date:20110428

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:54:31 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>PV also produces roughly 30% of nameplate because the sun shines with peak
>intensity around 8 hours per day. However, unlike wind power, PV produces
>peak electricity at exactly the moment when demand peaks during the summer,
>because air conditioning kicks in when the sun is hottest.

This is only likely to be true at the lower latitudes. Over the planet as a
whole, it averages to exactly 25%. (PiR^2/4PiR^2).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Weak Winds for Brits

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:54:31 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Wind is a function of solar radiation and
>that has not changed, so I doubt overall wind or the patterns of wind have
>changed, or can change.

That isn't quite true. The world's heat engine runs on the temperature
difference between the surface and deep space (since that's eventually where the
energy ends up as low grade heat).
There are basically two paths for the heat to reach space.

1) Direct radiation from the surface.
2) Convection in the atmosphere followed by radiation to space at high altitude.

Greenhouse gasses limit the former, leaving more energy utilizing the second
pathway (since as you point out, the input remains essentially constant).

Wind derives it's energy solely from the second pathway, hence with global
warming, one might expect wind energy to actually increase somewhat.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:54:36 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>They cannot supply electricity for their own use only because they are not
>designed to run at a tiny fraction of regular output, say 0.1%. I believe
>that is about all they need to keep themselves going. (The energy overhead.)
>It would like trying to idle your car engine to 1 rpm.

I thought about that, but I'm not sure it really makes sense. To start with, you
can reduce the cooling water flow through the reactor such that it is precisely
enough to create steam of the right pressure, based upon the current power
output due to remaining decay heat. That steam will still drive a (nearly)
unloaded turbine at high speed (they must have very good bearings). Because very
little power is being drawn from the generator, it in turn places very little
load on the turbine.
If you are still generating too much power, then you can simply vent some of the
steam in the secondary loop before it reaches the turbine.

The combination of reduced cooling water flow and steam venting should allow you
to throttle back as far as is required.

...unless of course the decay heat is insufficient to run the pumps (even at
reduced load)? After Fukushima, somehow I doubt that.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:ZPE Transmutation???

2011-04-28 Thread Harry Veeder

The Cold is similiar to inertia. It discourages acceleration. Cold 
fusion involves absorption of the cold thereby allowing molecules to accelerate 
and heat things up. 

Harry - only  1/3 joking


>
>From: Wm. Scott Smith 
>To: prot...@frii.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Sent: Thu, April 28, 2011 6:38:59 PM
>Subject: [Vo]:ZPE Transmutation???
>
>If that is true then no neutrons is the least of the problems---there is not 
>enough heat to justify that much fusion. Could this be ZPE Transmutation???
>
>> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:28:39 -0600
>> From: prot...@frii.com
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Fusion Ashes would be trace amounts.
>> 
>> As I recall it was supposed to be a lot like 30% Ni to Cu after 6 months.
>> Ron
>> 
>> --On Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:16 AM -0700 "Wm. Scott Smith" 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> > Even without quantitative info on fusion ashes, are we talking small 
>> > amounts 
>>or large? I say this
>> > because, a little fusion goes a really-long way!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> 
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Gamma ray waveguides and E-cat

In reply to  Michele Comitini's message of Fri, 29 Apr 2011 02:30:03 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>This guys claim that it is possible, and energy could be in the range
>of E-cat gamma output
>
>http://apl.aip.org/resource/1/applab/v92/i15/p153502_s1?isAuthorized=no

[snip]

Interesting, however there are still a few hitches. 

1) "A few MeV" may not be enough in all cases. In some fusion reactions gammas
of up to 8 MeV may be generated. Though it's not at all clear if this is the
case with Rossi's reactor.

2) "Optics comprised of these waveguides will be able to collect radiation from
small solid angles".
   Note the reference to "small solid angles". This is definitely not going to
be the case with Rossi's reactor, where gammas are likely to be radiated over a
full sphere.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:13:56 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Furthermore, as Michele Comitini points out, many household and industrial
>uses of energy can be converted from electricity to heat. Many were
>converted from heat to electricity a century ago, but they are just as
>conveniently done with heat. For example, gas-fired thermal refrigerators
>work fine, and they were in widespread use in the 1930s. I saw some in the
>1960s.

I find that most of my electric power consumption is used to create heat anyway.
Both home heating and hot water. For 9 months of the year, space heating alone
accounts for half of my power bill.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Re: Gamma ray waveguides and E-cat

This guys claim that it is possible, and energy could be in the range
of E-cat gamma output

http://apl.aip.org/resource/1/applab/v92/i15/p153502_s1?isAuthorized=no


mic

2011/4/29  :
> In reply to  Michele Comitini's message of Thu, 28 Apr 2011 23:10:50 +:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>>*feasible*?
>>
>>2011/4/28 Michele Comitini :
>>> I wonder if it could be possible to use gamma produced by E-cat for
>>> instance in medical application, for
>>> water decontamination or other uses through the use of waveguides?  Do
>>> you think it could be feasable?
>>>
>>> mic
>>>
> I think that the wavelength of gamma rays is too short for wave guides (though
> they have had some success with x-rays).
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Gamma ray waveguides and E-cat

In reply to  Michele Comitini's message of Thu, 28 Apr 2011 23:10:50 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>*feasible*?
>
>2011/4/28 Michele Comitini :
>> I wonder if it could be possible to use gamma produced by E-cat for
>> instance in medical application, for
>> water decontamination or other uses through the use of waveguides?  Do
>> you think it could be feasable?
>>
>> mic
>>
I think that the wavelength of gamma rays is too short for wave guides (though
they have had some success with x-rays).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others

Where does it end?  Remember quad audio systems?

"Steve Martin buys a stereo and days later he's not satisfied — the
system sounds like shit. He moves up the audio chain to, finally "the
Googlephonic," the be-all, end-all of audio systems. After a couple
days, that one sounds like shit. Martin continues: So I say, maybe
it's the needle? I had the old, typical diamond needle — I searched
around and got the Moon Rock needle; cost me $3 million bucks for
that. ... So now I have the Googlephonic stereo with a Moon Rock
needle — it's OK for a car stereo, but I wouldn't want it in my house.
..."

10^100 blades.  Smoth shave.

T

[Vo]:ZPE Transmutation???

2011-04-28 Thread francis

 

Interesting point. there is too much transmutation for the heat produced?

Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Michele Comitini
 wrote:
> 2011/4/29 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson :
>> Aren't they manufacturing triple blades now? Where will it stop!
>
> penta blades!

Truth:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/14/news/fortune500/gillette/

Fiction:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/fuck-everything-were-doing-five-blades,11056/

Strange!

T

Re: [Vo]:Bushnell interview in EVworld

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> Rossi's continued emphasis on "non-military applications" tells me
> that he already has military applications.  With that comes a form of
> protection through prior agreements that explains his confidence in
> his future success both technically and financially.

Early on, someone said that a naval ship had been propelled by an ECat
for over a year.  You will have to go back to the January archives.  I
think I mentioned it then.

Any NASA confirmation will have been planned long ago, IMO.

T

Re: [Vo]:Bushnell interview in EVworld

Rossi's continued emphasis on "non-military applications" tells me
that he already has military applications.  With that comes a form of
protection through prior agreements that explains his confidence in
his future success both technically and financially.

I'll bet on the October surprise.

T

Re: [Vo]:97 E-CATS in Operation at 4 sites

Your typical locomotive engine is around 1 MW.

T

Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others

2011/4/29 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson :
> Aren't they manufacturing triple blades now? Where will it stop!

penta blades!

Re: [Vo]:Weak Winds for Brits

Nick Palmer  wrote:


> *"However, unlike wind power, PV produces peak electricity at exactly the
> moment when demand peaks during the summer, because air conditioning kicks
> in when the sun is hottest."*
>


> **America is not the whole world! In Britain, we don't really use air-con
> much. I guess our peak electricity is in the winter when we have electric
> fires on.
>

Yeah, well, you don't really have any sunlight either, at least not in
winter, which runs from September through June I gather:

http://wonderingminstrels.blogspot.com/2000/12/song-of-weather-michael-flanders.html

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others

2011-04-28 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

Terry sez:

> Gillette learned long ago that you can give away the
> razor holder and make money on replacement razors.

Indeed.

Then someone comes along and shatters the status quo with a bold new
paradigm shift in the history of shaving: Double blade cartridges. Ergo:
Twin e-Cats!

Aren't they manufacturing triple blades now? Where will it stop!

Where's my Polaroid.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Weak Winds for Brits

2011-04-28 Thread Nick Palmer

As I mentioned, I said I would email the MD of the owner/operator of the "350 
ft giant" which the article claimed achived 15% of capacity.


Here is his response (N.B. as we have corresponded/messaged before it's really 
informal...)


"Hi Nick, yep that one is ours. Things worth knowing on this front are - 


The figures they quote as efficiency measures (was it 20% for this windmill?) 
are actually Load Factor figures.


Load Factor is a measure of the degree to which something operates at it's 
maximum capability over the year.


Efficiency is a very different beast - our windmills are over 90% fuel 
efficient.


The Load Factor of windmills is actually a measure of two things, the energy 
efficiency of a machine and the wind regime it operates within. The wind 
industry uses Load Factors as measures of on site wind resource.


So for example typical load factors in England are 30% on shore. 40% in 
Scotland and 40% offshore.


Typical load factors for coal, gas and nuclear plants are around 50% - and 
these are generators that do not depend on the weather for their operation.


Typical fuel efficiency of coal might be 30 to 40%, Gas 40 to 50% and nuclear 
somewhere in between.


Typical load factors for other every day items - 


cars - less than 1%
mobile phones 1 or 2%
kettles less than 1%


These devices are not reckoned to be inefficient or un worthwhile because we do 
not use them anything like to their maximum rated potential.


So this load factor argument is just a statistical device to discredit wind 
energy, a trap for the unwitting.


Hope this helps."

-

Different subject - Jed wrote:

"However, unlike wind power, PV produces peak electricity at exactly the moment 
when demand peaks during the summer, because air conditioning kicks in when the 
sun is hottest."

America is not the whole world! In Britain, we don't really use air-con much. I 
guess our peak electricity is in the winter when we have electric fires on.



Nick Palmer

On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it

Blogspot - Sustainability and stuff according to Nick Palmer
http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Bushnell interview in EVworld

Someone wrote:


> From: Terry Blanton
>
>
> I'm sure we're not talking about the Bill Moore I know:
>

Moore is the founder and editor of EvWorld. He is pretty busy doing that. I
have known him for years. Never heard he is into UFOs.

I find Dennis Bushnell a little odd.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:97 E-CATS in Operation at 4 sites

Rossi never ceases to amaze me! There have not been this many cold fusion
reactors in operation since Stan and Martin were open for business in Nice,
France, and they ran 64 cells at a time. And those were only ~100 W each.

Assuming this is no exaggeration, it means he is closer to making a 1 MW
reactor than I imagined. Good for him! I think it is a wacky goal in way,
since the target product is 20 kW. It is as if they plan to manufacture
motorcycles, and they are building a prototype Mack Truck to start with. But
I guess they have their reasons.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Bushnell interview in EVworld

-- Forwarded message --

From: Terry Blanton 


I'm sure we're not talking about the Bill Moore I know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Moore_(ufologist)



Something tells me that NASA would probably have a journalist black-list,
and with every ufologist included, rightly or wrongly - but who knows?

The curious thing about the current state of affairs may turn out to be -
assuming NASA discovers the underlying principle of operation, and they
probably will - and assuming that it is different from Rossi/Focardi's
hypothesis of nickel transmuting to copper, as it probably will be ... and
assuming Rossi's catalyst is one of Randell Mills' named catalysts, which it
probably is ... then this becomes a wide-open field for the entrepreneur ...
and my bet would not be on Rossi in that case.

But wide-open free enterprise competition for the lowest cost LANR device is
probably the "next big thing" which can push the US and World economy into
the kind of stratospheric growth pattern not seen for way too long...

Bring it on ...

Jones

[Vo]:97 E-CATS in Operation at 4 sites

2011-04-28 Thread Alan J Fletcher



Luke Mortensen 

April 28th, 2011 at 1:09 PM 
AR,
Some good E-Cat trivia for the fans:
1. How many e-cats are in continuous operation today?
2. How many geographic locations are e-cats running today?
3. Are there any e-cats running in the US with businesses you own or
individuals you trust?
4. Any estimate on how much fuel has been spent over the life of your
research?
5. Is there anything confidential about how you use electrolysis for the
reactor is is that industry standard technology?
Thanks,
~Luke Mortensen
Andrea Rossi 

April 28th, 2011 at 3:37 PM 
Dear Mr Luke Mortensen:
1- 97
2- 4
3- yes
4- less than if I was taxist
5- I do not use electrolysis
Warm regards,
A.R.

Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others

Gillette learned long ago that you can give away the razor holder and
make money on replacement razors.

