[Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY No 458
My Dear Friends, After a rather peaceful week ,I have published the newest issue- http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/06/informavores-sunday-no-458.html of my newsletter. You can discover some essential information there. About how the world (matter, life, thinking) works, This leads me to the idea: When will my all-times-favorite website the wonderful http://www.howstuffworks.com/ publish a paper about the E-cat? The name Ecat slowly becomes a dominant meme and will be very difficult to change even if that Ni-H generator is not more catalytic as a steam locomotive. Actually I think it is but not as chemical catalysts Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: In the years before August 8, 1908, the Wrights often flew before large crowds of people in Dayton, OH, including leading citizens who signed affidavits saying they had seen the flights. The longest flight was 24 miles in 39 minutes. Yet no one outside of Dayton believed a word of it. Not one newspaper or journal. Well, there must have been at least 2, because Science uses the plural in this report from 1904: The newspapers of December 18 contained the announcement that Wilbur Wright had flown a distance of 3 miles with an aeroplane propeled by a 16-horse power, four-cylinder, gasoline motor, the whole weighing more than 700 pounds…. It's not the 24 mile flight, which presumably came later. Science went on to praise this accomplishment without skepticism: But to the student of aeronautics, and particularly to those who had followed the careful scientific experiments with aeroplanes which were being made by Orville and Wilbur Wright, it meant an epoch in the progress of invention and achievement, perhaps as great as that when Stevenson first drove a locomotive along a railroad. They proceed to admit wide skepticism because of many failures, but then say (remember, in 1904): Mr. Wright's success in rising and landing safely with a motor-driven aeroplane is a crowning achievement showing the possibility of human flight. Anything like that ever appear in Science about cold fusion? The Scientific American attacked, ridiculed and belittled the Wrights, and continued to attack them at every opportunity, most recently in 2003. See: The Wrights avoided publicity and limited photography for fear of having their secrets stolen, until they had a firm offer of purchase. This resulted in skepticism about the Wright's claims, no doubt, but not about flying. There were certainly many skeptical scientists, most notably Lord Kelvin, but the general opinion of the scientific community was (and had been for some time) that heavier than air flight was inevitable. Two years before their infamous skeptical article, even Scientific American wrote of a much more modest demonstration of flight by the Wright brothers: This is a decided step in advance in aerial navigation with aeroplanes. So they were not rejecting the idea, but merely accusing the Wrights of exaggeration. And if you believe their spin, they had good reason. Even your sentence admits it was (erroneous) skepticism of the Wrights, but not of the science in general; in 2003, I don't think SciAm denied that flight is possible. People have not grown wiser since 1908. What is the lesson of 1908? That any conceivable phenomenon must be right if people are skeptical of it? The arguments used against the Wrights were almost word-for-word the same as the ones you trot out against the cold fusion today. It is only your fantasy that the situation surrounding the development of aviation is similar to that of cold fusion. Some criticism of the Wrights may have been similar to some criticism of cold fusion, but note the lack of a parallel there. The Wrights are one team, cold fusion is a field. Moreover, the criticism or skepticism of the Wrights lasted a few years. The Wrights you see made progress. When they finally showed the simple and obvious demo, a few years later, they were catapulted onto the world stage. To counter the skepticism, the Wrights did not present charts and graphs, or refer to 16-year old papers, they showed the world how far they could jump. And both Science and Nature have multiple articles on aviation dating back to well before 1900. For example, in 1895, Nature wrote of a recent conference: many of the problems of aeronautics and aviation are being treated scientifically. The 1896 issue contains letters from Langley and Bell about experiments in mechanical flight, with considerable optimism for the field. In 1902, Nature wrote in praise of Langley and his heavy machines that had arisen and