date:20110618




Star Found Shooting Water "Bullets" 
Stellar sprinklers may help irrigate cosmos, study suggests.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/06/110613-space-science-star-water-bullets-kristensen/


"The amount of water ejecting from the star is equal to the amount that flows 
through the Amazon every second, researchers say."

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

2011-06-18 Thread Jay Caplan

Fran,
If you could sputter the powder surface onto the fins of a brazed heat 
exchanger 
http://fintube.thomasnet.com/item/all-categories/finbraze--2/item-1010?&forward=1
 then the H2 could be inputted through a tube surrounding the finned exchanger 
(with an outer lead pipe shield if there actually is gamma to deal with.) The 
heat transfer fluid running through the center tube - center tube welded to the 
outer tube at the ends to maintain H2 pressure. Brazed fins for continuous duty 
to 950 F.

But it might be easier to have square fins with ~1-2 mm between them, and the 
adjacent two fins brazed closed on 3 sides. 
http://fintube.thomasnet.com/item/all-categories/stamped-plate-fin/item-1015?&forward=1
 Fill the top side with the nanopowders, vibrate to settle, H2 still loads from 
the outer tube. ???


- Original Message - 
  From: francis 
  To: uniqueprodu...@comcast.net 
  Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com ; Teofilo, Vince ; zpe.asymmat...@gmail.com 
  Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 7:21 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy


  On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 12:42:10 Jay Caplan wrote [snip]I agree. Since several 
devices have melted down before, it is obvious that it doesn't need elec input 
to work, just reacting nearby the high temps of the resistance element. Once 
heated uniformly to reaction temps and self sustaining, the key would be to 
pull off the energy fast enough with heat transfer fluids to keep temps below 
trouble levels, but in the best reaction range. When GE gets hold of this and 
turns their process engineers on to it (after 15 yrs of NRC delays) you may 
well see superb results.[/snip]

   

  Jay, Nicely said - you beat me to it but additionally I would like to point 
out that Rossi referred to this as a "NEW" ecat. I think he meant it was fresh 
off the assembly line with a fresh charge of powder. This goes back to a 
previous thread where we were discussing the level of activity sites from the 
moment of formation and the "protection " of these sites from overheating. It 
might even be necessary to keep the outer reactor surface permanently wet to 
protect the most active geometry from simply degrading down to a sustainable 
"dry" geometry by overheating and melting the smallest portions of the cavities 
closed. Rossi doesn't want to see his devices follow the performance woes 
associated with MAHG devices that would initially appear to produce anomalous 
heat  but would  quickly  degrade down to almost nothing.

   

  I Agree with both you and Jones that an improved, faster and controllable 
heat sinking methodology is key to a free running reactor but think this will 
also require a new design where the entire reactor is designed as a heat 
exchanger  and  where the powder only exists as a thin layer/alloy sputtered or 
spin melted to the inner surface of the reactor wall (copper or SS). I would 
expect any bulk powder not annealed to a heat sink to very quickly reduce its 
active regions by overheating and  melting the Ni in those regions where 
Casimir geometry is smallest the moment gas molecules permeate the geometry.

  Fran

[Vo]:OT: You Insult me, sir

I picked this article only because it was one of the first links I found after 
googling "you insult me, sir". It refers to a study of honour 
killings associated with a culture of honour based on strength and reputation. 

It is not hard to imagine a culture of honour which is based on competency and 
reputation and uses more civil means of retribution. ;)

Harry

You Insult Me, Sir: Lab Study Says Southern Men Take Insults Seriously
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/149263/

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset






Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> On 11-06-18 09:21 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> > I don't think Galantini is a thermodynamics expert.  Jed is right
> > about sparging the steam.
> > 
> > Why do they insist on using phase change measurements anyway?  There
> > are a dozen better ways to measure energy flow.
> 
> OK, you asked for it, somebody should say it.  We've all been dancing around 
>it, but it hasn't quite been said in so many words, so here it is:
> 
> It's a lot easier to produce phony results which look good when you do it 
> with 
>a phase change of this sort.  Flow calorimetry with single-phase water is a 
>lot 
>harder to fool.
> 
> There, I said it, now you can claim I'm being pathologically skeptical and 
>psychotically paranoid -- and I'll apologize profusely and eat every word of 
>it, 
>when ... and if ... this thing is finally either REPLICATED or 
>COMMERCIALIZED.  
>But right now, IMO it smells, and it's smelled all along, and smelly stuff 
>hardly ever turns out to be pure gold.
> 