T

Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others

2011-04-28 Thread Jay Caplan

Right, the key to profiting on Rossi's large water heaters is the servicing
as well as the installation, and replaceable cartrides including H2 would be
optimal. He needs a cartridge that is essentially rented out with a large
cash deposit to deter reverse engineering, making sure the cartridges are
not pilfered and opened. And he needs to limit their life, so they have to
be changed out regularly.

I predict Rossi will not divulge anything useful for repeating his process
in patent apps, since the chance of a patent is slim anyway; just get these
industrial water heaters sold before the NRC and their worldwide equivalents
put a halt to them, or the W/L patent is proved to be correct and the means
by which gamma is eliminated, meaning W/L can license and demand royalties..



- Original Message - 
From: "Terry Blanton" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others


> I'm not convinced that the ECat will require a hydrogen source.  He
> once stated that the ECat will run off a "replaceable cartridge" that
> will be replaced every 6 (?) months.
>
> Now, considering the amount of hydrogen required, why not supply a H2
> pressurized cartridge with the powder magic mixture?  If you do the
> math, I think you will see that no new hydrogen will be required for
> the cartridge before the Ni turns to Cu.
>
> T
>

[Vo]::Bushnell interview in EVworld

Jay, you should set your "reply to" to a null address.

T

-- Forwarded message --
From: Terry Blanton 
Date: Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bushnell interview in EVworld
To: Jay Caplan 

I'm sure we're not talking about the Bill Moore I know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Moore_(ufologist)

T

Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others

I'm not convinced that the ECat will require a hydrogen source.  He
once stated that the ECat will run off a "replaceable cartridge" that
will be replaced every 6 (?) months.

Now, considering the amount of hydrogen required, why not supply a H2
pressurized cartridge with the powder magic mixture?  If you do the
math, I think you will see that no new hydrogen will be required for
the cartridge before the Ni turns to Cu.

T

Re: [Vo]:Weak Winds for Brits

MARTA is installing a 1MW PV solar array at its bus garage at the
intersection of Laredo Dr and E. Ponce de Leon in Decatur (Avondale
Estates) on top of a structural canopy built over the bus parking lot.
 The canopy will actually accommodate 2 MW of cells with half to be
for future expansion.  If you are in the area, you might take a look
as the canopy is complete and the PV array is being installed at this
time.

This required the primary transformer to be replaced.  It has a 20 kV
primary and a 480 V secondary at 1 MVA.  It had to be replaced in
order to operate efficiently when reverse fed.  The primary metering
now has two meters, one inbound and one outbound.  The secondary has
terminations going to the main building and to the PV array.  When
solation exceeds consumption, the outbound meter measures energy
returned to the grid.  Consumption is paid at the retail rate and
generation is paid at the wholesale rate; since, this is how
co-generation works in Georgia.  Lighting underneath the canopy is via
LED fixtures.  No energy storage is included.

The system was built with $11M of federal funds.  I am not at liberty
to discuss the economics.  :-)

T

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:32:04 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Small steam
>turbines have been developed, and will be rapidly improved with the advent
>of cold fusion.

"Dear Mr Robin van Spaandonk:
We are in contact in particular with a US turbine manufacturer who is designing
a turbine fit for our E-Cats.
Warm regards,
A.R."

>
>Eventually, turbines are likely to be replaced with thermoelectric devices.
>
>I do not know of any evidence that cold fusion can be made to produce any
>form of energy other than heat.
[snip]

If fast particles are produced then 

http://www.rexresearch.com/hubbard/hubbard.htm 

may be an alternative.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

“3rd generation reactors do not need external power to run cooling.”

In the new light water reactor designs, you have 72 hours of stored water
cooling feed by gravity on the roof of the reactor. After that you had
better have the electric power to the pumps reconnected.

In a molten salt reactor, the shutdown cooling is accomplished passively
using either air and/or water. This reactor design does not need external
power to run cooling

In a molten salt reactor there is no control rods used for control. Control
by Power load following is done by heat expansion of atomic distances
between atoms and is independent of any human intervention.

Shutdown is accomplishing independent of human actions by melting of a
freeze plug where the molten salt is drained to a subcritical dump tank.
There the salt is passively air cooled.

The Chinese have selected this molten salt design in preference to light
water reactor designs for their home grown next generation nuclear reactor.
IMHO, the Chinese have excellent engineering instincts.

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Michele Comitini  wrote:
>
>
>> Sorry, I do not understand in chap 15 of the book wether you took into
>> account LED and fluoreshent lighting or plain old incandescent
>> lighting?
>> (much of the EU is converting to LED and Fluo by law)
>>
>
> This was U.S. data from 1997, for average household use. There were
> probably a lot of compact fluorescent lights in use by that date, but I do
> not know what percent was still incandescent. As you see in Fig. 15.2,
> lighting is 7%. That is substantial, but it would not affect my estimate
> much.
>
> Heating and cooling are 45%. The biggest single use energy by far. As
> explained in the chapter, both can be replaced with direct use of raw heat
> (thermal air conditioning). I do not know how much home heating is from
> resistance electric heat, or heat pumps, but in any case, both would be
> replaced with cold fusion heat, from a co-generator. That would be the most
> economical configuration.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Re: Gamma ray waveguides and E-cat

*feasible*?

2011/4/28 Michele Comitini :
> I wonder if it could be possible to use gamma produced by E-cat for
> instance in medical application, for
> water decontamination or other uses through the use of waveguides?  Do
> you think it could be feasable?
>
> mic
>

[Vo]:Gamma ray waveguides and E-cat

I wonder if it could be possible to use gamma produced by E-cat for
instance in medical application, for
water decontamination or other uses through the use of waveguides?  Do
you think it could be feasable?

mic

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:09:11 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>The weakness in the Rossi reactor is that it uses steam to produce power. If
>it used supercritical Co2 or direct heat to power energy conversion, then
>that would be another story.
>
There is also the remote possibility that it could utilize direct fast particle
to electric power conversion, presuming that it has fast particles.

Alfred Hubbard's design with coil and capacitor in a tank circuit might make an
interesting starting point. (See http://www.rexresearch.com/hubbard/hubbard.htm
).
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

 wrote:

This I don't understand. Why can't fission reactors supply electricity to
> their
> own pumps? IOW why do they automatically shut down completely when grid
> connection is lost?

They have steam driven pumps, as well as Diesel ones. Those pumps can be run
on the steam left over after a scram. I believe they might even be able to
run on the heat during the cool down period, which lasts several days.

One thing they do have is multiple backups in case one fails.

They cannot supply electricity for their own use only because they are not
designed to run at a tiny fraction of regular output, say 0.1%. I believe
that is about all they need to keep themselves going. (The energy overhead.)
It would like trying to idle your car engine to 1 rpm.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

Michele Comitini  wrote:

> Sorry, I do not understand in chap 15 of the book wether you took into
> account LED and fluoreshent lighting or plain old incandescent
> lighting?
> (much of the EU is converting to LED and Fluo by law)
>

This was U.S. data from 1997, for average household use. There were probably
a lot of compact fluorescent lights in use by that date, but I do not know
what percent was still incandescent. As you see in Fig. 15.2, lighting is
7%. That is substantial, but it would not affect my estimate much.

Heating and cooling are 45%. The biggest single use energy by far. As
explained in the chapter, both can be replaced with direct use of raw heat
(thermal air conditioning). I do not know how much home heating is from
resistance electric heat, or heat pumps, but in any case, both would be
replaced with cold fusion heat, from a co-generator. That would be the most
economical configuration.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

3rd generation reactors do not need external power to run cooling.

In any case you cannot shut down the reaction going with control bars
down all the way,
the risk is to kill reaction.  You would loose millions in a minute.
They are totaly unflexible it takes days to bring the neutron k factor
to ~ 1, usually they work with k a little above unity to produce
enough heat.  But you let the reaction go too much above 1 you *loose*
control totally.

2011/4/28  :
> In reply to  Alan J Fletcher's message of Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:37:55 -0700:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/28/utilities-tva-storms-idUSN2718319320110428
>>All 3 Browns Ferry sites lost outside power and switched to diesel power.
>
> This I don't understand. Why can't fission reactors supply electricity to 
> their
> own pumps? IOW why do they automatically shut down completely when grid
> connection is lost? Are they so inflexible in their power output? Even if the
> main reactor is shut down, one would think that even the heat from decay of
> radioisotopes would provide more than enough power for their own pumps, 
> perhaps
> even for months? In short, why do they need diesel generators to kick in
> straight away?
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
>
>

[Vo]:Defkalion Green Technologies now has an official logo

2011-04-28 Thread Akira Shirakawa


Hello group,

Have a look here:
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/

In particular this new logo:
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/images/logo%20Def.jpg

It might not be much, but I think this is a positive sign.

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

Axil Axil  wrote:

The American public has been scared witless by their government about the
> deadly dangers of radiation for political purposes(aka cold war).
>

The American public is scared of nuclear power for good reasons. Rational,
well grounded reasons. I am scared of it, because I have read several books
and official reports describing the Three Mile Island accident, and I
watched about 100 hours of NHK coverage of the Fukushima disaster. Anyone
who is not scared of nuclear power is either an idiot or knows nothing about
it. It is VERY DANGEROUS.

Not as dangerous as coal and global warming, but still dangerous.

> Nuclear power must be controlled by a priesthood of all knowing
> parishioners of the black nuclear arts.
>

Darn right, but unfortunately they are not capable of it.

>

> When a nuclear power plant leaks radiation that is less than can be found
> in a smoke alarm, the public calls for it shutdown.
>

I suggest you read about Three Mile Island and Fukushima. (Chernobyl does
not exactly count.) "Less that a smoke alarm" does not describe these
events.

> How will a reactor that can produce tritium be allowed in an American home?
> Absolutely no way.
>

We have tritium-filled exit signs in our office buildings already. No one
cares. Heck, they even sell tritium-lit wrist watches.

People will soon see that the Rossi device is much safer than conventional,
present-day energy sources.

Or, if it turns out the Rossi device is not safer than present day sources,
then it should only be used in centralize plants. I'll go with that. It will
still save tons of money and eliminate global warming.

- Jed

[Vo]:ZPE Transmutation???

2011-04-28 Thread Wm. Scott Smith


If that is true then no neutrons is the least of the problems---there is not 
enough heat to justify that much fusion. Could this be ZPE Transmutation???

> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:28:39 -0600
> From: prot...@frii.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Fusion Ashes would be trace amounts.
> 
> As I recall it was supposed to be a lot like 30% Ni to Cu after 6 months.
> Ron
> 
> --On Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:16 AM -0700 "Wm. Scott Smith" 
>  wrote:
> 
> > Even without quantitative info on fusion ashes, are we talking small 
> > amounts or large? I say this
> > because, a little fusion goes a really-long way!
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

In reply to  Alan J Fletcher's message of Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:37:55 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/28/utilities-tva-storms-idUSN2718319320110428
>All 3 Browns Ferry sites lost outside power and switched to diesel power.

This I don't understand. Why can't fission reactors supply electricity to their
own pumps? IOW why do they automatically shut down completely when grid
connection is lost? Are they so inflexible in their power output? Even if the
main reactor is shut down, one would think that even the heat from decay of
radioisotopes would provide more than enough power for their own pumps, perhaps
even for months? In short, why do they need diesel generators to kick in
straight away?
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

Jed,

Sorry, I do not understand in chap 15 of the book wether you took into
account LED and fluoreshent lighting or plain old incandescent
lighting?
(much of the EU is converting to LED and Fluo by law)

mic

2011/4/28 Jed Rothwell :
> Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>> "Thermoelectric chips?"
>>
>>
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nantenna
>>
>>
>>
>> . . .
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> What will make the Cold fusion reaction really useful is direct thermal
>> electric generation technology.
>
> It is "really useful" already. Small turbines are really practical too, and
> cheap.
> Furthermore, as Michele Comitini points out, many household and industrial
> uses of energy can be converted from electricity to heat. Many were
> converted from heat to electricity a century ago, but they are just as
> conveniently done with heat. For example, gas-fired thermal refrigerators
> work fine, and they were in widespread use in the 1930s. I saw some in the
> 1960s.
> Comitini's estimate of likely future electric power consumption at home is
> probably too low, however. I looked at consumption in the home, and
> estimated how much can be conveniently shifted to the direct use of heat.
> See chapter 15 of my book. I used statistics from the DoE Energy Information
> Administration showing that electricity accounts for 7,913 kWh per year per
> household. That 27% of household energy. I estimate that will fall to 5,500
> kWh (19%).
> That's only 0.6 kW of power on average, but you need much higher peak
> capacity. Realistically, you need about 10 kW of generator capacity, after
> moving most applications to raw heat.
> Details are in chapter 15, as I said.
> - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Bushnell interview in EVworld

2011-04-28 Thread Jay Caplan

Bushnell became interested in W/ L several yrs ago
http://www.wfs.org/April-May2010/Bushnell.htm : "Low-energy nuclear reactors
(LENRs), otherwise known as cold fusion reactors, were considered impossible
to build a decade ago but are gaining attention thanks to the work of Allan
Widom and Lewis Larsen, who have proposed a new theory to explain how LENR
might work. NASA is conducting experiments in an attempt to verify their
theory, which explains the decades-long LENR experiments as products of
quantum weak interaction theory applied to condensed matter, not fusion."

- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:45 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Bushnell interview in EVworld


> This is fabulous news! Spread it around the WWW - as it could open up
> funding for many who are doing Rossi replications.
>
> Dr Dennis Bushnell (chief scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center) has
> now gone public with NASA's upcoming Rossi replication attempt!
>
> We had heard rumors of this two weeks ago, and were hoping that it would
not
> become some kind of 'black' project. Now it looks like a "go." Halleluiah!
>
> EVWORLD Update 4-28-11
>
> "The Future of Energy" by Bill Moore
>
> Talking with Dennis Bushnell is both exhilarating and chilling, not to
> mention just a bit intimidating. The chief scientist at NASA's Langley
> Research Center, he seems to have his fingers in just about every aspect
of
> both aeronautics and astronautics, with a special interest in energy
sources
> of the future, both near-term (advanced solar PV) and far (drill
geothermal
> and LENR).
>
> It was, in fact, a comment he made recently about Low Energy Nuclear
> Reaction that caused me to contact him and set up a telephone interview on
> Earth Day this year, which also fell on Good Friday, the day commemorating
> Jesus crucifixion and sacrifice for the sins of mankind. As I would
realize
> deep into our discussion, there is a sobering synergy that links the two.
>
> Bushnell is no stranger to doing interviews, or giving talks, or writing
> papers. He is refreshingly candid in his views, which include the
conviction
> that the planet crossed the peak oil summit sometime around 2008 or 2009.
He
> is both upbeat about the promise of some exciting new technologies, while
> being less sanguine about the prospects of our amygdala-dominated culture.
>
> As you'll hear in the "Future In Motion" podcast available on the EV
> World.com web site, what I wanted to know was his view on which energy
> technologies held out the greatest hope for solving our looming energy
> crisis. He made no bones about the fact that the current rise in fuel
prices
> is only the start.
>
> Surprisingly, LENR tops his list. You'll recall that we talked about this
in
> Edition 11.15 two weeks ago, recounting the work of Rossi and Focardi in
> Bologna, Italy. Their device produces more heat energy than what's put
into
> it. The question is why? Bushnell's NASA colleagues now think they know
what
> is going on at the atomic level. They are about to attempt to replicate
what
> the Italians have done. If LENR proves both predictable and reliable, it
> will, in Bushnell's words, change everything.
>
> From the lead column by Bill Moore.
>

Re: [Vo]:The all-powerful NRC hypothesis

That is what good Washington politicians do. That’s called national
leadership.

This brings to mind the old refrain…

In the latest survey of historians, Harry S TRUMAN has now ascended to even
greater heights in the pantheon of great American presidents.  C-SPANs 2nd
annual survey of Presidential
scholarsplaces
Abraham Lincoln at the top of the class; George Washington, FDR,
Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman round out their top 5.

Truman was the father of the cold war and his claim to presidential stardom.
Once recognizing the present and growing threat of Great Red Menace, he
resolved to mobilize both the US government and the American people
absolutely and irrevocably against the new enemy.

At this dawn of the atomic age lie the seeds of the fear of nuclear energy
and its handmaiden nuclear radiation.

It all begins with Uncle Joe.

To rule, Josef Stalin relied on mass terrorism, which in turn required mass
murder. Truman needed to form a strategy to effectively impress this hard
man.

In a secret meeting in the Garden Room occurred the first military strategy
session of the United Nations, because it was dedicated to its mission of
exploding the world's first atomic weapon on a living population. It also
forecast the entire strategy of the Cold War, which lasted forty-three
years, cost American taxpayers five trillion dollars, and accomplished
exactly nothing, as it was intended to do.

There, Truman polled for advice from the various attendees. On of them;
Senator Vandenberg, leader of the Republican loyal opposition, said (as
quoted in American Heritage magazine, August 1977), "We have got to scare
the hell out of "em."

Later, it became necessary to mobilize the American people to support the
cold war. Once again Truman dipped into the strategy tool bag remembering
what Senator Vandenberg said: We have got to scare the hell out of "em."

General Douglas MacArthur and President Truman never quite got along.
MacArthur warned the American people of the now well established political
tactic inspired by Vandenberg; promised disasters never seemed to
materialize; they seem never to have been quite real. As quoted in American
Ceaser, MacArthur lashed out at the large Pentagon budgets. 'Our government
has kept us in a perpetual state of fear—kept us in a continuous stampede of
patriotic fervor—with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has
been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind
it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Once again the echoes of
Senator Vandenberg's famous comment, "We have to scare the hell out of 'em."

Down through the ages, it had been the same tried and true tactic.

When George W. Bush was elected he read the biography of great political
world leaders to teach himself how to be president.

One of his favorites was the recently publish best selling biography of
Truman by David McCullough.  One thing he learned from the old master was
the well tested strategy: We have to scare the hell out of 'em.

White House Information Group or WHIG was the marketing arm of the White
House whose purpose was to sell the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the public. The
task force was set up in August 2002 by White House Chief of Staff Andrew
Card and chaired by Karl Rove to coordinate all the executive branch
elements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. One example of the WHIG's
functions and influence is the "escalation of rhetoric about the danger that
Iraq posed to the U.S., including the introduction of the term 'mushroom
cloud'

Bush liked it. Thus was born the quote that will personify the Bush legacy:

“America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear
evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that
could come in the form of a mushroom
cloud.
”

The old metaphor was once again dusted off and the nuclear bogyman was
marched out to stunt his stuff.

We have to scare the hell out of 'em

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Several people have claimed that the NRC will do this, or do that, to stop
> cold fusion. Or that the power companies will. Or the DoE.
>
> I think it is likely that one of these organizations will stop cold fusion,
> at first. If they do not stop it, they will likely slow it down by demanding
> more health and safety checks, which I think they should.
>
> But here is the key thing to remember: No political decision is permanent.
> No political victory is permanent. Any decision made in Washington by the
> Congress or administration can be un-made.
>
> Even if the NRC or the DoE succeeds at first in putting the kibosh on cold
> fusion, as long as Rossi gadgets are being sold elsewhere in the world,
> information about them will circulate. They will be i

Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others

In reply to  Michele Comitini's message of Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:36:12 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>With 1 g of Ni I got 750 kW.
>Again thank you for your attention.
[snip]
Note that at 5 MeV / (Ni62 or Ni64) 1 gm of Ni could sustain 750 kW for about 9
minutes. Probably just long enough to melt the reactor. ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

Axil Axil  wrote:

"Thermoelectric chips?"
>
>
>
> Exactly.
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nantenna
>
>
>
> . . .
>

>
>
> What will make the Cold fusion reaction really useful is direct thermal
> electric generation technology.
>

It is "really useful" already. Small turbines are really practical too, and
cheap.

Furthermore, as Michele Comitini points out, many household and industrial
uses of energy can be converted from electricity to heat. Many were
converted from heat to electricity a century ago, but they are just as
conveniently done with heat. For example, gas-fired thermal refrigerators
work fine, and they were in widespread use in the 1930s. I saw some in the
1960s.

Comitini's estimate of likely future electric power consumption at home is
probably too low, however. I looked at consumption in the home, and
estimated how much can be conveniently shifted to the direct use of heat.
See chapter 15 of my book. I used statistics from the DoE Energy Information
Administration showing that electricity accounts for 7,913 kWh per year per
household. That 27% of household energy. I estimate that will fall to 5,500
kWh (19%).

That's only 0.6 kW of power on average, but you need much higher peak
capacity. Realistically, you need about 10 kW of generator capacity, after
moving most applications to raw heat.
Details are in chapter 15, as I said.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Bushnell interview in EVworld

-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder 

>> Now it looks like a "go." Halleluiah! 
 
> Bushnell's NASA colleagues now think they know what is going on at the
atomic level. They are about to attempt to replicate what the Italians have
done. If LENR proves both predictable and reliable, it will, in Bushnell's
words, change everything.

Unfortunately you have to subscribe EVWorld to read the rest.
http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1983

Does the above paragraph include all relevant details?

Harry,

Yes - In general, but if I catch your drift and what you are asking is
exactly what Bushnell's NASA colleagues think is going on at the atomic
level - my guess is that it is some version of W&L theory.

I think he could be totally wrong on that, but at least NASA is apparently
going ahead with experiments. 

Too little detail for now, but at least it is public - and Bushnell will
probably be swarmed with reporters in the coming days.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

Before thinking to convert all energy to electricity, we must think
how much energy we use today to produce heat.
Having a heat plant inhouse changes many things: the oven will not
need electricity to heat, so the dishwasher and the washing machine.
Electrical power needed in a house will be in the order of W not KW.
Electricity is a convenient way to transport heat, but it cannot
compete with locally generated heat.

mic

2011/4/28 Axil Axil :
> "Thermoelectric chips?"
>
>
>
> Exactly.
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nantenna
>
>
>
> There is direct thermal electric technology (nantenna) in development that
> can be 90% efficient that is well suited to extract power from the Rossi
> device.
>
>
>
> What will make the Cold fusion reaction really useful is direct thermal
> electric generation technology.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>>
>> Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The real value of the Rossi device is not that it will be a viable energy
>>> source but that it proves the cold fusion meme and will spark a wild frenzy
>>> to produce a really useful energy generation product.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And that product will most certainly NOT use steam.
>>
>> Of course it is a viable energy source!
>> What do you think it will use to generate electricity? Thermoelectric
>> chips?
>> The output from cold fusion is heat. "Heat is principal signature of the
>> reaction" as Martin says. At present, the most effective and economical way
>> to generate electricity from heat is with a steam turbine. Small steam
>> turbines have been developed, and will be rapidly improved with the advent
>> of cold fusion.
>> Eventually, turbines are likely to be replaced with thermoelectric
>> devices.
>> I do not know of any evidence that cold fusion can be made to produce any
>> form of energy other than heat.
>> That's what I say, anyway. See:
>> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf
>> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:The all-powerful NRC hypothesis

Several people have claimed that the NRC will do this, or do that, to stop
cold fusion. Or that the power companies will. Or the DoE.

I think it is likely that one of these organizations will stop cold fusion,
at first. If they do not stop it, they will likely slow it down by demanding
more health and safety checks, which I think they should.

But here is the key thing to remember: No political decision is permanent.
No political victory is permanent. Any decision made in Washington by the
Congress or administration can be un-made.

Even if the NRC or the DoE succeeds at first in putting the kibosh on cold
fusion, as long as Rossi gadgets are being sold elsewhere in the world,
information about them will circulate. They will be in the headlines in
every major newspaper and web site on earth, for week after week. This will
make it far easier for us to get the word out, and overcome the anti-cold
fusion propaganda in the mass media, Wikipedia, Sci. Am. and elsewhere. If
we can persuade millions of voters that allowing this technology is in their
best interest, and that they personally stand to save huge sums of money, I
promise that no political force on earth will be able to stop it.

We have been engaged in an academic bun fight for 22 years. One group of
elderly professors against another. A few academic hacks such as Robert Park
have been able to squash the research by repeating lies periodically in the
Washington Post and Sci. Am. They succeeded because the public thought this
was a silly academic squabble having nothing to do with them, or a perpetual
motion machine scam. The public had no idea it is real. Once the mass media
begins showing nightly news video of Chinese factories churning out
thousands of machines, and hundreds of megawatts of capacity are installed
every day worldwide, John & Jane Q. Public will realize THIS IS ABOUT MONEY.
Their money! Enough money to buy a house and send their kids through
college. No one will ignore that. No one will let Robert Park or the NRC,
OPEC or any Washington politician stand between them and a large pile of
money.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Bushnell interview in EVworld

2011-04-28 Thread Harry Veeder

Jones Beene wrote:

> 
> This is fabulous news! Spread it around the WWW - as it could open up
> funding for many who are doing Rossi replications.
> 
> Dr Dennis Bushnell (chief scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center) has
> now gone public with NASA's upcoming Rossi replication attempt!
> 
> We had heard rumors of this two weeks ago, and were hoping that it would not
> become some kind of 'black' project. Now it looks like a "go." Halleluiah! 
> 
> EVWORLD Update 4-28-11
> 
> "The Future of Energy" by Bill Moore
> 

> Surprisingly, LENR tops his list. You'll recall that we talked about this in
> Edition 11.15 two weeks ago, recounting the work of Rossi and Focardi in
> Bologna, Italy. Their device produces more heat energy than what's put into
> it. The question is why? Bushnell's NASA colleagues now think they know what
> is going on at the atomic level. They are about to attempt to replicate what
> the Italians have done. If LENR proves both predictable and reliable, it
> will, in Bushnell's words, change everything.
> 

Unfortunately you have to subscribe EVWorld to read the rest.
http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1983

Does the above paragraph include all relevant details?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

"Thermoelectric chips?"



Exactly.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nantenna



There is direct thermal electric technology (nantenna) in development that
can be 90% efficient that is well suited to extract power from the Rossi
device.