descended in safety, and quoting him that the time is now very near when human beings will be transported at high velocities [in such machines], In 1908 they wrote: We had heard reports of the Wright Brothers' achievements in America in 1904 and 1905, but owing to the inventors' efforts to avoid publicity, the feat of Santos and Dumont on November 12, 1906 […] has been regarded by many people as the first … artificially propelled man-carrying machine…. So even if it took until 1908 to acknowledge the Wrights, they clearly accepted the possibility of flight before that. I quoted from Science above in one of many articles on the subject, none particularly dismissive of the field as it is of cold fusion. Even Scientific American, in October 1903, had two articles on aviation. So, the most prestigious journals of the time had, since before the Wrights, considered aviation as a credible area of investigation and seemed optimistic about its future. There is no
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Rothwell The data clearly shows that some cells produce heat after death, and other do not. What does not make sense here is your demand that all cells do this. Cude It's not a demand. It's an identification of an inconsistency. Lomax So? The implication is that consistency of results is a requirement for an effect to be considered real. That's not a scientific proposition. Consistency here is not the same as reproducibility. The theory that heat is produced by deuterium fusion is contradicted if there is no deuterium present. That's a blatant inconsistency. There are degrees. I was saying that the idea that the heat is produced by deuterium reactions in Pd appears inconsistent with the fact that the heat disappears so quickly. Perhaps not a direct contradiction, just something that appears inconsistent with the proposed theory. Discussion like this -- identification of inconsistencies -- is in fact an integral part of any scientific discourse, contrary to what you say. It was not the only thing my skepticism depends on. My central point, if you paid attention, is that there is no progress in the field and there is no obvious demo, when if the claims were real, it should be easy to set one up. You and Rothwell are using experimental results from the early 90s to argue for the reality of CF. What better illustration of the lack of progress than that? One problem I have with those results. When the current shuts off, the heat dies immediately. It seems implausible that the deuterium would diffuse out of the Pd that quickly. I would expect a more gradual decline. Especially with all the reports of heat after death. That points to artifact to me. heat after death occurs with some techniques. I do see, by the way, some HAD in that experiment. Just not a lot. Look at how the heat falls, it bounces. Bounces? Do you think the deuterium diffuses out and then back in? That looks *inconsistent* to me. But no matter. The bounce is entirely within the error bars for the control. The effect, first of all, is not much seen under equilibrium conditions. If deuterium in palladium produces an effect, then the deuterium has to get out of the Pd for the effect to stop, equilibrium or not. When the current is rapidly shut down, the deuterium will immediately begin to migrate out, Begin, yes. But the rate is limited by ordinary laws of diffusion. What you are doing is seeing a mystery, and concluding artifact. Sort of, yes. Mysteries, inconsistencies, inexplicables all make a theory harder to swallow. When the evidence is not obvious, as in flight, and theory makes a result implausible, then mysteries suggest artifacts. But what artifact? That's the question, isn't it? Right. But not a very interesting one, for those who feel the evidence is uncommonly weak for nuclear reactions. Finding artifacts is hard, and finding other people's artifacts is hard and boring, especially if no one believes the claims anyway. So, given that some cells show heat after death, meaning the deuterium does not diffuse out of the Pd right away, No, there is an assumption here. Suppose that the effect appears at, say, 90%, and that the SRI cells are *just above that, a smidgen. So you turn off the electrolytic pressure, and the effect immediately disappears, as the loading goes quickly below the required level. Suppose that in another experiment, the necessary loading is the same, but the cell reaches 92%. Turn off the juice, the loading starts to go down, but it takes time to pass the turn-off threshold. This idea of a steep threshold is not consistent (there it is again) with the way the heat ramps up as the current is increased. There