If you were Rossi the businessman, and you knew your device has turned water 
into steam for short periods of time without any input power, wouldn't 
you treat 
the steam quality issue as a minor concern?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

2011-06-18 Thread mixent

In reply to  Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sat, 18 Jun 2011 13:32:54 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>It's being operated, apparently, at a balance point. Other designs 

...or as Dr. Schwartz would say, an OOP.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset


On 2011-06-19 04:06, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

I can't be sure from Krivit's rather murky summary of events whether
Levi was actually lying about it, or was confused, mistaken, or had been
misled by Rossi, but whatever the underlying situation is, Levi comes
across looking very bad here, IMHO.


If it's about the data that Krivit was supposed to receive, don't worry: 
Passerini (22passi) told today that Levi will give them to him instead. 
The end result is therefore unaffected for the general public, but 
Krivit would have to copy/paste them to his blog from elsewhere (i.e. 
22passi blog). I guess that second-hand information would not be as 
valuable as receiving it directly for an investigative journalist like 
him, Levi probably thought.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

2011-06-18 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence




On 11-06-18 09:21 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

I don't think Galantini is a thermodynamics expert.  Jed is right
about sparging the steam.

Why do they insist on using phase change measurements anyway?  There
are a dozen better ways to measure energy flow.


OK, you asked for it, somebody should say it.  We've all been dancing 
around it, but it hasn't quite been said in so many words, so here it is:


It's a lot easier to produce phony results which look good when you do 
it with a phase change of this sort.  Flow calorimetry with single-phase 
water is a lot harder to fool.


There, I said it, now you can claim I'm being pathologically skeptical 
and psychotically paranoid -- and I'll apologize profusely and eat every 
word of it, when ... and if ... this thing is finally either REPLICATED 
or COMMERCIALIZED.  But right now, IMO it smells, and it's smelled all 
along, and smelly stuff hardly ever turns out to be pure gold.

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

2011-06-18 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence

On 11-06-18 08:37 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:

Why Levi is upset is more evident in this exchange between Steven Krivit and
Luigi Versaggi P.

https://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/cold-fusion-andrea-rossi-method/i-made-a-question-to-steven-krivit/235485236468276

If I recall correctly someone wrote on the vortex list back in feburary or march
that Galantini never wrote a report, so that fact is not news. Steven
Kirvit managed to catch Levi uttering a 'white lie' to *him*. Is that fact
news?

Interesting.

I can't be sure from Krivit's rather murky summary of events whether
Levi was actually lying about it, or was confused, mistaken, or had been
misled by Rossi, but whatever the underlying situation is, Levi comes
across looking very bad here, IMHO.

Coupled with the admission that the steam was wet (which has seemed
pretty obvious to me for quite a while, though, as I've said before, I'm
no expert) this makes Galantini's assertions about steam look pretty
unreliable. And if he was as definite about the dryness of the steam as
we've been led to believe, it casts some doubt on any future assertions
he may make about anything else ... unless, of course, he cares to
include the data and reasoning which led to the assertions. (Appeal to
authority proves nothing without data, as has already been pointed out
ad nauseum. And when the authority has already been shown to be
unreliable...)

Actually, I'd have to say the whole UoB team is looking pretty poor at
this point.

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset





- Original Message 
> From: Terry Blanton 
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Sat, June 18, 2011 9:21:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
> 
> I don't think Galantini is a thermodynamics expert.  Jed is right
> about sparging the steam.
> 
> Why do they insist on using phase change measurements anyway?  There
> are a dozen better ways to measure energy flow.
> 

I think Levi and Rossi did the private flow test in feburary to really convince 
themselves, and not to the arm chair skeptics, that their initial steam tests 
were adequate.



Harry  

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset

2011-06-18 Thread Terry Blanton

I don't think Galantini is a thermodynamics expert.  Jed is right
about sparging the steam.

Why do they insist on using phase change measurements anyway?  There
are a dozen better ways to measure energy flow.

T

[Vo]:Why Levi is upset

Why Levi is upset is more evident in this exchange between Steven Krivit and 
Luigi Versaggi P.

https://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/cold-fusion-andrea-rossi-method/i-made-a-question-to-steven-krivit/235485236468276


If I recall correctly someone wrote on the vortex list back in feburary or 
march 
that Galantini never wrote a report, so that fact is not news. Steven 
Kirvit managed to catch Levi uttering a 'white lie' to *him*. Is that fact 
news? 