What will make the Cold fusion reaction really useful is direct thermal
electric generation technology.





On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>>
>> The real value of the Rossi device is not that it will be a viable energy
>> source but that it proves the cold fusion meme and will spark a wild frenzy
>> to produce a really useful energy generation product.
>>
>>
>>
>> And that product will most certainly NOT use steam.
>>
>
> Of course it is a viable energy source!
>
> What do you think it will use to generate electricity? Thermoelectric
> chips?
>
> The output from cold fusion is heat. "Heat is principal signature of the
> reaction" as Martin says. At present, the most effective and economical way
> to generate electricity from heat is with a steam turbine. Small steam
> turbines have been developed, and will be rapidly improved with the advent
> of cold fusion.
>
> Eventually, turbines are likely to be replaced with thermoelectric devices.
>
> I do not know of any evidence that cold fusion can be made to produce any
> form of energy other than heat.
>
> That's what I say, anyway. See:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

The American public has been scared witless by their government about the
deadly dangers of radiation for political purposes(aka cold war). Nuclear
power must be controlled by a priesthood of all knowing parishioners of the
black nuclear arts.



When a nuclear power plant leaks radiation that is less than can be found in
a smoke alarm, the public calls for it shutdown. How will a reactor that can
produce tritium be allowed in an American home? Absolutely no way.






On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>  You force a reactor design direction by regulation and buying decisions.
>> If the NRC finds the Cat-E to be unsuitable for home use because of its
>> nuclear nature, then the big utilities are in the driver’s seat.
>>
>
> If the public disagrees with the NRC, and millions of people contact their
> members of Congress and the Administration, the President will override the
> NRC, and the commissioners will be replaced in one week. I guarantee it.
>
> You are talking about a machine that will save a typical 4-person American
> family $10,000 a year, every year, forever. No tax break comes close to
> this. If the voters become fully aware of this fact, they will demand that
> this technology be developed as rapidly as possible. The NRC will not be
> able to stop it. Neither will the power companies, or the fossil fuel
> companies, or the big banks, or the Republican or Democratic parties. No
> force on earth can stop 300 million people who want $2,500 each.
>
> If Rossi succeeds, it will be up to us to mobilize the public and get the
> facts out. He wants to keep this low key and non-confrontational. He keeps
> saying that the E-Cat will be only one solution among many. Frankly, that's
> bullshit. It will blow away all other sources of energy. Every engineer on
> earth will appreciate that, about 5 seconds after seeing the specifications
> for the machine. There is no way Rossi can avoid a confrontation, and a
> showdown. Let it come! As long as we can reach the public, we will win.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others

OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson  wrote:

According to one of my zany new age sources (Meaning the following is a
> totally unscientific analysis) Rossi & Focardi have worked together through
> many past lives associations. As a result of experiencing many past-life
> associations they have forged a comfortable team. They complement each other
> . . .


Offhand, that does not sound like a falsifiable hypothesis.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

Axil Axil  wrote:

>
> The real value of the Rossi device is not that it will be a viable energy
> source but that it proves the cold fusion meme and will spark a wild frenzy
> to produce a really useful energy generation product.
>
>
>
> And that product will most certainly NOT use steam.
>

Of course it is a viable energy source!

What do you think it will use to generate electricity? Thermoelectric chips?

The output from cold fusion is heat. "Heat is principal signature of the
reaction" as Martin says. At present, the most effective and economical way
to generate electricity from heat is with a steam turbine. Small steam
turbines have been developed, and will be rapidly improved with the advent
of cold fusion.

Eventually, turbines are likely to be replaced with thermoelectric devices.

I do not know of any evidence that cold fusion can be made to produce any
form of energy other than heat.

That's what I say, anyway. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

The real value of the Rossi device is not that it will be a viable energy
source but that it proves the cold fusion meme and will spark a wild frenzy
to produce a really useful energy generation product.



And that product will most certainly NOT use steam.










On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Michele Comitini <
michele.comit...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Talking about Rossi device is like talking about first Watt's engine.
> I can immagine it could be just the first step, probably steam is just
> the first thing Rossi was able to use to have a working prototype.
>
> 2011/4/28 Axil Axil :
> > You force a reactor design direction by regulation and buying decisions.
> If
> > the NRC finds the Cat-E to be unsuitable for home use because of its
> nuclear
> > nature, then the big utilities are in the driver’s seat.
> >
> >
> >
> > The use of steam makes centralized large scale power production
> economically
> > attractive because most of the cost of a reactor is located in the
> > turboelectric power generator.
> >
> >
> >
> > The heat plant is just a small part of the total cost. Big turbines cost
> > less per unit of power produced than small ones.
> >
> >
> >
> > The weakness in the Rossi reactor is that it uses steam to produce power.
> If
> > it used supercritical Co2 or direct heat to power energy conversion, then
> > that would be another story.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Axil Axil  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Like what has been done with fission, the electric utility industry
> will
> >>> force Rossi into building a 20 Gigawatt Cat-E for “economy of scale”
> >>> reasons.
> >>
> >> How will the electric utility industry "force him" to do anything?! He
> >> will be selling reactors and generators to factories and later
> >> to individuals. The power companies will have no say in the matter. We
> will
> >> not need them. They will go out of business, along with gas stations and
> >> OPEC.
> >> In Japan and the U.S. there is now a tremendous amount of privately
> owned
> >> generator capacity, mainly natural gas co-generators, for example in
> large
> >> buildings in Tokyo, and in factory complexes. The power companies cannot
> >> stop this.
> >>
> >> Actually, the power companies buy a significant share of their power
> from
> >> privately owned excess capacity. They act as brokers.
> >> In another forum, Vasudev Godbole has been saying Rossi should only sell
> >> huge, centralized generators:
> >>
> >> "Rossi device makes sense only if it is used to produce electricity. And
> >> as I argued earlier - centralized (> 50 or 150 MW Thermal) and not
> >> decentralized. Nuclear active devices must be highly localized and
> confined
> >> to a small well-supervised space and not scattered all over the
> landscape.
> >> Human beings are generally not reliable in decentralized matters, esp.
> >> nuclear. Some central control has proved to be necessary - better do it
> >> right from the beginning."
> >>
> >> I disagree.
> >> I discussed this issue in my book.
> >> - Jed
> >
> >
>
>

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

Axil Axil  wrote:

You force a reactor design direction by regulation and buying decisions. If
> the NRC finds the Cat-E to be unsuitable for home use because of its nuclear
> nature, then the big utilities are in the driver’s seat.
>

If the public disagrees with the NRC, and millions of people contact their
members of Congress and the Administration, the President will override the
NRC, and the commissioners will be replaced in one week. I guarantee it.

You are talking about a machine that will save a typical 4-person American
family $10,000 a year, every year, forever. No tax break comes close to
this. If the voters become fully aware of this fact, they will demand that
this technology be developed as rapidly as possible. The NRC will not be
able to stop it. Neither will the power companies, or the fossil fuel
companies, or the big banks, or the Republican or Democratic parties. No
force on earth can stop 300 million people who want $2,500 each.

If Rossi succeeds, it will be up to us to mobilize the public and get the
facts out. He wants to keep this low key and non-confrontational. He keeps
saying that the E-Cat will be only one solution among many. Frankly, that's
bullshit. It will blow away all other sources of energy. Every engineer on
earth will appreciate that, about 5 seconds after seeing the specifications
for the machine. There is no way Rossi can avoid a confrontation, and a
showdown. Let it come! As long as we can reach the public, we will win.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

Talking about Rossi device is like talking about first Watt's engine.
I can immagine it could be just the first step, probably steam is just
the first thing Rossi was able to use to have a working prototype.

2011/4/28 Axil Axil :
> You force a reactor design direction by regulation and buying decisions. If
> the NRC finds the Cat-E to be unsuitable for home use because of its nuclear
> nature, then the big utilities are in the driver’s seat.
>
>
>
> The use of steam makes centralized large scale power production economically
> attractive because most of the cost of a reactor is located in the
> turboelectric power generator.
>
>
>
> The heat plant is just a small part of the total cost. Big turbines cost
> less per unit of power produced than small ones.
>
>
>
> The weakness in the Rossi reactor is that it uses steam to produce power. If
> it used supercritical Co2 or direct heat to power energy conversion, then
> that would be another story.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>>
>> Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Like what has been done with fission, the electric utility industry will
>>> force Rossi into building a 20 Gigawatt Cat-E for “economy of scale”
>>> reasons.
>>
>> How will the electric utility industry "force him" to do anything?! He
>> will be selling reactors and generators to factories and later
>> to individuals. The power companies will have no say in the matter. We will
>> not need them. They will go out of business, along with gas stations and
>> OPEC.
>> In Japan and the U.S. there is now a tremendous amount of privately owned
>> generator capacity, mainly natural gas co-generators, for example in large
>> buildings in Tokyo, and in factory complexes. The power companies cannot
>> stop this.
>>
>> Actually, the power companies buy a significant share of their power from
>> privately owned excess capacity. They act as brokers.
>> In another forum, Vasudev Godbole has been saying Rossi should only sell
>> huge, centralized generators:
>>
>> "Rossi device makes sense only if it is used to produce electricity. And
>> as I argued earlier - centralized (> 50 or 150 MW Thermal) and not
>> decentralized. Nuclear active devices must be highly localized and confined
>> to a small well-supervised space and not scattered all over the landscape.
>> Human beings are generally not reliable in decentralized matters, esp.
>> nuclear. Some central control has proved to be necessary - better do it
>> right from the beginning."
>>
>> I disagree.
>> I discussed this issue in my book.
>> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others

Michele sez:

> Rossi's previous life, when he was the "taxi driver"?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e9CkhBb18E
>
> ;-)

Oh dear! I can't help it... I just gotta blurt out something blatantly OT here!



According to one of my zany new age sources (Meaning the following is
a totally unscientific analysis) Rossi & Focardi have worked together
through many past lives associations. As a result of experiencing many
past-life associations they have forged a comfortable team. They
complement each other, filling in for the other partner's weaknesses.
Their respective wives are part of this old team association as well.

Apparently, being under the scrutiny of the public eye is not
something new for either Rossi or Focardi. Perhaps that might help
explain Rossi's seeming lack-of-concern when it comes to his perceived
"public image." Back in the 1700s, in a former well-publicized life,
both Rossi & Focardi were known as the Montgolphier brothers - the two
individuals who successfully manned the first hot air balloons in
history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgolfier_brothers




Someone should casually ask Rossi or Focardi what they think of the
sport of hot air ballooning. Perhaps it might get a rise out of them.
;-)

Back to regularly scheduling vort programming.

Don't shoot the messenger!

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

> "Rossi device makes sense only if it is used to produce electricity. And as
> I argued earlier - centralized (> 50 or 150 MW Thermal) and not
> decentralized. Nuclear active devices must be highly localized and confined
> to a small well-supervised space and not scattered all over the landscape.
> Human beings are generally not reliable in decentralized matters, esp.
> nuclear. Some central control has proved to be necessary - better do it
> right from the beginning."
>
> I disagree.
> I discussed this issue in my book.
> - Jed
>
Yes that's completely wrong: when Rossi's device will enter in the
commercial world it will for sure follow two development paths:
1. Huge plants to replace nuclear, gas, coal in the meantime.
2. nano plants to be installed under your water tap for hot water and
with nano turbines to susbstitute batteries in electronic devices, in
the long term.

Huge plants will die as there is a huge energy loss due to
transportation and cost for distribution... remember *cheaper energy
is not free energy*.

mic

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

You force a reactor design direction by regulation and buying decisions. If
the NRC finds the Cat-E to be unsuitable for home use because of its nuclear
nature, then the big utilities are in the driver’s seat.

The use of steam makes centralized large scale power production economically
attractive because most of the cost of a reactor is located in the
turboelectric power generator.

The heat plant is just a small part of the total cost. Big turbines cost
less per unit of power produced than small ones.

The weakness in the Rossi reactor is that it uses steam to produce power. If
it used supercritical Co2 or direct heat to power energy conversion, then
that would be another story.

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>
>
>> Like what has been done with fission, the electric utility industry will
>> force Rossi into building a 20 Gigawatt Cat-E for “economy of scale”
>> reasons.
>>
>
> How will the electric utility industry "force him" to do anything?! He will
> be selling reactors and generators to factories and later to individuals.
> The power companies will have no say in the matter. We will not need them.
> They will go out of business, along with gas stations and OPEC.
>
> In Japan and the U.S. there is now a tremendous amount of privately owned
> generator capacity, mainly natural gas co-generators, for example in large
> buildings in Tokyo, and in factory complexes. The power companies cannot
> stop this.
>
> Actually, the power companies buy a significant share of their power from
> privately owned excess capacity. They act as brokers.
>
> In another forum, Vasudev Godbole has been saying Rossi should only sell
> huge, centralized generators:
>
> "Rossi device makes sense only if it is used to produce electricity. And as
> I argued earlier - centralized (> 50 or 150 MW Thermal) and not
> decentralized. Nuclear active devices must be highly localized and confined
> to a small well-supervised space and not scattered all over the landscape.
> Human beings are generally not reliable in decentralized matters, esp.
> nuclear. Some central control has proved to be necessary - better do it
> right from the beginning."
>
> I disagree.
>
> I discussed this issue in my book.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others

Akira Shirakawa  wrote:


> Maybe it's off-topic here, but some more interesting answers have been
> posted on his blog, although they are not very technical this time:
>
> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473&cpage=4#comment-35562
>
>

> 1. How many e-cats are in continuous operation today?
> 2. How many geographic locations are e-cats running today?
> 3. Are there any e-cats running in the US with businesses you own or
> individuals you trust?
>


> Dear Mr Luke Mortensen:
> 1- 97
> 2- 4
> 3- yes
>

That's wild! (Fantastic). We should definitely add that to the Wiki!