are clearly intermediate levels of heat, resulting presumably from intermediate levels of loading. If the threshold were so steep, you might expect a step increase as the current is increased. That's not observed. how could it be that in this particularly good experiment, the deuterium could diffuse out seemingly in a matter of seconds. That chart has a scale of hours, the horizontal scaling is 24 hours per division. Seconds? Joshua made that up. Not made up; guessed wrong. The graph you linked to wasn't labelled. You have to go back to the original to get the scale; I thought the axis was labelled in minutes, and it's actually hours. That weakens the objection, but it doesn't remove it. The complete drop takes about an hour, but it's very steep in the middle, dropping by half the amount in about 12 minutes. That still seems like an unreasonable rate for diffusion, when you consider that a tiny foil in Dardik's experiment maintains its output heat for 4 days. We're told that a very special condition is required in Pd for CF, but now it turns out there are 2 very different special conditions required, one in which the deuterium doesn't diffuse below a critical level in 4 days,
Re: [Vo]:How Joshua Cude misrepresents arguments
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: One problem I have with those results. When the current shuts off, the heat dies immediately. It seems implausible that the deuterium would diffuse out of the Pd that quickly. I would expect a more gradual decline. Especially with all the reports of heat after death. That points to artifact to me. And here Joshua let his assumptions of error lead him into a blatant error, confidently asserted. It turns out that immediately is, from the graph, about a hour. You can see the decline, it's not immediate. And the scale on this chart is one day per division, 24 hours! Right. I guessed wrong. The graph you linked to wasn't labelled. You have to go back to the original to get the scale; I thought the axis was labelled in minutes, and it's actually hours. That weakens the objection, but it doesn't remove it. The complete drop takes about an hour, but it's very steep in the middle, dropping by half the amount in about 12 minutes. That still seems like an unreasonable rate for diffusion, when you consider that a tiny foil in Dardik's experiment maintains its output heat for 4 days. We're told that a very special condition is required in Pd for CF, but now it turns out there are 2 very different special conditions required, one in which the deuterium doesn't diffuse below a critical level in 4 days, and the other in which it diffuses below that level in less than an hour. Fishy! Joshua just continues to dismiss all this with a wave of the hand. I'm not convinced. Because if it were true, an obvious demonstration would be easy to design, but in 22 years, there has been no progress. That's why you are trying to convince me with a 16 year-old graph, instead of directing me to demonstrations of isolated devices that are warmer than their surroundings.
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
Joshua, based on our constructive discussions re testing the E-cat I have sent the sketch of a protiocol for this experiment to Vortex.but you have not noticed it and have not commented it any way- even not I ma not interested more Because I think such experiments are important- here it is again. THE PROTOCOL- please discuss! A. There will be performed at least 3 separate experiments, if possible quasi identical (*my idea based on the first principle of the Pilot Plant Engineer: 1 result = NO result, 1 measurement = NO measurement. 1 test = NO test)* * * * * *B. The preferred experiment is cooling water in, warm water out- simple elementary heat measurement. (a.k.a.* *calorimetry)* *If steam generation will be used then the enethalpy of the steam will be measured using the hyper-simple method described here: * http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/05/call-for-perfect-e-cat-experiment.html C. The minimum duration of an experiment will be 72 hours, or alternatively (to eliminate the supra-realist doubt the the generator itself is consumed e. g. by burning, 14 kWhs have to be generated for each Kg. of the cell. D. The hydrogen bottle should be disconnected from the E-cat after start-up and carried away. E- In case that it is not possible to work with the generator in the self sustaining mode- zero input for hours- due to control problems etc.