used to make
voting systems with Data General Nova computers, which I used to program.
They had zero security. Any programmer who read the manual would know how to
sign on via modem, find, and change any number or ASCII value in the 64 KB
memory without leaving a trace. They now make them with Microsoft Win-CE,
a.k.a. wince, which is like constructing a maximum security prison with
nothing more than three feet of chickenwire fencing around the perimeter.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:If Rossi could speak freely, what would he say.

2011-04-26 Thread Terry Blanton

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
 The engineering game is a difficult place to set up a successful fraud;
 having said that, con-men are most often the smartest men in the room.

Enron

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1016268/  The Smartest Guys in the Room

was chump change compared to the mortgage swindle

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/  Inside Job

which could take down the world economy still.

T

Re: [Vo]:If Rossi could speak freely, what would he say.

I wrote:

Levi, Essen et al. are convinced the machine is real because they understand
 that there are only a few limited ways to fake a reaction of this nature,
 and they are certain they have checked all such ways. I wasn't there, so
 that leaves me all-but-certain. I can't imagine a professional scientist so
 stupid he does not take elementary precautions such as feeling the hose or
 checking the performance of the thermocouples. Levi he said he spent weeks
 calibrating. . . .



If it turns out Levi is really, really stupid then I can imagine some ways
Rossi could commit a fraud. For example, if Levi shows up and Rossi gives
him the power meter, thermocouples and other equipment and insists he use
that equipment only, not his own, it would be easy to fool him.

Or, as I said, when the outlet temperature registers 40°C if Levi did not
have the sense to check the outlet hose to see if it is hot, he might be
fooled. It is even possible that an innocent thermocouple malfunction could
produce spurious data in that instance. An experienced person would know how
to spot this sort of thing and eliminate it. Thermocouples are very
reliable, in any case.

I will grant, I have met a few university professors who were as dumb as a
bag of hammers, and might have made mistakes on this scale.

I do not get the impression that Levi et al. are stupid. On the contrary,
based on their reports they seem to know exactly what they are doing --
better than I would know. But as I said, I wasn't there, I do not have a
video or a multipage detailed report describing every action they took. So I
cannot be as certain of the results as they themselves are.

This stupid professor hypothesis can only be ruled out by having dozens of
professors examine the machine or better yet replicate it from scratch. But
replication is not quite as essential as it is for small devices. This is
quite a lot like watching the Wright brothers fly in 1908. People who
understood the problems of aviation, such as Bleriot and Archdecon,
instantly saw that this was controlled fight, not a circus trick like a man
shot out of a cannon, or a machine hanging from hidden wires.

By the way, I have said repeatedly that I could spot a fake in 5 minutes. I
am not boasting at how wonderfully skilled I am at spotting fakes. That is
not the point. Anyone reading these messages could probably spot a fake as
easily as I could. As I said, this ability in inherent to what a flow
calorimeter is, and what it does, and what its purpose is. It is a machine
designed to be easily understood. The function is designed to be
transparent. It resembles a middle-school laboratory demonstration of a
machine such as a lever, balance weight scale, a worm-gear, or
a bimetallic strip that bends in response to heat.

To be exact, it is designed to eliminate all inputs and outputs but one, and
the way it accomplishes this is to make it supremely simple.

There are calorimeter types such as the Seebeck which accomplish this goal
of isolating inputs and outputs not with inherent simplicity, but with high
performance, high tech electronic components. It would easy for Rossi to set
up a fake demonstration with a Seebeck calorimeter, as long as it was his
calorimeter, and not one that belongs to U. Bologna and remains under Levi's
control.

You can compare a flow calorimeter to a balance weight scale. Such scales
have been in use since ancient times. They have utterly transparent
operation. No expert can fool one. No expert could have fooled one used in
Edo Japan in the marketplace, or in ancient Egypt. A Seebeck is comparable
to an electronic weight scale, with hidden, black-box components and
programming. An expert could fool one of these by replacing parts or
reprogramming.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Most objections to cold fusion will not survive commercialization

2011-04-26 Thread Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.