He has 97 in operation?!? The guy is amazing.

I'd love to rent one, and give Richard Garwin what he so deserves.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>

> Like what has been done with fission, the electric utility industry will
> force Rossi into building a 20 Gigawatt Cat-E for “economy of scale”
> reasons.
>

How will the electric utility industry "force him" to do anything?! He will
be selling reactors and generators to factories and later to individuals.
The power companies will have no say in the matter. We will not need them.
They will go out of business, along with gas stations and OPEC.

In Japan and the U.S. there is now a tremendous amount of privately owned
generator capacity, mainly natural gas co-generators, for example in large
buildings in Tokyo, and in factory complexes. The power companies cannot
stop this.

Actually, the power companies buy a significant share of their power from
privately owned excess capacity. They act as brokers.

In another forum, Vasudev Godbole has been saying Rossi should only sell
huge, centralized generators:

"Rossi device makes sense only if it is used to produce electricity. And as
I argued earlier - centralized (> 50 or 150 MW Thermal) and not
decentralized. Nuclear active devices must be highly localized and confined
to a small well-supervised space and not scattered all over the landscape.
Human beings are generally not reliable in decentralized matters, esp.
nuclear. Some central control has proved to be necessary - better do it
right from the beginning."

I disagree.

I discussed this issue in my book.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others

Rossi's previous life, when he was the "taxi driver"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e9CkhBb18E

;-)

2011/4/28 Akira Shirakawa :
> * * *
> AR,
> Some good E-Cat trivia for the fans:
>
> 1. How many e-cats are in continuous operation today?
> 2. How many geographic locations are e-cats running today?
> 3. Are there any e-cats running in the US with businesses you own or
> individuals you trust?
> 4. Any estimate on how much fuel has been spent over the life of your
> research?
> 5. Is there anything confidential about how you use electrolysis for the
> reactor is is that industry standard technology?
>
> Thanks,
> ~Luke Mortensen
>
>
> Dear Mr Luke Mortensen:
> 1- 97
> 2- 4
> 3- yes
> 4- less than if I was taxist
> 5- I do not use electrolysis
> Warm regards,
> A.R.
>
> * * *
>
> (NOTE: "taxist" = "taxi driver")
>
> Cheers,
> S.A.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

Some of the reasons why people say that molten salt reactors(aka thorium)
are inherently (aka passive) safe is because this type of reactor  is not
pressurized, contains no hydrogen, and is controlled by natural control
reactions(aka negative void) that don’t require human intervention.

The same cannot now be said about the Rossi reactor design.

The reason why navel reactors designs are safe is because they are small.
Whenever an energy source is upscaled, dangers are introduced.

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Michele Comitini <
michele.comit...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I still support nuclear power because it beats coal, but anyone who
> supports
> > it should realize that it has significant risks, mainly because of human
> > error.
>
> This is a design error.  Humans behavior is unpredictable, so you
> cannot make such a dangerous technology depend so much
> on human intervention.
> Also even if people tend to forget, uranium fueled reactors are based
> on stochastic behavior: if for any reason at a time the moderation is
> weaked,
> no one can ever tell which will be the behavior of the system in the
> next times, just probabilities.
> That is why if fission has to remain, it is better to go for thorium
> fueled reactors which are deterministic systems.
>
> Said that let's hope no diesel engine stops for more than 3 hours...
> for any reason.
>
>

[Vo]:Bushnell interview in EVworld

This is fabulous news! Spread it around the WWW - as it could open up
funding for many who are doing Rossi replications.

Dr Dennis Bushnell (chief scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center) has
now gone public with NASA's upcoming Rossi replication attempt!

We had heard rumors of this two weeks ago, and were hoping that it would not
become some kind of 'black' project. Now it looks like a "go." Halleluiah! 

EVWORLD Update 4-28-11

"The Future of Energy" by Bill Moore

Talking with Dennis Bushnell is both exhilarating and chilling, not to
mention just a bit intimidating. The chief scientist at NASA's Langley
Research Center, he seems to have his fingers in just about every aspect of
both aeronautics and astronautics, with a special interest in energy sources
of the future, both near-term (advanced solar PV) and far (drill geothermal
and LENR).

It was, in fact, a comment he made recently about Low Energy Nuclear
Reaction that caused me to contact him and set up a telephone interview on
Earth Day this year, which also fell on Good Friday, the day commemorating
Jesus crucifixion and sacrifice for the sins of mankind. As I would realize
deep into our discussion, there is a sobering synergy that links the two.

Bushnell is no stranger to doing interviews, or giving talks, or writing
papers. He is refreshingly candid in his views, which include the conviction
that the planet crossed the peak oil summit sometime around 2008 or 2009. He
is both upbeat about the promise of some exciting new technologies, while
being less sanguine about the prospects of our amygdala-dominated culture.

As you'll hear in the "Future In Motion" podcast available on the EV
World.com web site, what I wanted to know was his view on which energy
technologies held out the greatest hope for solving our looming energy
crisis. He made no bones about the fact that the current rise in fuel prices
is only the start.

Surprisingly, LENR tops his list. You'll recall that we talked about this in
Edition 11.15 two weeks ago, recounting the work of Rossi and Focardi in
Bologna, Italy. Their device produces more heat energy than what's put into
it. The question is why? Bushnell's NASA colleagues now think they know what
is going on at the atomic level. They are about to attempt to replicate what
the Italians have done. If LENR proves both predictable and reliable, it
will, in Bushnell's words, change everything.

>From the lead column by Bill Moore.

Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others

2011-04-28 Thread Akira Shirakawa


On 2011-04-28 20:23, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Thank you Akira!

So it was 37 times, not 32. No wonder I could not find it.

We should add this to the Wiki.


Maybe it's off-topic here, but some more interesting answers have been 
posted on his blog, although they are not very technical this time:


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473&cpage=4#comment-35562

* * *
AR,
Some good E-Cat trivia for the fans:

1. How many e-cats are in continuous operation today?
2. How many geographic locations are e-cats running today?
3. Are there any e-cats running in the US with businesses you own or 
individuals you trust?
4. Any estimate on how much fuel has been spent over the life of your 
research?
5. Is there anything confidential about how you use electrolysis for the 
reactor is is that industry standard technology?


Thanks,
~Luke Mortensen


Dear Mr Luke Mortensen:
1- 97
2- 4
3- yes
4- less than if I was taxist
5- I do not use electrolysis
Warm regards,
A.R.

* * *

(NOTE: "taxist" = "taxi driver")

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

> I still support nuclear power because it beats coal, but anyone who supports
> it should realize that it has significant risks, mainly because of human
> error.

This is a design error.  Humans behavior is unpredictable, so you
cannot make such a dangerous technology depend so much
on human intervention.
Also even if people tend to forget, uranium fueled reactors are based
on stochastic behavior: if for any reason at a time the moderation is
weaked,
no one can ever tell which will be the behavior of the system in the
next times, just probabilities.
That is why if fission has to remain, it is better to go for thorium
fueled reactors which are deterministic systems.

Said that let's hope no diesel engine stops for more than 3 hours...
for any reason.

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

Like what has been done with fission, the electric utility industry will
force Rossi into building a 20 Gigawatt Cat-E for “economy of scale”
reasons.



Remember, the pebble bed reactor was never deployed by electric utilities
because it could not be upscale to the *ginormous* sizes that the utilities
must absolutely have.



What will happen when some simpleton tech destroys the control box on this
huge Cat-E…as in biofuels, what happens when someone starts a fire in a
tinderbox forest …very bad things…



It is hard to engineer around stupidity.





On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Alan J Fletcher  wrote:
>
>
>> Alabama Tornadoes 2011: Emergency Declared at Browns Ferry Nuclear ...
>>
>> http://m.ibtimes.com/alabama-tornadoes-2011-emergency-declared-at-alabama-nuclear-plant-photos-139188.html
>>
>> Categorized as an "Unusual Event"
>>
>
> This article says:
>
>
> Preston D. Swafford, TVA's chief nuclear officer said on a March 26 tour of
> that plant that Browns Ferry was ready for "a one-in-a-million-year flood,
> or however many zeroes you want to go out," according to the New York Times.
>
> Yeah. Great. But in 1975 they were not ready for a 20-year-old guy with
> a plumber's candle looking for an air leak. He accidentally set a fire in a
> hallway. It burned for 7 and a half hours, badly damaging 1,600 cables. All
> three sets of "redundant" controls were in that hallway, and the reactor
> nearly went out of control. I think it was shut down for a year for repairs.
> The supervisor said, "We had lost redundant components that we didn't think
> you could lose."
>
> In May 1974 they discovered this reactor was built with "improper" valves
> in the primary cooling systems of the 3 reactors. The valves were made for
> 600 p.s.i. and installed in place that required 1,200 p.s.i.
>
> I still support nuclear power because it beats coal, but anyone who
> supports it should realize that it has significant risks, mainly because of
> human error.
>
> I sure hope Rossi will soon eliminate the nuclear fission industry . . .
> and coal, and oil.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others

Axil Axil  wrote:

As in nuclear light water reactor designs, high pressure is inherently
> unsafe.
>
>
>
> Rossi is no paragon of engineering safety and has shown that he has not
> learned any nuclear engineering lessons. The use of a large amount of
> compressed hydrogen storage is inherently unsafe.
>

Focardi said they do not intend to store large amounts of compressed
hydrogen. They intend to use electrolysis to generate hydrogen as needed
from water.

Actually, that can be unsafe too. I would recommend storing very small
amounts of hydrogen locally. Small, high pressure tanks are very safe. They
are probably safer than conventional natural gas lines for space heating and
water heating. My uncle's house blew sky high from that, and you often read
about houses blowing up from natural gas leaks. A small tank of H2 is MUCH
safer that storing gasoline for your lawn mower in the garage. I have seen
three houses burn to the ground from that, one of them incinerating a
5-year-old child (the son of a friend of ours).

As I said, we demand much more safety from new technology than old. We
should insist that Rossi devices be safe, but if we raise the bar so high
that we prohibit the use of small H2 tanks, then we will be stuck with
energy systems far more dangerous and polluting than the Rossi device. This
is not rational.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others

2011/4/28 Axil Axil :
> As in nuclear light water reactor designs, high pressure is inherently
> unsafe.
>
>
>
> Rossi is no paragon of engineering safety and has shown that he has not
> learned any nuclear engineering lessons. The use of a large amount of
> compressed hydrogen storage is inherently unsafe.
Right! I wonder why he needs such big amound of hydrogen while he
claims that it burns only grams?
I hope that he uses that hydrogen bottle (standard technical gas
bottle) just because it is the cheapest to find off the shelf:
just remind the "made in a garage" look of naked e-cats.

Re: [Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

> Alabama Tornadoes 2011: Emergency Declared at Browns Ferry Nuclear ...
>
> http://m.ibtimes.com/alabama-tornadoes-2011-emergency-declared-at-alabama-nuclear-plant-photos-139188.html
>
> Categorized as an "Unusual Event"
>

This article says:

Preston D. Swafford, TVA's chief nuclear officer said on a March 26 tour of
that plant that Browns Ferry was ready for "a one-in-a-million-year flood,
or however many zeroes you want to go out," according to the New York Times.

Yeah. Great. But in 1975 they were not ready for a 20-year-old guy with
a plumber's candle looking for an air leak. He accidentally set a fire in a
hallway. It burned for 7 and a half hours, badly damaging 1,600 cables. All
three sets of "redundant" controls were in that hallway, and the reactor
nearly went out of control. I think it was shut down for a year for repairs.
The supervisor said, "We had lost redundant components that we didn't think
you could lose."

In May 1974 they discovered this reactor was built with "improper" valves in
the primary cooling systems of the 3 reactors. The valves were made for 600
p.s.i. and installed in place that required 1,200 p.s.i.

I still support nuclear power because it beats coal, but anyone who supports
it should realize that it has significant risks, mainly because of human
error.

I sure hope Rossi will soon eliminate the nuclear fission industry . . . and
coal, and oil.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others

As in nuclear light water reactor designs, high pressure is inherently
unsafe.



Rossi is no paragon of engineering safety and has shown that he has not
learned any nuclear engineering lessons. The use of a large amount of
compressed hydrogen storage is inherently unsafe.