- the input energy must be measured with the greatest care and precision (details?) Joshua, it is your turn! --- On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: In the years before August 8, 1908, the Wrights often flew before large crowds of people in Dayton, OH, including leading citizens who signed affidavits saying they had seen the flights. The longest flight was 24 miles in 39 minutes. Yet no one outside of Dayton believed a word of it. Not one newspaper or journal. Well, there must have been at least 2, because Science uses the plural in this report from 1904: The newspapers of December 18 contained the announcement that Wilbur Wright had flown a distance of 3 miles with an aeroplane propeled by a 16-horse power, four-cylinder, gasoline motor, the whole weighing more than 700 pounds…. It's not the 24 mile flight, which presumably came later. Science went on to praise this accomplishment without skepticism: But to the student of aeronautics, and particularly to those who had followed the careful scientific experiments with aeroplanes which were being made by Orville and Wilbur Wright, it meant an epoch in the progress of invention and achievement, perhaps as great as that when Stevenson first drove a locomotive along a railroad. They proceed to admit wide skepticism because of many failures, but then say (remember, in 1904): Mr. Wright's success in rising and landing safely with a motor-driven aeroplane is a crowning achievement showing the possibility of human flight. Anything like that ever appear in Science about cold fusion? The Scientific American attacked, ridiculed and belittled the Wrights, and continued to attack them at every opportunity, most recently in 2003. See: The Wrights avoided publicity and limited photography for fear of having their secrets stolen, until they had a firm offer of purchase. This resulted in skepticism about the Wright's claims, no doubt, but not about flying. There were certainly many skeptical scientists, most notably Lord Kelvin, but the general opinion of the scientific community was (and had been for some time) that heavier than air flight was inevitable. Two years before their infamous skeptical article, even Scientific American wrote of a much more modest demonstration of flight by the Wright brothers: This is a decided step in advance in aerial navigation with aeroplanes. So they were not rejecting the idea, but merely accusing the Wrights of exaggeration. And if you believe their spin, they had good reason. Even your sentence admits it was (erroneous) skepticism of the Wrights, but not of the science in general; in 2003, I don't think SciAm denied that flight is possible. People have not grown wiser since 1908. What is the lesson of 1908? That any conceivable phenomenon must be right if people are skeptical of it? The arguments used against the Wrights were almost word-for-word the same as the ones you trot out against the cold fusion today. It is only your fantasy that the situation surrounding the development of aviation is similar to that of cold fusion. Some criticism of the Wrights may have been similar to some criticism of cold fusion, but note the lack of a parallel there. The Wrights are one team, cold fusion is a field. Moreover, the criticism or skepticism of the Wrights lasted a few years. The Wrights you see made progress. When they finally showed the simple and obvious demo, a few years later, they
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua, based on our constructive discussions re testing the E-cat I have sent the sketch of a protiocol for this experiment to Vortex.but you have not noticed it and have not commented it any way- even not I ma not interested more Because I think such experiments are important- here it is again. I gave a pretty detailed description of the sort of think I think would be persuasive -- equivalent to the Wright brothers' 1908 demonstration. The problems I have with your protocol have already been mentioned: 1 - it requires quantitative measurements of flow rate and temperature and therefore trust in whoever makes them. If that's to be the case, then some method of choosing the observers needs to be in the protocol. And that could be difficult for reasons Lomax gave: serious skeptics would be unwilling to waste time or risk disapproval in getting involved in something that may turn out to be an obvious scam. I think it's much better to heat a large container of water with no inlets or outlets; 1000L seems like a reasonable amount. Hot tubs can be purchased pretty cheaply. 2 - I think the impact would be far more dramatic without any input, regardless of how carefully it's measured. As I've said, this not only makes the effect more obvious, but in practice, a device that needs input is just a slightly improved heat pump. Not revolutionary at all.