Nice.

Natural gas:  We couldn't possibly allow natural gas to be piped into urban
areas -- it would be way too dangerous -- people could blow up their
neighborhood if there were a leak, or kill themselves by asphixiation or
carbon monoxide poisoning..

Electricity:  We couldn't possibly allow electricity to be used by
consumers -- they could be instantly killed in a few milliseconds on contact
with it, and short circuits could ignite entire neighborhoods, plus it
probably causes cancer.

Gasoline:  The energy contained in a tank of gasoline is so great that in
the event of an accident, whole neighborhoods could be decimated, therefore
its handling must be left to professionals.

Unfenced roads and subway trains:  All roads and train tracks must be fenced
off as people could inadvertantly step or fall into the rights of way and be
squashed.

...


  -Original Message-
  From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
  Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:18 PM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: [Vo]:Most objections to cold fusion will not survive
commercialization


  Gene Mallove and I used to say that if we [Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.] ...

   Fear of the unknown. Cold fusion may be dangerous. It is untested. All
forms of nuclear energy are inherently dangerous. (The fact that other
sources of energy are also dangerous is not considered, because people tend
to discount the dangers of existing technology and exaggerate the dangers of
new technology.)


  Fear of economic change and technological progress. People will lose jobs.
The stock market may fall. Our economy cannot survive such large changes.
Senator, we may not be able to pick up the tab for your reelection
campaign.


  Fear of cold fusion's capabilities. It might be used for a bomb. It is too
powerful to be used responsibly; i.e., giving humanity cold fusion is like
giving a machine gun to a baby. (Rifkin)


  Fear of other countries. If the Chinese get this they will rule us. (I've
heard this proposed as a reason to prevent RD, as if we can stop the
Chinese by not developing it ourselves.)


  A strange modern fear of using machines that experts do not fully
understand. There is no theory to explain how it works, so it might stop
working or explode. (Actually, the experts do not fully understand how
anything works, but they don't admit that to the public.)


  Fear that cold fusion may make things worse. I share this fear. See
chapter 19 of my book. The fact that something might be misused is seldom a
good reason not to use it at all. Usually, advantages outweigh
disadvantages. (Some new weapon systems, and some unstable, dangerous and
unreliable machines cause more harm than good.)


  Fear of authority, and science. This is fashionable these days, with
campaigns against vaccinations and global warming.


  A few other objections can be anticipated:


  It will cost too much. We cannot afford to replace all automobiles and
heaters.


  It will take too long. It will be too little, too late. By the time we
implement it global warming will be upon us. (This is Bjorn Lomborg's
one-size-fits all argument against all solutions to all technical problems.
He always ends up recommending we sit and do nothing.)


  [Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.] ... than good from a PR point of view.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:If Rossi could speak freely, what would he say.

Here are some Edo-period hanging marketplace weight scales:

http://www4.airnet.ne.jp/sakura/hakari/hakari_fr07.html

They are ingenious and perhaps more complicated than you might  think. I
have seen people use them in recent times.

Naturally there were ways to hide weights in these things to cheat
customers. My point is, if you handed one of these over to a modern
professor of physics, not only would she understand how it works, she would
quickly find it is loaded. The last sentence of this essay says that even
though there were strict weights and measures laws during the Edo period,
the reliability of the scales was poor.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

2011-04-26 Thread mixent

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:20:36 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Rossi claims that the nickel will have to be changed out periodically, every
six months or so. I doubt it.

If 50 cc is filled with Ni powder, and the density is half that of the solid
metal, then there is enough Ni62  Ni64 present to supply 5 kW for 207 days,
assuming 5 MeV / reaction.
By replacing it every 6 months, he ensures that he doesn't run out. (Of course
if 30% of Ni was initially converted to Cu then it would last much longer.)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:Weak Winds for Brits

There is something that is inherently risky about staking your energy and
economic future on the whether. Farmers have known this since the dawn of
civilization.