The high pressure hydrogen storage mechanism should be replaced with a solid
state hydrogen storage scheme. Remember how the shark in JAWS was killed?
One possibility is hydride storage. Titanium or lithium hydride when heated
will emit hydrogen and when cooled will absorb it.

A chunk of Titanium hydride is not explosive; a bottle of highly compressed
hydrogen is. A hydrogen explosion destroyed the nuclear containment building
in Fukushima Japan.



 **






On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Michele Comitini <
michele.comit...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd say that nuclear reactor design is an engineering disaster as it
> is now.  There are too many chances that something bad
> happens. Why is it so?  In the "2nd generation" they just took
> reactors used for nuclear marine propulsion, adapted to electrical
> energy
> production.  That would have been fine if nuclear propulsion was not
> something military, but alas it was and so security was not
> the first goal of design.  The choice of fuel (enriched uranium) was
> the first error.
>
> mic
>
> 2011/4/28 Axil Axil :
> > The quality of engineering, operation and management has the primary
> impact
> > on the safety and cost of a system.
> >
> >
> >
> > For example, "The Sporty rear-engined Chevrolet Corvair " (unsafe at any
> > speed) was a engineering disaster area for the automotive industry.
> >
> >
> >
> > Today a formula one race car can hit a wall at 200+ miles per hour and
> the
> > driver will emerge undamaged.
> >
> >
> >
> > A nuclear power plant in the Fukushima Japan could have been deployed in
> a
> > safe location, on a high hill or behind high sea walls and that ill fated
> > reactor could have been working well to this very day.
> >
> >
> >
> > The Chernobyl nuclear reactor could have been still running today if the
> > operators had not disabled its safety systems and run stress test on it.
> >
> >
> >
> > There is no getting around stupid designers, operators and management but
> it
> > is the technology that always takes the blame.
> >
> >
> >
> > Fire can be used in a safe way, but if you build a camp fire on the
> hardwood
> > floors of your living room, well you deserve what you get…and don’t blame
> > fire please.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Michele Comitini
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> 2011/4/28 Jed Rothwell :
> >> > Michele Comitini  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> IMHO there is no need to fear that explosions will stop cold
> fusion. We
> >> >> have had all kinds of explosions in the history of energy production
> >> >> and/or
> >> >> extraction.
> >> >
> >> > Yes. For example, when Rudolf Diesel developed his engine, one of them
> >> > exploded. However, nowadays people have higher standards.
> >> > Unrealistically
> >> > high: they demand perfect safety from a new technology even when it
> will
> >> > replace an older unsafe technology.
> >>
> >> A Thorium powered nuclear plant should be considered "safe"?  Not at
> >> all, but since they market it as "safer", it sells.
> >> Well IMHO the cold fusion people should stop the
> >> "completely/absolutely safe" claim, that even being true is not
> >> believable in people
> >> experience. They should stay conservatively on "safer" or "safest"
> >> level.  "absolutely safe" triggers more doubts on people used to think
> >> that
> >> BP oil spill is something *needed* for granting cheap energy and
> >> wellness. Experience tells that "nothing comes for free",  so  use
> >> "cheaper".  If this technology will become viable it will sell itself,
> >> so it's better to avoid using expression which are used in most
> >> frauds.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> Think of nuclear fission with bombs, or hot fusion.  Explosions
> >> >> means lot
> >> >> of energy and they are tangible even to stupid politicians.
> >> >
> >> > If there are explosions or people are irradiated, opponents will say:
> >> > "We
> >> > must not allow this. They will never make it safe!! They have had 22
> >> > years
> >> > to make it safe and they still can't do it."
> >> > One of the opponents at the "60 Minutes" site said that cold fusion
> >> > research
> >> > has been funded long enough. It has not produced a practical source of
> >> > energy, so it should be abandoned. This person measured funding
> strictly
> >> > in
> >> > time, not dollars or man-hours. Measured by the latter standards, cold
> >> > fusion has made wonderful strides compared to plasma fusion, clean
> coal,
> >> > solar PV and other sources of energy.
> >>
> >> Even in time 22 years is nothing, think how long it took for all other
> >> sources to become viable for continuos usage.
> >> Maybe today standards require a 0 time to market and no "collateral
> >

Re: [Vo]:Weak Winds for Brits

Nick Palmer wrote:

Not a perfect reply to the above, but it gives some idea...
>
>
>
> http://fullfact.org/factchecks/wind_turbines_performance_capacity_muir_trust_express_daily_mail-2646

That is an interesting article, worth reading. Their average actual values
are:

Onshore wind % capacity
2005, 28.1%
2006, 26.7
2007, 27.3
2008, 29.4
2009, 26.9

That is somewhat lower than you get at a prime U.S. onshore area such as the
Dakotas or Texas. The article explains that they need to upgrade the power
distribution network, and some of the power is going to waste now.

The 2009 figure is abnormally low but it probably has to do with ongoing
construction; i.e. units added to total capacity midway through the year.

Nowadays, before they erect towers, they do comprehensive, 1 or 2-year
studies with a small temporary tower equipped with anemometers and other
weather forecasting equipment, so they know beforehand what to expect.

The original article claims there was a turbine that produced only 15% of
nameplate. Either it was out of service, badly sited, or that was a
remarkable weather anomaly. If it was an anomaly, I suppose that since the
wind has to blow somewhere, another turbine may have intercepted most of the
wind and performed above average. Wind is a function of solar radiation and
that has not changed, so I doubt overall wind or the patterns of wind have
changed, or can change.

Many conventional generators do not perform up to the expected fraction of
nameplate performance for one reason or another, such as having the roof
blown sky-high from a hydrogen explosion.

As this article says, no one expects wind turbines to produce nameplate
power on average. The original article was wrong about that. Probably, the
author was dissembling.

Regarding conventional alternative energy, here is an interesting article
about a factory in Japan that produces nearly 1 GW (nameplate) in solar PV
per year:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/04/solar-frontier-opens-largest-thin-film-plant-in-the-world

PV also produces roughly 30% of nameplate because the sun shines with peak
intensity around 8 hours per day. However, unlike wind power, PV produces
peak electricity at exactly the moment when demand peaks during the summer,
because air conditioning kicks in when the sun is hottest.

- Jed

[Vo]:3 TVA Plants knocked offline by tornadoes

2011-04-28 Thread Alan J Fletcher


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/28/utilities-tva-storms-idUSN2718319320110428
All 3 Browns Ferry sites lost outside power and switched to diesel power.

Alabama Tornadoes 2011: Emergency Declared at Browns Ferry Nuclear ...
http://m.ibtimes.com/alabama-tornadoes-2011-emergency-declared-at-alabama-nuclear-plant-photos-139188.html

Categorized as an "Unusual Event"

No comments on what a direct HIT would have done to said diesel 
power, though

Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others

I'd say that nuclear reactor design is an engineering disaster as it
is now.  There are too many chances that something bad
happens. Why is it so?  In the "2nd generation" they just took
reactors used for nuclear marine propulsion, adapted to electrical
energy
production.  That would have been fine if nuclear propulsion was not
something military, but alas it was and so security was not
the first goal of design.  The choice of fuel (enriched uranium) was
the first error.

mic

2011/4/28 Axil Axil :
> The quality of engineering, operation and management has the primary impact
> on the safety and cost of a system.
>
>
>
> For example, "The Sporty rear-engined Chevrolet Corvair " (unsafe at any
> speed) was a engineering disaster area for the automotive industry.
>
>
>
> Today a formula one race car can hit a wall at 200+ miles per hour and the
> driver will emerge undamaged.
>
>
>
> A nuclear power plant in the Fukushima Japan could have been deployed in a
> safe location, on a high hill or behind high sea walls and that ill fated
> reactor could have been working well to this very day.
>
>
>
> The Chernobyl nuclear reactor could have been still running today if the
> operators had not disabled its safety systems and run stress test on it.
>
>
>
> There is no getting around stupid designers, operators and management but it
> is the technology that always takes the blame.
>
>
>
> Fire can be used in a safe way, but if you build a camp fire on the hardwood
> floors of your living room, well you deserve what you get…and don’t blame
> fire please.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Michele Comitini
>  wrote:
>>
>> 2011/4/28 Jed Rothwell :
>> > Michele Comitini  wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> IMHO there is no need to fear that explosions will stop cold fusion. We
>> >> have had all kinds of explosions in the history of energy production
>> >> and/or
>> >> extraction.
>> >
>> > Yes. For example, when Rudolf Diesel developed his engine, one of them
>> > exploded. However, nowadays people have higher standards.
>> > Unrealistically
>> > high: they demand perfect safety from a new technology even when it will
>> > replace an older unsafe technology.
>>
>> A Thorium powered nuclear plant should be considered "safe"?  Not at
>> all, but since they market it as "safer", it sells.
>> Well IMHO the cold fusion people should stop the
>> "completely/absolutely safe" claim, that even being true is not
>> believable in people
>> experience. They should stay conservatively on "safer" or "safest"
>> level.  "absolutely safe" triggers more doubts on people used to think
>> that
>> BP oil spill is something *needed* for granting cheap energy and
>> wellness. Experience tells that "nothing comes for free",  so  use
>> "cheaper".  If this technology will become viable it will sell itself,
>> so it's better to avoid using expression which are used in most
>> frauds.
>>
>> >
>> >> Think of nuclear fission with bombs, or hot fusion.  Explosions
>> >> means lot
>> >> of energy and they are tangible even to stupid politicians.
>> >
>> > If there are explosions or people are irradiated, opponents will say:
>> > "We
>> > must not allow this. They will never make it safe!! They have had 22
>> > years
>> > to make it safe and they still can't do it."
>> > One of the opponents at the "60 Minutes" site said that cold fusion
>> > research
>> > has been funded long enough. It has not produced a practical source of
>> > energy, so it should be abandoned. This person measured funding strictly
>> > in
>> > time, not dollars or man-hours. Measured by the latter standards, cold
>> > fusion has made wonderful strides compared to plasma fusion, clean coal,
>> > solar PV and other sources of energy.
>>
>> Even in time 22 years is nothing, think how long it took for all other
>> sources to become viable for continuos usage.
>> Maybe today standards require a 0 time to market and no "collateral
>> damage", but I think it is more a matter of PR and
>> marketing.
>>
>>
>> > - Jed
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Fusion Ashes would be trace amounts.

2011-04-28 Thread Ron Wormus


As I recall it was supposed to be a lot like 30% Ni to Cu after 6 months.
Ron

--On Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:16 AM -0700 "Wm. Scott Smith" 
 wrote:


Even without quantitative info on fusion ashes, are we talking small amounts or 
large? I say this
because, a little fusion goes a really-long way!

Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others

The quality of engineering, operation and management has the primary impact
on the safety and cost of a system.



For example, "The Sporty rear-engined Chevrolet Corvair " (unsafe at any
speed) was a engineering disaster area for the automotive industry.



Today a formula one race car can hit a wall at 200+ miles per hour and the
driver will emerge undamaged.



A nuclear power plant in the Fukushima Japan could have been deployed in a
safe location, on a high hill or behind high sea walls and that ill fated
reactor could have been working well to this very day.



The Chernobyl nuclear reactor could have been still running today if the
operators had not disabled its safety systems and run stress test on it.



There is no getting around stupid designers, operators and management but it
is the technology that always takes the blame.



Fire can be used in a safe way, but if you build a camp fire on the hardwood
floors of your living room, well you deserve what you get…and don’t blame
fire please.










On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Michele Comitini <
michele.comit...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2011/4/28 Jed Rothwell :
> > Michele Comitini  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> IMHO there is no need to fear that explosions will stop cold fusion. We
> >> have had all kinds of explosions in the history of energy production
> and/or
> >> extraction.
> >
> > Yes. For example, when Rudolf Diesel developed his engine, one of them
> > exploded. However, nowadays people have higher standards. Unrealistically
> > high: they demand perfect safety from a new technology even when it will
> > replace an older unsafe technology.
>
> A Thorium powered nuclear plant should be considered "safe"?  Not at
> all, but since they market it as "safer", it sells.
> Well IMHO the cold fusion people should stop the
> "completely/absolutely safe" claim, that even being true is not
> believable in people
> experience. They should stay conservatively on "safer" or "safest"
> level.  "absolutely safe" triggers more doubts on people used to think
> that
> BP oil spill is something *needed* for granting cheap energy and
> wellness. Experience tells that "nothing comes for free",  so  use
> "cheaper".  If this technology will become viable it will sell itself,
> so it's better to avoid using expression which are used in most
> frauds.
>
> >
> >> Think of nuclear fission with bombs, or hot fusion.  Explosions
> means lot
> >> of energy and they are tangible even to stupid politicians.
> >
> > If there are explosions or people are irradiated, opponents will say: "We
> > must not allow this. They will never make it safe!! They have had 22
> years
> > to make it safe and they still can't do it."
> > One of the opponents at the "60 Minutes" site said that cold fusion
> research
> > has been funded long enough. It has not produced a practical source of
> > energy, so it should be abandoned. This person measured funding strictly
> in
> > time, not dollars or man-hours. Measured by the latter standards, cold
> > fusion has made wonderful strides compared to plasma fusion, clean coal,
> > solar PV and other sources of energy.
>
> Even in time 22 years is nothing, think how long it took for all other
> sources to become viable for continuos usage.
> Maybe today standards require a 0 time to market and no "collateral
> damage", but I think it is more a matter of PR and
> marketing.
>
>
> > - Jed
> >
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Colin Powell's WMD speech and other colossal technical mistakes

Terry sez:

> Anonymous Iraqi General:  "We need to make the Americans think we have
> WMD so they will come over and get rid of Sodamninsane."