[Vo]:The Rossi device is not a heat pump
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: 2 - I think the impact would be far more dramatic without any input, regardless of how carefully it's measured. As I've said, this not only makes the effect more obvious, but in practice, a device that needs input is just a slightly improved heat pump. Not revolutionary at all. A heat pump transfers heat from the surroundings, cooling them off. If the Rossi device were a heat pump, part of it would be extremely cold, and covered with frost and ice. That is not the case. Actually, this is physically impossible; there is no fluid or other large thermal mass big enough to cool down as much as the water going through the device heats up. Also, if this were a heat pump, it would not be slightly improved. It would be by far the best ever invented, and it would be worth billions of dollars for that reason alone. No cold fusion device has ever produced a cold area. None of them is a heat pump. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
Dear Joshua, OK, I see our modes of thinking are not compatible. I cannot conceive such experiments without measurements, I think the large container is a bad idea and anti-technical, and I believe far analogies are not good in real problem solving. But otherwise I have to thank you for inspiring me-and I hope that we will have opportunities to discuss other Ni-H LENR experiments. Peter On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua, based on our constructive discussions re testing the E-cat I have sent the sketch of a protiocol for this experiment to Vortex.but you have not noticed it and have not commented it any way- even not I ma not interested more Because I think such experiments are important- here it is again. I gave a pretty detailed description of the sort of think I think would be persuasive -- equivalent to the Wright brothers' 1908 demonstration. The problems I have with your protocol have already been mentioned: 1 - it requires quantitative measurements of flow rate and temperature and therefore trust in whoever makes them. If that's to be the case, then some method of choosing the observers needs to be in the protocol. And that could be difficult for reasons Lomax gave: serious skeptics would be unwilling to waste time or risk disapproval in getting involved in something that may turn out to be an obvious scam. I think it's much better to heat a large container of water with no inlets or outlets; 1000L seems like a reasonable amount. Hot tubs can be purchased pretty cheaply. 2 - I think the impact would be far more dramatic without any input, regardless of how carefully it's measured. As I've said, this not only makes the effect more obvious, but in practice, a device that needs input is just a slightly improved heat pump. Not revolutionary at all. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:nice from germany
http://www.matrixwissen.de/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=358%3Afrank-znidarsic-cold-fusion-researchcatid=113%3Afreie-energieItemid=98lang=en
Re: [Vo]:The Rossi device is not a heat pump
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: No cold fusion device has ever produced a cold area. None of them is a heat pump. With exception of the hearts of the skeptics. :-) T
RE: [Vo]:The Rossi device is not a heat pump
From: Jed Rothwell No cold fusion device has ever produced a cold area. None of them is a heat pump. Not exactly true, depending on how you define 'cold fusion.' To clarify - in recent testing of nano-nickel by Brian Ahern using various alloy nanopowders (similar to both Arata and Rossi) BOTH heating and cooling regimes have been documented, and in a repeatable fashion, depending on the specific alloy. It is either one or the other, not both (depending on the elements in the alloy). The full report has not been released yet for publication by the funder, so you will have to be content with anecdote for the time being - but Brian has reported the same results to CMNS. IOW - with resistance heating at a fairly high level (500 C) a certain alloy powder can produce an active cooling effect ! repeatedly and for extended periods. Caveat: this testing does not involve sophisticated calorimetry at this point in time, so there could be other explanations that will need to be explored, if and when continued funding is available. Bottom line - Probably means that the from the totality of effects which have been seen (both anomalous heating and cooling with no gamma radiation) this nano-niche with gas phase - does not involve fusion at all - and thus cannot be 'cold fusion' per se. Therefore, the original comment is accurate, unless we might desire to expand the scope of the field to include all thermal anomalies at the nanoscale - which does seem like the wisest way to proceed, especially if you look at the field as having the potential to spawn many derivative technologies, which will surely serve to help in understanding what is going on the hot side. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The Rossi device is not a heat pump
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Cude 2 - I think the impact would be far more dramatic without any input, regardless of how carefully it's measured. As I've said, this not only makes the effect more obvious, but in practice, a device that needs input is just a slightly improved heat pump. Not revolutionary at all. Rothwell A heat pump transfers heat from the surroundings, cooling them off. If the Rossi device were a heat pump, part of it would be extremely cold, and covered with frost and ice. That is not the case. You misunderstand. I didn't mean it was a heat pump. I meant it would not be much better than a heat pump. I've made this case several times, so I got a little economic in the wording. The argument goes that if its gain were better than an ideal heat pump running between the same two temperatures, then in principle a heat engine could be run between the same temperatures with an efficiency better than the reciprocal of the gain of the Rossi device . The engine could drive a generator and supply the input with the output, and then the gain becomes infinite, which is revolutionary. The reason it's hedged by slightly improved is because of practical losses of irreversible processes in real heat pumps and engines. To put arbitrary numbers in, if an ecat has a gain of 10, and an ideal heat pump between the same temperatures has a COP of 5, then an ideal heat engine between the same two temperatures would have an efficiency of 1/5, and it would need only 1/2 of the output to power the input. If that were possible, there would be no need for input at all and the gain goes to infinity. Of course, there are losses, but one can get efficiencies better than half of Carnot efficiencies, so if you can't power the input with the output, it means the output gain is at best twice that of a heat pump. Also, if this were a heat pump, it would not be slightly improved. It would be by far the best ever invented, and it would be worth billions of dollars for that reason alone. As I said, if it's more than twice as good, then it can easily be infinitely better. Twice as good may be worth billions, but it will not solve our energy problems. For one thing, it's only good for heating. If it can't power itself, you can never use it for the things electricity or engines are used. And if it were nuclear, it would be a surprising coincidence to be limited to less than twice the gain of a heat pummp -- just less than necessary to power itself. Again and again.