Harry

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

2011-06-18 Thread francis

On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 12:42:10 Jay Caplan wrote [snip]I agree. Since several
devices have melted down before, it is obvious that it doesn't need elec
input to work, just reacting nearby the high temps of the resistance
element. Once heated uniformly to reaction temps and self sustaining, the
key would be to pull off the energy fast enough with heat transfer fluids to
keep temps below trouble levels, but in the best reaction range. When GE
gets hold of this and turns their process engineers on to it (after 15 yrs
of NRC delays) you may well see superb results.[/snip]

 

Jay, Nicely said - you beat me to it but additionally I would like to point
out that Rossi referred to this as a "NEW" ecat. I think he meant it was
fresh off the assembly line with a fresh charge of powder. This goes back to
a previous thread where we were discussing the level of activity sites from
the moment of formation and the "protection " of these sites from
overheating. It might even be necessary to keep the outer reactor surface
permanently wet to protect the most active geometry from simply degrading
down to a sustainable "dry" geometry by overheating and melting the smallest
portions of the cavities closed. Rossi doesn't want to see his devices
follow the performance woes associated with MAHG devices that would
initially appear to produce anomalous heat  but would  quickly  degrade down
to almost nothing.

 

I Agree with both you and Jones that an improved, faster and controllable
heat sinking methodology is key to a free running reactor but think this
will also require a new design where the entire reactor is designed as a
heat exchanger  and  where the powder only exists as a thin layer/alloy
sputtered or spin melted to the inner surface of the reactor wall (copper or
SS). I would expect any bulk powder not annealed to a heat sink to very
quickly reduce its active regions by overheating and  melting the Ni in
those regions where Casimir geometry is smallest the moment gas molecules
permeate the geometry.

Fran

Re: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam


On 2011-06-19 01:24, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

Passerini stated on his 22passi blog that without the black cloth the
little steam plume was barely visible) of what I mean:


Sorry, I made a mistake. Actually, he wrote a few posts below the one 
containing the video in the forum linked that without the black cloth 
the steam was not visible and that he even tried to take photos of it 
unsuccessfully.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam

2011-06-18 Thread Rich Murray

> http://goo.gl/4hD3C

The mist seems to be mist right at the end of the black tube, hence
not a pure steam flow that exits invisibly from the tube and becomes
cooler visible mist in a few centimeters -- so is there any evidence
that the out flow right from the reactor is dry or damp steam?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam


On 2011-06-19 00:58, Mark Iverson wrote:


Still, I think they are trying to save some face after this
recent breakthru  of 'our reactors now produce a totally dry steam'.  That 
means that everyone,
including Krivit, who has been questioning them on this issue were spot on... 
This is a bit of a
chink in their credibility.


Yes, they probably know what is about to come and are trying to save 
face. Here's a short and meaty video preview (although to be fair, 
Passerini stated on his 22passi blog that without the black cloth the 
little steam plume was barely visible) of what I mean:


http://goo.gl/4hD3C

Source for the video above: http://goo.gl/eEkhp

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam

2011-06-18 Thread Rich Murray

If self-delusion has been operating, then the person would not be
aware of it, and hence feel truthful, not deceitful.

Naturally, any hidden defenses would be exposed only gradually.

This happens to everyone in some aspect of their lifetime evolution.

Release from delusions is tedious and troubling, but is a huge relief
in the long run.

It involves delicate, patient diplomacy to help a person become free
of delusions.

In matters of science, sharing of evidence and reason has to work
skillfully with, not against, delusion.

So, it's progress, if delusion is involved, to focus on a key detail,
like the steam dryness.

Also, the Rossi device may still be producing various anomalies, even
if the power output in fact is less than hoped recently.

RE: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam

2011-06-18 Thread Mark Iverson

Rossi said:
"We have 300 reactors in operation now in our factory, and we are making 
exponential progress day by
day."

How do you say, "damage control", in Italian?  :-)

I just wanted to clarify one thing which was confusing to me... there are two 
factories that are
being mentioned at this stage -- "our" factory and "the customer's" a.k.a. 
Defkalion.

They obviously have a 'factory' which they are using as a testbed -- perhaps 
the one in Italy that
has had a reactor running for 2 years.  They are installing the units for 
Defkalion in this factory
and getting all the bugs worked out of the system.  By the time October rolls 
around, they should be
able to ship the container(s) housing the 300 reactors to Greece and pretty 
much hook up power and
water and turn it on!