Wind and solar energy production may be dramatically affected by climate
change. When the north and south Polar Regions heat up and all the polar ice
melts, then the thermal differences between the polar and temperate zones
will become more equalized and the ocean currents will decline.  The winds
that now equalize these regional temperatures will becalm and the skies more
cloudy.



Wouldn’t it be a kick in the butt if the world installed 10,000,000 wind
mills and the winds stop blowing?





quote Three Iowa State researchers contributed their expertise in modeling
North America's climate to a study to be published in the Journal of
Geophysical Research – Atmospheres. The study – led by Sara C. Pryor, a
professor of atmospheric science at Indiana University Bloomington – found
that wind speeds across the country have decreased by an average of .5
percent to 1 percent per year since 1973.

The study found that across the country wind speeds were decreasing – more
in the East than in the West, and more in the Northeast and the Great
Lakes, said Gene Takle, an Iowa State professor of geological and
atmospheric sciences and agronomy.



In Iowa, a state that ranks second in the country for installed wind power
capacity, Takle said the study found annual wind speed declines that matched
the average for the rest of the country.



The study's findings made headlines across the country. Most of those
stories focused on the potential implications for the wind power industry.

end quote



Read more….

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090625202010.htm

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
  According to this story, wind energy in England, is not living up to
  expectations.
 
 
 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361316/250bn-wind-power-industry-gr
  eatest-scam-age.html

 Of course storage technology could have a major effect on the
 viability of PV and Wind energy.

 From http://www.theeestory.com/

 Six years after leading the Kleiner Perkins effort to invest in
 EEStor, billionaire venture capitalist Bill Joy has finally commented
 publicly about the investment at the MIT Enterprise Forum of Cambridge
 this past Thursday evening.

 (see video)

 After the fireside chat, Joy answered questions from a small crowd of
 people for over an hour.

 Question:
 So, are you still hopeful about EEStor?

 Bill Joy:
 Oh yeah. I mean these things are hard so there is always a chance they
 won't work. But we're very uh .. We'll see. I don't know anything
 that isn't in the press.

 Question:  a person team somebody that already may already have a
 solution that hasn't been discovered, is that something you think is
 possible? Like a crowdsouring ... somewhere in world that's working
 

 Bill Joy:
 It doesn't tend to work that way. It proceeds from somebody who has
 deep expertise in a domain who acquires interdisciplinary
 collaborators. Thats a better formula. There are no child prodigies in
 these fields that involve physics and chemistry.

 You really just have  you mentioned Carl Nelson he is like 90
 years old an MIT PhD material scientist, who is one of the inventors
 under EEStor. If you don't have someone like Carl. I mean you ask
 Carl, tell me something about hafnium. Carl will talk to you for 15
 minutes about hafnium. He knows something about every element in the
 periodic table. He can tell you off the top of his head what its
 crystal forms are and alot of interesting properties. I mean you have
 to be intimate with the periodic table to do this kind of stuff. You
 have to know  you really have to have had a career. With somebody
 like that, he's probably the oldest founder I ever backed. But you
 just have dinner with him and you realize he really understands what
 he is doing with materials.

 Now what they are proposing to do is wild. And there's lots of reasons
 in which some of these things could fail to be commercialized. I'm not
 saying whether it's worked or not and if we've announced it or not,
 I'm just saying it's hard. What they're trying to do ... obviously,
 it's took years ... to get  since they  first  it's not
 easy to do these things. So ... but the worthwhile things usually are
 hard and they always take longer.

 end excerpt

 I love the way he stuttered.

 Also, there's a letter regarding an overdue FOIA request to the DoE on
 rumors from SNL.

 (no, not saturday night live)

 T

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:If Rossi could speak freely, what would he say.