RE: [Vo]:The Rossi device is not a heat pump
This brings up a question I have Re: heat pumps : Assume there's a device that can absorb energy, whether mechanical, electrical, or thermal, but not get hot -- the energy is sent to some unspecified alternate universe let us say for the sake of argument. Steorn claims that their ORBOs when run backwards absorb energy without getting hot. For the sake of this argument, assume that such a device exists. How useful is this? I can see right away that vehicle brakes that don't overheat would be a wonderful use. Thermodynamically, I can't see how useful this would be, for example, to cool laptop computers whose processors dissipate 1kW, but it may well be useful -- any thoughts? If energy becomes free, then the idea of efficient machinery and electronics would be irrelevant if the excess heat could be disposed of. P.S. This idea reminds me of a couple of science fiction stories: The most recent one was that our use of free energy devices absorbs energy from the galactic grid, and eventually the space aliens send us a bill. The other was of an inventor of a vacuum cleaner that never needed to be emptied -- he didn't know how it worked ( black hole inside ? ) but he sold gazillions of them. Eventually the space aliens got pissed about all this dirt raining down upon them and sent it back :-) . Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 9:08 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:The Rossi device is not a heat pump From: Jed Rothwell No cold fusion device has ever produced a cold area. None of them is a heat pump. Not exactly true, depending on how you define 'cold fusion.' To clarify - in recent testing of nano-nickel by Brian Ahern using various alloy nanopowders (similar to both Arata and Rossi) BOTH heating and cooling regimes have been documented, and in a repeatable fashion, depending on the specific alloy. It is either one or the other, not both (depending on the elements in the alloy).[Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.] ...
Re: [Vo]:The Rossi device is not a heat pump
cool! In theory fusion can be endothermic or exothermic depending on the atomic numbers of the participating atoms. Heck, the same goes for fission. Lets wait for Brian's isotopic analysis. Harry From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 12:08:04 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The Rossi device is not a heat pump From:Jed Rothwell No cold fusion device has ever produced a cold area. None of them is a heat pump. Not exactly true, depending on how you define ‘cold fusion.’ To clarify – in recent testing of nano-nickel by Brian Ahern using various alloy nanopowders (similar to both Arata and Rossi) BOTH heating and cooling regimes have been documented, and in a repeatable fashion, depending on the specific alloy. It is either one or the other, not both (depending on the elements in the alloy). The full report has not been released yet for publication by the funder, so you will have to be content with anecdote for the time being – but Brian has reported the same results to CMNS. IOW – with resistance heating at a fairly high level (500 C) a certain alloy powder can produce an active cooling effect ! repeatedly and for extended periods. Caveat: this testing does not involve sophisticated calorimetry at this point in time, so there could be other explanations that will need to be explored, if and when continued funding is available. Bottom line - Probably means that the from the totality of effects which have been seen (both anomalous heating and cooling with no gamma radiation) this nano-niche with gas phase - does not involve “fusion” at all - and thus cannot be ‘cold fusion’ per se. Therefore, the original comment is accurate, unless we might desire to expand the scope of the field to include “all thermal anomalies at the nanoscale” – which does seem like the wisest way to proceed, especially if you look at the field as having the potential to spawn many derivative technologies, which will surely serve to help in understanding what is going on the hot side… Jones
[Vo]:E-cat under test in U-Bologna
Interesting and amusing article from one of the physicist in the team that has the magic box at disposal. http://www.socialnews.it/ARTICOLI2011/ARTICOLI201105/fusione.html Google translator may help... Mic
[Vo]:Piezonucleare
somebody sent me this video link. Its in italian news report concerning neutron production when a rock is fractured. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onoqKPwVv5o Harry