-Mark

RE: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam

2011-06-18 Thread Mark Iverson

>Then earlier assertions that the steam was totally dry 
>must have been ... I hate to use the word ... lies.

Not necessarily... More than likely the % of water in the steam varied 
depending on the power level
they were running the reactor at.  Still, I think they are trying to save some 
face after this
recent breakthru  of 'our reactors now produce a totally dry steam'.  That 
means that everyone,
including Krivit, who has been questioning them on this issue were spot on... 
This is a bit of a
chink in their credibility.

I don't think they're going to be making that error anymore... So I guess 
Krivit's visit achieved
something!

-Mark

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 3:35 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam

On 11-06-18 04:22 PM, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
> Hello group,
>
> I'm quite sure I'm playing his game by reporting this here, but I 
> found this message by Rossi on his blog of interest on many levels and 
> probably bound to generate many reactions:
>
> * * *
>
> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=96&cpage=1#comment-47000
>
> Dear Paolo:
> The 1 MW plant which we will start up in Greece in October will 
> generate heat. For power we are not yet ready, but we made a very 
> important step forward in this week, because our reactors now produce 
> a totally dry steam (no more traces of water in the steam) and this is 
> a step forward to couple the turbines.

Then earlier assertions that the steam was totally dry must have been ... I 
hate to use the word ...
lies.

A "lie" is when someone makes a contrary to fact statement, with the full 
realization that it's
contrary to fact.  That certainly seems to have been the case here, as this 
statement by Rossi seems
to imply he's known all along that the steam wasn't really quite dry.

So if the earlier assertions of dryness were lies, why should we believe the 
new statement that this
time, for sure, the steam really is dry?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam

2011-06-18 Thread Alan Fletcher

http://www.spiraxsarco.com/resources/steam-engineering-tutorials.asp

Plenty of wiggle-room when you're dealing with steam  !!!

> Then earlier assertions that the steam was totally dry must have been
> ... I hate to use the word ... lies.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam

2011-06-18 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence




On 11-06-18 04:22 PM, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

Hello group,

I'm quite sure I'm playing his game by reporting this here, but I 
found this message by Rossi on his blog of interest on many levels and 
probably bound to generate many reactions:


* * *

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=96&cpage=1#comment-47000

Dear Paolo:
The 1 MW plant which we will start up in Greece in October will 
generate heat. For power we are not yet ready, but we made a very 
important step forward in this week, because our reactors now produce 
a totally dry steam (no more traces of water in the steam) and this is 
a step forward to couple the turbines.


Then earlier assertions that the steam was totally dry must have been 
... I hate to use the word ... lies.


A "lie" is when someone makes a contrary to fact statement, with the 
full realization that it's contrary to fact.  That certainly seems to 
have been the case here, as this statement by Rossi seems to imply he's 
known all along that the steam wasn't really quite dry.


So if the earlier assertions of dryness were lies, why should we believe 
the new statement that this time, for sure, the steam really is dry?

RE: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam

2011-06-18 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

>From Rossi,

...

> ...  For example, we had recently a fake journalist here who wrote
> stupidities about the water in the steam: ...

I guess Rossi is still pissed off.

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam


On 2011-06-18 22:22, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

Hello group,

I'm quite sure I'm playing his game by reporting this here, but I found
this message by Rossi on his blog of interest on many levels and
probably bound to generate many reactions:


It turns out that the 300 Energy Catalyzers ready for the 1-MW plant now 
also produce "perfectly dry" steam:


* * *

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=13#comment-47001

Dear Frank Di Bianca:
People that really understands our work and knows it and our Customers 
have no doubt that my reactors work pretty well.
About all the others, honestly, I do not care too much, they are either 
competitors, sometimes disguised as Research Laboratories anxious to 
validate, fake journalists sent by the same, or just honest sceptic who 
are not important for our market. Our universal credibility will come 
from our working plants that we will sell to our Customers. I leave to 
others, more supplied of free time, the burden to chatter of LENR, I 
have to make them, and I have not time to confront chatters.For example, 
we had recently a “fake” journalist here who wrote stupidities about the 
water in the steam: very good, my 300 reactors actually under stress 
tests are making steam without water, I mean perfectly dry steam, and 
they will go in operation not in my factory, but in the factory of our 
Customer: once my Customer has dry steam produced by a 1 MW plant do you 
think that the stupidities of a snake are worth something?

Warm Regards,
A.R.

* * *

Cheers,
S.A.

[Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam


Hello group,

I'm quite sure I'm playing his game by reporting this here, but I found 
this message by Rossi on his blog of interest on many levels and 
probably bound to generate many reactions:


* * *

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=96&cpage=1#comment-47000

Dear Paolo:
The 1 MW plant which we will start up in Greece in October will generate 
heat. For power we are not yet ready, but we made a very important step 
forward in this week, because our reactors now produce a totally dry 
steam (no more traces of water in the steam) and this is a step forward 
to couple the turbines. We have 300 reactors in operation now in our 
factory, and we are making exponential progress day by day.

Warm Regards,
A.R.

* * *

So, does this imply that steam has never been totally dry so far? Many 
people appear to be quite sure it was exactly the case. Even I who have 
little technical expertise would agree about that, based on evidence 
seen so far.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

2011-06-18 Thread Jay Caplan

I agree. Since several devices have melted down before, it is obvious that it 
doesn't need elec input to work, just reacting nearby the high temps of the 
resistance element. Once heated uniformly to reaction temps and self 
sustaining, the key would be to pull off the energy fast enough with heat 
transfer fluids to keep temps below trouble levels, but in the best reaction 
range. When GE gets hold of this and turns their process engineers on to it 
(after 15 yrs of NRC delays) you may well see superb results.

I disagree that this common heat transfer fluid be heated by one of these 
devices for startup. More amenable to gas heating for initiation, since the 
optimal temp (maybe 500C could be reached for all of the fluid, then released 
through the piping to the reactor(s.) As they kick in, the flow rate used to 
adjust and hold the temp, dumping heat into steam production. With this level 
of temp control, the micro reactor array may be superseded by one large one.

- Original Message - 
  From: Jones Beene 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 10:44 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy


  What took so long?

   

  This is "good-news/bad-news" in a way. But it totally expected. In short, it 
can be shown logically that multiple units of any thermally triggered, 
overunity device MUST be amenable to operation with no input energy, once 
started. 

   

  IOW - this result is completely expected, and should not be a surprise to 
anyone - instead, the bad-news is why it has taken so long to become a part of 
the record.

   

  From recent images of the 4-unit E-Cat array - there does seem to be extra 
plumbing which is visible, and this would be the obvious way that excess heat 
from one unit is shared with others, so that eventually - the unit which 
started the recirculation process can itself be powered by the others; such 
that no input energy from outside the system is required. 

   

  The probable reason this expected result has been delayed is that the trigger 
temperature is higher than Rossi has previously indicated. 

   

  Indeed, Brian Ahern's results indicate a thermal trigger in the range of 500 
C for his active material, which is not as active as Rossi's (yet) but which is 
already near the limit of the safe operating range, so temperature control 
becomes the big issue - if an when - you try to recirculate the working fluid 
between multiple units . and for ease of operation, you must AVOID steam, if 
possible.

   

  It would not surprise me to hear - and I will make this an "official 
prediction" that when the MW unit is put into production, water will NOT be the 
heat transfer medium between the E-Cats. 

   

  Instead all of the units will be interconnected using a dedicated heat 
transfer fluid with lower volatility, which heat is eventually ported to an 
attached heat exchanger, which then heats the water for use in the factory or 
to drive a turbine. 

   

  The fluid will probably be one of the new replacements for PCBs like 
"diphenyl ether" - the new "Therminol" or an equivalent, which is the current 
choice for solar trough units, despite some toxicity issues.

   

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

   

  Jones

Re: [Vo]:Krivit's report and the unfortunate situation in Bologna

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

> No,  it makes good sense. This school of logic is thousands of years old
> and has been carefully thought out. You should not assume that you know
> better than philosophers and logicians.
>
>
> True.
>
> And that's an appeal to authority, too, by the way...  
>

It is recursive.

Another situation in which a properly framed appeal to authority is
acceptable, and often used, is in court testimony or in a Congressional
Investigation. In a jury trial, it is enough to say that Prof. So-and-so, an
expert in thus and such, and therefore his testimony should be admissible.

The prof.'s reasons might be too complicated to explain to the jury, so the
testimony might include only the reasons (or opinions, really) with no
scientific backing, but it is still legitimate. As I said, it is supporting
evidence, not proof.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

2011-06-18 Thread Axil Axil

IMHO, the mechanism behind the activity within the nano-sized nuclear sites
in the Ni-H reactor type is derived from some unusual form of hydrogen such
as Heavy Rydberg (H + / H –) system, Rydberg ions, atoms and/or matter in
one form or another or in combination. Production of Rydberg matter through
the catalytic action of an alkali metal is driven and controlled by both the
high temperature and pressure of the hydrogen gas envelope as currently
characterized by the Rossi reactor design.