2011-04-26 Thread francis

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:14 Axil wrote

Control of the Rossi reaction is a complicated thing.

The energy density pumping mechanism you site may be only one mechanism of

many that play into the complicated interplay of many factors in which the

Cat-E might be controlled.

 

Reply --Agreed and it may be only a small fraction but I am convinced it is
the INITIATING mechanism for otherwise improbable reactions.///

 

Rossi's revelation that the secret catalyst makes the Rossi reaction go

is an argument against your theory being the sole or even the primary

controlling factor. He states that without this secret element, nickel

powder does not produce a sustained reaction.

 

Reply --- It is complicated but the secret catalyst whether spill over or
an ultrafine back fill that simply divides the nano cavities into even
smaller more powerful geometries doesn't negate the need to control the
movement of the gas population above and below the disassociation threshold,
it just gives you more opportunity on a larger scale where fractional
molecules are spread over a larger volume or loading into ever smaller
relativistic fractional states down to 1/137 - my point is the covalent bond
can act like a rectifier when gas motion pushes the molecule too far from
the fractional value at which it formed in either direction like going from
1/60 h2 to a geometry that wants to reform the atoms of the molecule to a
1/70 th or a 1/50 th fractional state -if the atoms are cool enough to
reform a molecule they will do so at whatever fractional level the geometry
dictates with no stress on the new covalent bond until gas motion pushes it
to a different Casimir geometry.///

 

 

But he also says that the Reaction can continue without the application of

external stimulus being applied. This is where the mechanism you site might

come into play. I also think this is a mode that Rossi does not want the

Cat-E reaction to enter.

 

Reply --- OK if you wish to call lack of control a mode vs the PWM
controlled mode but it is the same initial process before we get into
any possible nuclear reactions. I think the danger is that the cooling loop
slowly builds an army of fractionalized molecules as the system is spun up
which are ready to run away and melt down the geometry in an instant like we
saw with Mills powder in the Rowan confirmations but the quantity of
fractionalized gas would be at a far more dangerous level.///

 

 

I think the secret catalyst is a spillover catalyst that turns H2 into H-

and forces this H-into the crystal lattice of the nickel powder. In the

beginning, this might have been only a startup mechanism.

 

Reply --- I think loading is always an ongoing requirement or the reaction
will die.

 

 

 

But the reactor melted down more than he would have liked where once is too

much.

 

 

 

I believe that Rossi had to somehow disable energy density pumping to

positively control his reactor the way that he wants to.

 

REPLY --- I would disagree, He certainly has to throttle it but not
disable it.///

 

 

If energy density pumping is full blown, the reactor may sometimes enter an

uncontrolled mode where it takes off on its own nickel (pun intended) and

melts down.

 

REPLY---Agreed!//

 

As an engineering imperative, I have a feeling that Rossi decided to

centralize control of the reactor in the control box where he can adjust or

shut off control power as required.

 

 

 

He calls his Cat-E reactor an energy amplifier because the small amount of

energy used to control the Cat-E is amplified greatly in the power output of

the reactor.

Re: [Vo]:If Rossi could speak freely, what would he say.


At 04:46 PM 4/26/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
There is another way to rule out fraud. You can allow experts 
examine the machine closely and look for the physical equipment 
needed to commit fraud, such as hidden wires and pipes. Rossi has 
done this. There is only a vanishingly small chance that a fraud 
might somehow be concealed in the 1 liter cell, and the experts will 
soon look inside of that, as well. Once they have done that, fraud 
will be eliminated as decisively as it would be if this were 
independently replicated 200 times.


Depends. Jed. Look, fraud is *extremely unlikely,* my opinion. 
However, if any group of people should be suspicious of 
impossibility proofs for unknown mechanism, it should be those 
familiar with cold fusion.


Impossibility proofs are all suspect. And that includes a proof that 
fraud by unknown mechanism is impossible.