Re: [Vo]:The Rossi device is not a heat pump
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: You misunderstand. I didn't mean it was a heat pump. I meant it would not be much better than a heat pump. I've made this case several times, so I got a little economic in the wording. The argument goes that if its gain were better than an ideal heat pump . . . Ah, I see. The gain of the Rossi device is sometimes infinite. It runs with no input power, in heat after death. It is reportedly dangerous to run the machine in that mode, but I expect that problem will be fixed. I am sure you know that, so you are posting nonsense in order to confuse the issue and mislead people. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Piezonucleare
Fracto-fusion - this has been seen before - even before PF. Also in compression zones in glaciers - gamma radiation is documented. -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder somebody sent me this video link. Its in italian news report concerning neutron production when a rock is fractured. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onoqKPwVv5o Harry
RE: [Vo]:The Rossi device is not a heat pump
From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. * * Assume there's a device that can absorb energy, whether mechanical, electrical, or thermal, but not get hot -- the energy is sent to some unspecified alternate universe let us say for the sake of argument For the sake of this argument, assume that such a device existsHow useful is this? First there is a differentiation which is needed. Is the material in question a superconductor of heat, like the Qu-tubes or is it actually absorbing heat and staying cold ? If it is the later, and there is no obvious endothermic reaction which benefits, then a guess - which is as much philosophical as it is based on thermodynamic issues, is that it gains something of equal net energy, but lower energy density. IOW: first off - there is a hierarchy of energy varieties but this is poorly defined at present. Heat, defined as phonon vibration, would be at the low end, but not the lowest. Above that (or overcalling) are photons, but in their own hierarchy based on wavelength: RF, IR, visible, UV, EUV, ex-ray, gamma. Above that is emf in the form of electrical current or equivalent. Above that ? ... probably matter and high energy gammas will condense into matter on occasion. But your question really goes to the other end of the scale: sub-heat, so to speak. Below heat is where you would look to see what repercussions follow from a with a material which is a heat sink at ambient. It would probably gain the next lower form of energy. One possibility goes back to Frank Grimer's concept of compreture - in that an object can lose heat and gain pressure and maintain a net balance. But that does not apply here. Another possibility for the general identity of that next lower form of energy can be simplified as potential energy and this covers a wide range of possibilities. There are hierarchies there as well - but if a material sheds heat to another dimension, it may gain potential energy in some form. I know your next question, but I'll let others jump in to test the water on that one... since 'anti-gravity' is a subject that generally makes me too light-headed to keep a straight face. Can you spell Casimatter? Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:E-cat under test in U-Bologna
You are right, dear Michele but I cannot find much information re what the scientists at U. Bologna are really doing. And what they are not allowed to do. Peter On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting and amusing article from one of the physicist in the team that has the magic box at disposal. http://www.socialnews.it/ARTICOLI2011/ARTICOLI201105/fusione.html Google translator may help... Mic -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:fascinating dynamic view of all asteroids found from 1980 to 2010, orbiting mostly from Earth to Jupiter, growing to well over 0.5 million: Rich Murray 2011.06.05