Heh... there might be some truth to that premise. ;-)

Actually, the most intelligent conclusion I heard about that whole
fiasco was that Saddam strategically lead his enemies to conclude that
he actually possessed WMDs - primarily as a way to keep his enemies
from thinking twice about invading Iraq. It was a difficult tightrope
to walk, trying to convince the UN that there were no WMDs, while
simultaneously hinting to his enemies that the exact opposite was
true. Unfortunately for Saddam, it didn't matter what conclusion was
actually correct. Iraq got invaded anyway. Written on the walls.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others

Thank you Akira!

So it was 37 times, not 32. No wonder I could not find it.

We should add this to the Wiki.

I should not trust my memory for numbers. I usually remember them as the
nearest power of 2: 16, 32, 64, 128 . . .

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others

2011-04-28 Thread Akira Shirakawa


On 2011-04-28 20:07, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Did Rossi really admit to this?


Just the other day I thought he said it exploded 32 times, but now I
cannot find the original source. This is annoying! My e-mail search
feature does not work well.



Here:

* * *

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473&cpage=5#comment-34549

Luke Mortensen
April 22nd, 2011 at 4:06 PM

AR,
You’ve been working on these reactors for some time. Instead of asking 
about technical details which you cannot provide, perhaps you could tell 
us some of the *fun* parts of being an inventor.


1. What were a few of the most exciting moments as you invented these 
reactors over the last few years? (moments of discovery!)


2. Another fun question: How many reactors have you blown up?
(You have experimented to determine the safest 
size/pressures/temperatures. Stress testing is important!)


Thanks,
~Luke Mortensen


Andrea Rossi
April 23rd, 2011 at 2:55 AM

Dear Mr Luke Mortensen:
1- when for the first time I got substantial gain of energy, that kind 
of gain which is beyond any reasonable doubt

2- 37 (all recorded, with the supposed reasons of the event)
Warm Regards
A.R.

* * *

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others


Jones Beene wrote:


Good points - "keep it understated" but where is the reference to numerous 
prior explosions of E-Cat?

Did Rossi really admit to this?


Just the other day I thought he said it exploded 32 times, but now I 
cannot find the original source. This is annoying! My e-mail search 
feature does not work well.


There is also the message from July 13, 2010 to that effect, posted here 
by Comitini.


Rossi is remarkably forthright about the problems with his device.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Colin Powell's WMD speech and other colossal technical mistakes

Anonymous Iraqi General:  "We need to make the Americans think we have
WMD so they will come over and get rid of Sodamninsane."

RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Magnetostriction and Cavitation ll

2011-04-28 Thread Roarty, Francis X

Ron,
 The E-cat certainly appears to include nuclear reactions but I don't know if 
it was ever established that the amount of ash produced was proportional to 
energy output. My point is that the common materials and environments of 
different devices and procedures suggest to me that energy density pumping and 
catalytic disassociation represent the initiating conditions common to all. I 
think it can occur with or without subsequent nuclear reactions but Jones put 
it more succinctly in his reply [snip] that in a "ZPE-only" interpretation, a 
nuclear reaction may not be needed, however - it is unclear if it can be 
completely avoided.[/snip] The difference between these different energy 
exploiting methods may rest on just how they go about avoiding or limiting an 
unavoidable nuclear reaction.

I'm a little scared of doing this stuff at home with hydrogen at 35 bars? While 
still getting the tungsten heater wires inside the reactor.. It seems like it 
could be miniaturized into something like a refillable CO2 cartridge but we 
need access to install the powders and heating elements... I only got 1 house 
:_(  
Regards
Fran

-Original Message-
From: Ron Wormus [mailto:prot...@frii.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:45 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Roarty, Francis X
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Magnetostriction and Cavitation ll

Fran,
I've been following you ideas for awhile but I don't see how they can apply to 
Rossi if you believe 
the Ni---> Cu claims which were supposedly verified by the Swedes.

At one time I was going to try a MAHG replication but it turned out that Naudin 
made obvious errors 
in his power measurements which he refused to correct. Is Naudin still active?  
In any case it 
seems that it wouldn't be that hard to test your reaction scenario.
Ron

--On Thursday, April 28, 2011 10:19 AM -0400 "Roarty, Francis X" 
 wrote:

> Jones,
>   I agree with most of what you are saying even that we still "dispute"  
> the need to "makeup"
> chemical energy released by catalytic disassociation. ZPE is absolutely based 
> on a negative
> potential but once you provide a method to rectify this energy (Heisenberg 
> trap) it operates on
> the absolute difference between two potentials which is positive energy. My 
> point is that some
> energy can be derived solely from ZPE and chemistry without the need for any 
> nuclear reactions
> and it could even be of a similar scale. I think this is what Moller and 
> Naudin were pursuing
> with the MAHG device. We have been programmed to accept that the ZPE in gas 
> motion cannot be
> exploited because we assumed gravity is isotropic but that changes in Cavity 
> QED where we can
> suddenly exploit differences in inertial frames without the need for near 
> luminal velocity...in
> fact what "velocity" there is to move the h1 and h2 between frames is 
> provided gratis by the
> constant motion of gas[ZPE]. If you add in the "relativistic" interpretation 
> of Casimir effect
> the "frequency" of these disassociations suddenly scales at an almost 
> unlimited rate [terahertz
> +] based on A/a^4 [plate area over separation^4] . That's why I was trying to 
> find a form of the
> time dilation formula[Gamma] already solving for force so I could make it 
> directly equal to the
> Casimir formula and get an idea for just how much acceleration and how 
> dynamically it changes
> inside the array of geometry created by "real" Casimir materials. Once the 
> formulas for positive
> changes in energy density [Gamma] seen in near luminal objects are related to 
> negative changes
> seen in nano geometry [Casimir] it becomes possible to solve in terms of each 
> other's variables.
> I think rapid changes in equivalent acceleration [jerk] occur due to Casimir 
> geometry and are
> responsible for the property we call catalytic disassociation. The time 
> dilation would locally
> mask the equivalent acceleration we calculate outside the cavity BUT the 
> accumulating velocity
> would rapidly sling shot the gas between an array of different inertial 
> frames formed by the
> tapestry where the gas momentum would keep finding itself in violent 
> opposition to the changing
> magnitude and vector of the negative acceleration [quantum blender]. I don't 
> expect you to agree
> but still argue it is a valid possibility. Regards
>
> Fran
>
>
> Jones Beene wrote on  Wednesday, April 27, 2011 6:40 PM
>
> [snip]To put this all into the average vortician's perspective, Fran and a few
> others on vortex believe that the Casimir force and therefore ZPE are
> intimately involved in both the Mills' reaction and in "lattice assisted
> nuclear fusion" and in the Rossi effect. "Nano" is the key word. Or "FRET"
> if you are a bit more sophisticated on the theoretical end.
>
> That would be LANR, in contrast to LENR, but the two are essentially the
> same animal from different perspectives. The zero point field can provide a
> force which can provide net thermal energy

Re: [Vo]:Another interview to Focardi

>From Terry

> Focardi:
>
> "The gamma rays were not there because we were able to eliminate them
> by putting the lead. In the experiments we carried out with the
> engineer Rossi gamma were always there, but they were so little
> intense than the natural radioactivity, which with small thicknesses
> of lead preventing them we have eliminated any possible harm to human
> health."
>
> Google translation.

If a real human had done the translation they guy would have been
kicked out onto the sidewalk in less than two seconds.

Nevertheless, we all pretty much understand what was really meant. We
automatically give Google's AI wiggle room... to be a little creative
in how it interprets the source text. ;-)

It's almost like a kind of reverse discrimination. ;-)

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Colin Powell's WMD speech and other colossal technical mistakes

>From Jed:

>> On February 5, 2003, Colin Powell made one of the most
>> colossal technical mistakes in modern history. He delivered
>> a speech making various claims about WMD intelligence in
>> Iraq. He later called this "the lowest point in my life."
>
> I got that wrong. It wasn't Powell who said that; it was his
> aide, who helped him write the speech.
>
> I believe Powell feels the same way.

I recall Powell giving a presentation to the UN where he played a
recording of intercepted cell phone call between two Iraqi
soldier/officials. The superior was urgently telling the subordinate
to quickly clean up the area before the (UN?) inspectors arrived. I
don't remember where the location was, only that the location was
manufacturing something of importance there - chemicals?

My recollection of that recorded conversation was a little weird.
Apparently, the superior knew the phone call was in danger of being
recorded, which it was. He wanted the call to be brief. The superior
told the subordinate to clean up the area - QUICKLY... leave no
chemical traces, no evidence. Meanwhile, the subordinate's responses
struck me as if he was a little bit shell shocked. He didn't seem used
to having been given so much autonomy. The subordinate did not strike
me as being prepared to assume a managerial role in the cleanup
operation.

At the time as Colin gave such presentations the idea of WMDs in Iraq
seemed reasonably convincing to me. I guess I gave our intelligence
the benefit of the doubt. Big mistake on my part. Actually it wasn't
the intelligence so much but Bush and Bush's administration that was
at fault. I will never forgive Bush nor Bush's administration for the
travesty for which they have never owned up to. They continue to
rationalize the invasion of Iraq as having been a necessary action,
regardless of the fact that no WMDs were found. Actually, I'll never
forgive myself for having giving them the benefit of the doubt. Shame
on me.

In the meantime, Powell admitted his mistake. Owning up to having made
such a colossal mistake in his career speaks a lot for his character.
He has hel several key government positions in his long career: four
star general, Secretary of State, National Security Adviser. Despite
his credentials Powell has consistently shown no interest in seeking
the highest office in the land. I suspect that is one of the reasons
why I think he might make a decent president.

I'd love to  have the birther movement chew on Powel as president.
Since he was born in New York birther bigotry would have manufacture
another excuse as to why they don't want a black man in the oval
office.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Another interview to Focardi

Focardi:

"The gamma rays were not there because we were able to eliminate them
by putting the lead. In the experiments we carried out with the
engineer Rossi gamma were always there, but they were so little
intense than the natural radioactivity, which with small thicknesses
of lead preventing them we have eliminated any possible harm to human
health."

Google translation.

T

[Vo]:The Hidden Costs of Nuclear Energy

2011-04-28 Thread Rock_nj

The Hidden Costs of Nuclear Energy

In the early 1950s, President Dwight D. Eisenhower initiated the “Atoms for
Peace Program”, an effort to turn military developments in the field of
nuclear science into commercial nuclear power reactors that could be used to
generate electricity for the civilian population. Lewis Strauss, the U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission Chairman that served under President Eisenhower,
famously predicted that nuclear derived electricity would be so inexpensive
that it would be “too cheap to meter.” Sixty years later, the reality
regarding the cost of nuclear power has proven to be quite the opposite.

More at:  http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Hidden-Costs-of-Nuclear-Energy

RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Magnetostriction and Cavitation ll

2011-04-28 Thread Ron Wormus

Fran,
I've been following you ideas for awhile but I don't see how they can apply to Rossi if you believe
the Ni---> Cu claims which were supposedly verified by the Swedes.

At one time I was going to try a MAHG replication but it turned out that Naudin made obvious errors
in his power measurements which he refused to correct. Is Naudin still active? In any case it
seems that it wouldn't be that hard to test your reaction scenario.