How many experts does it take, doing an examination like that? 
Suppose that it's possible to walk off with a few hundred million 
euros with a sophisticated fraud? Would it be impossible to buy an 
expert who looks the other way, he can later say, Gee, I didn't 
think of *that* possibility!


Don't mistake this for an accusation of anyone. Like I said, I think 
fraud is extremely unlikely.


There are possible mechanisms. Each one is highly unlikely, but 
highly unlikely does not mean impossible. *How many mechanisms are 
possible?* There isn't any particular limit, Jed.


But once there is serious and multiply-independent examination, and 
especially full internal examination, it does become very, very 
ridiculously impossible. Quite simply, it's not there yet, it's not 
beyond the point of some very sophisticated fraud, unknown mechanism, 
with or without some kind of collusion from apparently independent experts.


But what is really ludicrous at this point is the skeptics -- say, on 
Wikipedia -- quite ready to confidently pronounced that this is, 
indeed, bogus, that they expect, any day now, to hear that Rossi 
isn't going to meet his deadline. That, in fact, is quite possible 
even if Rossi is fully and completely legitimate. What strikes me is 
the *belief* behond this.


They believe in their old, very tired, and clearly bogus 
impossibility proof, cold fusion is, for them, simply impossible, 
*therefore no matter what you say or do, they are certain it's error 
or fraud.* Doesn't matter what evidence exists. Now, will they be 
convinced by a commercial product? Probably eventually, but certainly 
not immediately. They will hold on to whatever shred of 
pseudo-skeptical reserve they can muster.


It's not about science at all. It's about *belief*. Almost the 
opposite of science.


There is no limit to human ingenuity but there are sharp limits to 
the laws of physics and methods of adding energy to this system. It 
is simple, and the performance of it has been well understood for 
nearly 200 years.


Jed, you are making exactly the error the skeptics made in 1989. You 
just contradicted yourself. There are, indeed, limits to the laws of 
physics, but suppose this:


Suppose Rossi has discovered a way to create a short term appearance 
of lots of heat, perhaps a really extreme chemical reaction, not 
previously known. Perhaps he figures out how to conceal fuel, but 
suppose this is basically useless for some reason, say, it's not 
practical, it's too expansive, etc. But could he do something with 
it? Sure. Use it for a demonstration, capture investment money, and 
then disappear. Perhaps a combination of methods are used, each one 
contributing energy. Several suggestions have been made that might 
manage part of it. What would someone do for a few hundred million euros?


You've stated no limit, but then you supposed that you could 
understand the sharp limits to the laws of physics, and this is 
exactly the argument that was made against cold fusion. It was a 
failure of the imagination, a belief that we already understood what 
was possible, and therefore what was not; the belief was that if 
there was a nuclear reaction in palladium deuteride, it must be d-d 
fusion, and since that reaction was believed *for very good reasons* 
to produce neutrons and tritium, copiously, yet they were not 
observed, or not observed at anything like the necessary levels to 
explain the heat, and since the rare helium branch *for very good 
reasons* must produce a gamma, they thought they had it nailed. 
Impossible. And if it's impossible, then the obvious conclusion: 
there *must* be some error, even if we don't know what it is.


Fraud cannot be accomplished except by some physical means, and all 
such means are easily defined and checked for with this system 
(although not with other systems).


There are many kinds of fraud, Jed, fraud can exist through very 
sophisticated ways of fooling observers, stuff that wouldn't be 
called physical. Instruments can be substituted, and I've heard 
quite a number of such suggestions. Proposed as it must be this,

Re: [Vo]:If Rossi could speak freely, what would he say.


At 05:31 PM 4/26/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
McKubre is brilliant and he has 22 years of experience working with 
flow calorimetry, but he could not devise a method of faking a 
result with a flow calorimeter that I would not spot in the first 
five minutes. I mean that.


I know you mean it, but I also am quite sure that he could, if he 
wanted to. He doesn't, I'm sure. That's what protects you against 
being fooled by him, not your brilliant, incisive, and completely 
understanding of all possible frauds.