fascinating dynamic view of all asteroids found from 1980 to 2010, orbiting mostly from Earth to Jupiter, growing to well over 0.5 million: Rich Murray 2011.06.05 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqC1QjlVUYk 6:41 video of continuous discovery of asteroids in the region of Earth's night sky, mostly between Mars and Jupiter from 1980 to 2010, from above the N pole of the Sun, showing Mercury to Jupiter orbiting counterclockwise, while the increasing swarm of asteroids show apparent dark spots and crooked lines that seem almost as real as the bright asteroids, seemingly a boiling, turbulent liquid, often with radial jets and flares, and after 2010, striking radial wave patterns out from before and after Earth's position. It would be interesting to set up a dynamic random Monte Carlo simulations of this process, to see what factors account for the intriguing patterns. The patterns remind me of the subtle details of 3D fractal structures that I find in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field since 2005: HUDF center top left, #90 astrodeep200407aab10ada.png 3.68 MB 1244X1243 1 of 4 identical views with different color schemes 2008.12.12 #88-91 on rmforall at flickr.com: Rich Murray 2011.01.09 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2011_01_01_archive.htm Sunday, January 9, 2011 [ at end of each long page, click on Older Posts ] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/80 [ you may have to Copy and Paste URLs into your browser ] for viewing -- click on Actions to get different sizes and for free download http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmforall/3103426063/in/photostream/ #89 astrodeep200407aab10aea.png 4.14 MB 1244X1283 HUDF center top left This image is 6.3x6.3 arc-seconds, 3.965% of the area of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, which is 186 arc-seconds wide and high = 3.1 arc-minutes = 1/10 width of the Full Moon or Sun, about 0.5 degrees, so the HUDF is about 1% of the area of the square that holds the Full Moon or Sun, short introduction re viewing lovely subtle earliest structures in HUDF: AstroDeep, Rich Murray 2009.02.23 I've found since 2005 myriad ubiquitous bright blue sources, always on a darker fractal 3D web, along with a variety of sizes of irregular early galaxies, in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, simply by increasing the gamma from 1.00 to 2.00 and saturating the colors, while minimizing the green band to simplify the complex overlays of complex fractal structures. Dozens of these images, covering the entire HUDF in eight ~20 MB segments, are available for viewing at many scales [ To change the size of images on Windows PCs, use Control - and + ] on www.Flickr.com at the rmforall photostream. Try #86 for the central 16% of the HUDF. ubiquitous bright blue 1-12 pixel sources on darker 3D fractal web in five 2007.09.06 IR and visible light HUDF images, Nor Pirzkal, Sangeeta Malhotra, James E Rhoads, Chun Xu, -- might be clusters of earliest hypernovae in recent cosmological simulations: Rich Murray 2008.08.17 2009.01.20 rmforall.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.htm Sunday, August 17, 2008 groups.yahoo.com/group/AstroDeep/25 groups.yahoo.com/group/rmforall/85 www.flickr.com/photos/rmforall/1349101458/in/photostream/ The 5 closeups are about 2.2x2.2 arc-seconds wide and high, about 70x70 pixels. The HUDF is 315x315 arc-seconds, with N at top and E at left. Each side has 10,500x10,500 pixels at 0.03 arc-second per pixel. Click on All Sizes and select Original to view the highest resolution image of 3022x2496 pixels, which can be also be conveniently seen directly at their Zoomable image: www.spacetelescope.org/images/html/zoomable/heic0714a.html Notable in the deep background of the five closeups are ubiquitous bright blue sources, presumably extremely hot ultraviolet before redshifting, 1 to a dozen or so pixels, as single or short lines of spots, and a few irregular tiny blobs, probably, as predicted in many recent simulations, the earliest massive, short-lived hypernovae, GRBs with jets at various angles to our line of sight, expanding bubbles, earliest molecular and dust clouds with light echoes and bursts of star formation, and first small dwarf galaxies, always associated with a subtle darker 3D random fractal mesh of filaments of H and He atomic gases. As a scientific layman, I am grateful for specific cogent, civil feedback, based on the details readily visible in images in the public domain. www.spacetelescope.org/images/html/heic0714a.html Hubble and Spitzer Uncover Smallest Galaxy Building Blocks Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmfor...@gmail.com 505-819-7388 1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 groups.yahoo.com/group/rmforall/messages groups.yahoo.com/group/AstroDeep/messages www.sfcomplex.org Santa Fe Complex You are welcome to visit me and share your comments as I share these images at home on a 4X8 foot screen -- no fee. Anyone may view and download for free 91 images, presenting the HUDF in eight 20 MB pieces