Ron

--On Thursday, April 28, 2011 10:19 AM -0400 "Roarty, Francis X"
wrote:

Jones,
I agree with most of what you are saying even that we still "dispute" the need
to "makeup"
chemical energy released by catalytic disassociation. ZPE is absolutely based
on a negative
potential but once you provide a method to rectify this energy (Heisenberg
trap) it operates on
the absolute difference between two potentials which is positive energy. My
point is that some
energy can be derived solely from ZPE and chemistry without the need for any
nuclear reactions
and it could even be of a similar scale. I think this is what Moller and Naudin
were pursuing
with the MAHG device. We have been programmed to accept that the ZPE in gas
motion cannot be
exploited because we assumed gravity is isotropic but that changes in Cavity
QED where we can
suddenly exploit differences in inertial frames without the need for near
luminal velocity...in
fact what "velocity" there is to move the h1 and h2 between frames is provided
gratis by the
constant motion of gas[ZPE]. If you add in the "relativistic" interpretation of
Casimir effect
the "frequency" of these disassociations suddenly scales at an almost unlimited
rate [terahertz
+] based on A/a^4 [plate area over separation^4] . That's why I was trying to
find a form of the
time dilation formula[Gamma] already solving for force so I could make it
directly equal to the
Casimir formula and get an idea for just how much acceleration and how
dynamically it changes
inside the array of geometry created by "real" Casimir materials. Once the
formulas for positive
changes in energy density [Gamma] seen in near luminal objects are related to
negative changes
seen in nano geometry [Casimir] it becomes possible to solve in terms of each
other's variables.
I think rapid changes in equivalent acceleration [jerk] occur due to Casimir
geometry and are
responsible for the property we call catalytic disassociation. The time
dilation would locally
mask the equivalent acceleration we calculate outside the cavity BUT the
accumulating velocity
would rapidly sling shot the gas between an array of different inertial frames
formed by the
tapestry where the gas momentum would keep finding itself in violent opposition
to the changing
magnitude and vector of the negative acceleration [quantum blender]. I don't
expect you to agree
but still argue it is a valid possibility. Regards

Fran

Jones Beene wrote on Wednesday, April 27, 2011 6:40 PM

[snip]To put this all into the average vortician's perspective, Fran and a few
others on vortex believe that the Casimir force and therefore ZPE are
intimately involved in both the Mills' reaction and in "lattice assisted
nuclear fusion" and in the Rossi effect. "Nano" is the key word. Or "FRET"
if you are a bit more sophisticated on the theoretical end.

That would be LANR, in contrast to LENR, but the two are essentially the
same animal from different perspectives. The zero point field can provide a
force which can provide net thermal energy under certain narrow conditions,
if at high repetition rate. But for the long term, the excess energy must be
replaced periodically by a nuclear process. The Mills' reaction can be
reconciled with this, if one accepts that he cuts short the progression
intentionally.

CANR or "chemically assisted" is another way of saying the same thing- that
valence electrons (i.e. chemistry) can influence nuclear reactions,
especially when there is cavity confinement so that interactions with
valence electrons are accelerated; and to the extent that the "improbable
become probable" due to the extreme number of sequential transactions
(terahertz).

The key to all of it is hydrogen going from molecular to atomic and back. H2
is tightly bound. A spillover catalyst breaks that bond catalytically and
actually extracts heat to do it. That is not in dispute. A net energy
asymmetry in this process is only possible when there is a nuclear process
which can provide the "makeup". (That is the dispute) The best way that I
can verbalize the 'Rossi effect', but others have their own perspectives on
it - is that it is a hybrid ZPE/nuclear process.

[/snip]

Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=211

-
Andrea Rossi
July 13th, 2010 at 2:50 PM
Dear Prof. Celani,
I am really pleased from the fact that you looked at our work. I know
who you are and I thank you really for your attention.
Our standard module consumes 500 watts and yields constantly and with
absolute reliability, with no risks that radiations exit the reactor
and with no risks of explosion, 4 kW. We obtained much higher
efficiencies, as you can read on the Focardi-Rossi paper published on
the Journal Of Nuclear Physics, but now I had to find a compromise to
manufacture power plants with absolute reliability under the point of
view of safety. The excess of energy follows a K= 8 at the moment. We
reached a K 400, but we got explosions. I can get risks when I amk
alone, but to sell a reliable product I have to go down to 8, right
now. We are manufacturing a 1 MW plant made with 125 modules.
With 1 g of Ni I got 750 kW.
Again thank you for your attention.



2011/4/28 Jones Beene :
> -Original Message-
> From: Michele Comitini
>
>> Well IMHO the cold fusion people should stop the "completely/ absolutely 
>> safe" claim, that even being true is not believable in people experience. 
>> They should stay conservatively on "safer" or "safest" level.  "absolutely 
>> safe" triggers more doubts on people used to think that BP oil spill is 
>> something *needed* for granting cheap energy and wellness. Experience tells 
>> that "nothing comes for free", so use "cheaper".
>
>
> Good points - "keep it understated" but where is the reference to numerous 
> prior explosions of E-Cat?
>
> Did Rossi really admit to this?
>
> Jones
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Magnetostriction and Cavitation ll

Fran - I did not make it clear that in a "ZPE-only" interpretation, a
nuclear reaction may not be needed, however - it is unclear if it can be
completely avoided.

This brings up the "lochon" which is not a hydrino - although Andrew M. was
a participant on the HSG for a long time. This has turned up on the another
group's discussion.

As I understand it, the lochon is a tightly bound electron pair. I do not
know how it differs from a Cooper pair except he claims it shows up in
lattice loading and is more tightly bound and "semi-bosonic" (net integer
spin).

If it is real, then a lochon can become a binding force between two protons,
which otherwise want to repel. Thus, the Coulomb-barrier is reduced and the
tunneling probability increases. Here is a paper that may explain more.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Meulenbergtunnelingb.pdf

In the context of Rossi, a lochon could provide a way for two protons to
fuse into deuterium. If it is real, then fusion cannot be easily avoided
even if your motivation (Mills/BLP) is strongly slanted towards complete
avoidance of nuclear reactions (for IP reasons).

In fact it can be argued that even if excess energy can be derived from ZPE
or from hydrogen "shrinkage" without a nuclear process being involved, it
would be very difficult to eliminate the nuclear process completely. And
this might serve to largely nullify the patent portfolio of a particular
company

Jones

-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X 

> My point is that some energy can be derived solely from ZPE and chemistry
without the need for any nuclear reactions and it could even be of a similar
scale.

RE: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others

-Original Message-
From: Michele Comitini 

> Well IMHO the cold fusion people should stop the "completely/ absolutely 
> safe" claim, that even being true is not believable in people experience. 
> They should stay conservatively on "safer" or "safest" level.  "absolutely 
> safe" triggers more doubts on people used to think that BP oil spill is 
> something *needed* for granting cheap energy and wellness. Experience tells 
> that "nothing comes for free", so use "cheaper".  


Good points - "keep it understated" but where is the reference to numerous 
prior explosions of E-Cat? 

Did Rossi really admit to this?

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others

2011/4/28 Jed Rothwell :
> Michele Comitini  wrote:
>
>>
>> IMHO there is no need to fear that explosions will stop cold fusion. We
>> have had all kinds of explosions in the history of energy production and/or
>> extraction.
>
> Yes. For example, when Rudolf Diesel developed his engine, one of them
> exploded. However, nowadays people have higher standards. Unrealistically
> high: they demand perfect safety from a new technology even when it will
> replace an older unsafe technology.

A Thorium powered nuclear plant should be considered "safe"?  Not at
all, but since they market it as "safer", it sells.
Well IMHO the cold fusion people should stop the
"completely/absolutely safe" claim, that even being true is not
believable in people
experience. They should stay conservatively on "safer" or "safest"
level.  "absolutely safe" triggers more doubts on people used to think
that
BP oil spill is something *needed* for granting cheap energy and
wellness. Experience tells that "nothing comes for free",  so  use
"cheaper".  If this technology will become viable it will sell itself,
so it's better to avoid using expression which are used in most
frauds.

>
>> Think of nuclear fission with bombs, or hot fusion.  Explosions means lot
>> of energy and they are tangible even to stupid politicians.
>
> If there are explosions or people are irradiated, opponents will say: "We
> must not allow this. They will never make it safe!! They have had 22 years
> to make it safe and they still can't do it."
> One of the opponents at the "60 Minutes" site said that cold fusion research
> has been funded long enough. It has not produced a practical source of
> energy, so it should be abandoned. This person measured funding strictly in
> time, not dollars or man-hours. Measured by the latter standards, cold
> fusion has made wonderful strides compared to plasma fusion, clean coal,
> solar PV and other sources of energy.

Even in time 22 years is nothing, think how long it took for all other
sources to become viable for continuos usage.
Maybe today standards require a 0 time to market and no "collateral
damage", but I think it is more a matter of PR and
marketing.

> - Jed
>

RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Magnetostriction and Cavitation ll

2011-04-28 Thread Roarty, Francis X

Jones,
I agree with most of what you are saying even that we still "dispute"  
the need to "makeup" chemical energy released by catalytic disassociation. ZPE 
is absolutely based on a negative potential but once you provide a method to 
rectify this energy (Heisenberg trap) it operates on the absolute difference 
between two potentials which is positive energy. My point is that some energy 
can be derived solely from ZPE and chemistry without the need for any nuclear 
reactions and it could even be of a similar scale. I think this is what Moller 
and Naudin were pursuing with the MAHG device. We have been programmed to 
accept that the ZPE in gas motion cannot be exploited because we assumed 
gravity is isotropic but that changes in Cavity QED where we can suddenly 
exploit differences in inertial frames without the need for near luminal 
velocity...in fact what "velocity" there is to move the h1 and h2 between 
frames is provided gratis by the constant motion of gas[ZPE]. If you add in the 
"relativistic" interpretation of Casimir effect the "frequency" of these 
disassociations suddenly scales at an almost unlimited rate [terahertz +] based 
on A/a^4 [plate area over separation^4] . That's why I was trying to find a 
form of the time dilation formula[Gamma] already solving for force so I could 
make it directly equal to the Casimir formula and get an idea for just how much 
acceleration and how dynamically it changes inside the array of geometry 
created by "real" Casimir materials. Once the formulas for positive changes in 
energy density [Gamma] seen in near luminal objects are related to negative 
changes seen in nano geometry [Casimir] it becomes possible to solve in terms 
of each other's variables. I think rapid changes in equivalent acceleration 
[jerk] occur due to Casimir geometry and are responsible for the property we 
call catalytic disassociation. The time dilation would locally mask the 
equivalent acceleration we calculate outside the cavity BUT the accumulating 
velocity would rapidly sling shot the gas between an array of different 
inertial frames formed by the tapestry where the gas momentum would keep 
finding itself in violent opposition to the changing magnitude and vector of 
the negative acceleration [quantum blender]. I don't expect you to agree but 
still argue it is a valid possibility.
Regards

Fran


Jones Beene wrote on  Wednesday, April 27, 2011 6:40 PM

[snip]To put this all into the average vortician's perspective, Fran and a few
others on vortex believe that the Casimir force and therefore ZPE are
intimately involved in both the Mills' reaction and in "lattice assisted
nuclear fusion" and in the Rossi effect. "Nano" is the key word. Or "FRET"
if you are a bit more sophisticated on the theoretical end.

That would be LANR, in contrast to LENR, but the two are essentially the
same animal from different perspectives. The zero point field can provide a
force which can provide net thermal energy under certain narrow conditions,
if at high repetition rate. But for the long term, the excess energy must be
replaced periodically by a nuclear process. The Mills' reaction can be
reconciled with this, if one accepts that he cuts short the progression
intentionally.

CANR or "chemically assisted" is another way of saying the same thing- that
valence electrons (i.e. chemistry) can influence nuclear reactions,
especially when there is cavity confinement so that interactions with
valence electrons are accelerated; and to the extent that the "improbable
become probable" due to the extreme number of sequential transactions
(terahertz).

The key to all of it is hydrogen going from molecular to atomic and back. H2
is tightly bound. A spillover catalyst breaks that bond catalytically and
actually extracts heat to do it. That is not in dispute. A net energy
asymmetry in this process is only possible when there is a nuclear process
which can provide the "makeup". (That is the dispute) The best way that I
can verbalize the 'Rossi effect', but others have their own perspectives on
it - is that it is a hybrid ZPE/nuclear process.

[/snip]

Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others

Michele Comitini  wrote:

> IMHO there is no need to fear that explosions will stop cold fusion. We
> have had all kinds of explosions in the history of energy production and/or
> extraction.

Yes. For example, when Rudolf Diesel developed his engine, one of them
exploded. However, nowadays people have higher standards. Unrealistically
high: they demand perfect safety from a new technology even when it will
replace an older unsafe technology.

Think of nuclear fission with bombs, or hot fusion.  Explosions means lot of
> energy and they are tangible even to stupid politicians.
>

If there are explosions or people are irradiated, opponents will say: "We
must not allow this. They will never make it safe!! They have had 22 years
to make it safe and they still can't do it."

One of the opponents at the "60 Minutes" site said that cold fusion research
has been funded long enough. It has not produced a practical source of
energy, so it should be abandoned. This person measured funding strictly in
time, not dollars or man-hours. Measured by the latter standards, cold
fusion has made wonderful strides compared to plasma fusion, clean coal,
solar PV and other sources of energy.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Colin Powell's WMD speech and other colossal technical mistakes

I wrote:

On February 5, 2003, Colin Powell made one of the most colossal technical
> mistakes in modern history. He delivered a speech making various claims
> about WMD intelligence in Iraq. He later called this "the lowest point in my
> life."

I got that wrong. It wasn't Powell who said that; it was his aide, who
helped him write the speech.

I believe Powell feels the same way.

- Jed

[Vo]:Another interview to Focardi

http://blog.panorama.it/italia/2011/04/22/parla-lo-scienziato-che-ha-inventato-la-fusione-nucleare-a-freddo/

Although this is just a a blog, Panorama magazine is quite mainstream in Italy.

mic

Re: [Vo]:Success for Rossi will bringing funding for others