You've seen the digital oscilloscope displays showing all relevant 
parameters, right? That is a computer display, and it could show 
anything that a fraud wanted it to show. So could any kind of meter. 
If the fraud has reasonably close control of the environment and what 
is brought into a test, it could be done.


 The whole point of a calorimeter is to lay bare all energy inputs 
and output.


That's a real calorimeter, Jed. What if it isn't a real calorimeter, 
but something carefully constructed to resemble one?


It is to simplify the equation and narrow down the possibilities so 
that there can be no significant undetected source of heat. This is 
done to make the results accurate, but it also has the effect of 
making the machine very easy to check for legerdemain.


You say so. Proof? More to the point -- since flow calorimetry is 
indeed pretty simple -- that most imagined legerdemain could be 
easily seen, close up, this does not prove that all forms would be so.


A person could design a complex machine with many inputs and 
outputs, and wires and hoses running every which direction. This 
machine probably could fool me. It would take me a while to trace 
down inputs and outputs. I doubt such a thing could fool McKubre or 
EK, but it could fool me. However, a flow calorimeter DOES NOT HAVE 
wires and hoses running everywhere. It has ONE input and ONE output 
and exactly 4 parameters. If there is another input, it stands out 
like a sore thumb.


Tube concealed within a tube. You would not see it. Wires within 
wires, carrying high voltage, that look like wires that could not 
carry high power, because you assume the voltage is line voltage. 
Etc. It may well be that any given fraud mechanism can be ruled out, 
but, Jed, there is no limit to the number of possible mechanisms.



A calorimeter is as simple as an energy system can be.


You are assuming it's a calorimeter! Further, any temperature 
measurement can be fooled. You tried to make these arguments, when 
others advanced them, into an argument that thermometers did not 
work! No, they work, but, first of all, is it really a thermometer, 
and, second, what is it measuring. It might appear to be measuring 
the outlet water temperature, but be, in fact, measuring a confined 
stream, arranged to preferentially heat the thermometer.


Again, likely? No. My position rapidly become on this that this was 
either real or it was a *very* sophisticated fraud. Not an error. All 
the arguments you have given do, heavily, militate against error.


That is the whole point of it. If they could make it even simpler, 
and eliminate other possible sources of error (or fraud -- it 
amounts to the same thing) they would make it simpler.


But nothing would be simpler than a fat payoff.

No one is so smart he knows a way to defeat industry standard 
machines and techniques used worldwide for a century.


You assume these machines run themselves, that they produce the 
results. Jed, that's naive.


You are probably right, in this case, i.e., this is very unlikely to 
be fraud. But that's like someone who believes he can't lose, and the 
proof is that he didn't lose in this or that case. You know, there is 
this scheme for making money with roulette. You double your bet each 
time, if you lose. People who believe this trick actually do make 
money. Most of the time. A little money. Then they lose their shirts. 
Maybe. It's unlikely enough that they might go on for a long time, 
making a small amount of money. Then the amount they need to bet 
turns out to be more than they can raise. Or if they raise it, they 
lose it. The odds don't change.



Fraudulent accounting techniques allowed it to be listed as the 
seventh largest company in the United States . . .


Accounting techniques and like cannot be compared to a machine such 
as a calorimeter.


Jed, you are completely missing the point. Machines don't set up 
measurements and report them, people do. Fool or corrupt the people, 
you can report anything. People believed that a fraud on the scale of 
Enron was impossible, surely it would be noticed, how could the 
numbers in accounting reports be wrong, surely someone would blow the whistle?



Machines must obey the laws of physics.


that's what they said about cold fusion.

An accounting system can have any value stuffed into memory by the 
programmer at any stage in the process. For this reason, a 
computerized voting system is permanently suspect.

Re: [Vo]:If Rossi could speak freely, what would he say.