If the active principle in the Rossi reactor involves Rydberg matter in one
form or another, control of the intensity of Rydberg atomic activity may be
affected by electrostatic and/or magnetic means since Rydberg atoms in its
various personifications are all characterized with large permanent electric
dipole moments and have a high sensitivity to electric fields. One
experiment that Rossi should try is to put a grid in the center of his
reaction chamber that can be electrostatically polarized.

If Rydberg matter is at the bottom of the Rossi reaction, some control might
be forthcoming through adjusting the polarization of this grid.

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

> At 12:08 PM 6/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Nothing took so long. They have been doing tests without input for a couple
>> of years. Levi described one in December. However, Rossi claims this mode of
>> running is dangerous because it cannot be controlled.
>>
>
> I've seen some rather silly skeptical comment protesting that you can't
> control heat with heat. Of course you can. Unstated is that cooling is also
> a control mechanism. The cooling is by generation of steam or hot water.
>
> Assume that the reaction rate increases with temperature. At a certain
> temperature, it runs away, and there is risk of destruction of the device
> and other damage. With a certain rate of cooling and a certain input heat,
> the reaction can be kept below the temperature at which self-heating is
> adequate to run away (under the cooling conditions). The heating would be
> started at a high input to bring the cell up to operating temperature, then
> lowered to just maintain that temperature. If it's lowered too much, the
> operating temperature drops and the generated heat drops with it, further
> lowering the temperature until the whole thing cools down to a (much) lower
> temperature.
>
> It's being operated, apparently, at a balance point. Other designs might
> limit the heat by limiting the fuel input, but that might be difficult to
> control as well, that is, there might be some OOP that is very sensitive. I
> can see why they'd want to control with input heat, it's pretty simple to
> manage, electrically, with few failure modes, and it's fail-safe, as long as
> one doesn't take the temperature up too high. Power failure, the thing shuts
> down.
>
> This would be the worry, that some uncontrolled condition cause an
> unexpected increase in reaction rate, taking the cell over the runaway
> temperature, in which case, obviously, lowering the input heat to zero would
> be ineffective, one would have to actually cool. Or quench with nitrogen, as
> was apparently done in one case. Having a cooling port where water would
> gain more direct thermal contact with the reaction chamber would be a
> shutdown mechanism that could be controlled.
>
> It is possible that the system could be engineered so that the presence of
> water in the cooling channels guarantees that the temperature doesn't go to
> runaway. All it would take is a *lot* of data and hard work.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

I wrote:

> I think [heat after death] is caused by having a large bulk of Pd that
> stores a lot of deuterium which gradually comes of the bulk to the surface.
>

I say that because the largest example of heat after death was Mizuno's
event in 1991. The cathode was 100 g. That is 100 to 1000 times larger than
most cathodes. As far as I know, it is the largest ever used.

Heat after death is dramatic, and it proves that all skeptical objections to
the calorimetry are nonsense, but as I said it probably has no deeper
significance. It is not technologically useful or even desirable.

You might classify all gas loaded heat as heat after death. That's a
different story.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy


At 12:32 PM 6/18/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

On 2011-06-18 18:27, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

Some more info:


* * *

3) What do you consider is the maximum âsafeâ output level?

4) Do you think the one megawatt power plant 
being opened by Defkalion might operate with zero input?


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=13#comment-46963

Dear Herald OPatterson,
Here are the additional answers:
3- the maximum safe output level is 10 kW per module
4- Not so far, it is too dangerous. So far. We 
are making modiles operate without input in this 
precise moment, but under my direct control.


Yeah. Controlling with electrical heat input is 
way simpler. It's been said that the output of 
one E-Cat could heat another. Not at the 
operating temperatures involved. It's necessary 
to be able to heat the reaction chamber to 
operating temperature, which is 450 degrees C or 
so. To do that, the generating E-Cat must operate at a higher temperature!


Unless, of course, electricity is generated, 
which is inefficient, but they may not care, if 
the waste heat is still available in the output. 
Thermoelectric power, though, doesn't seem to be 
efficient enough, my guess, if the E-Cat is 
operating at 6:1 excess power over input power, 
thermoelectric wouldn't cut it. But a hybrid 
solution might work: i.e., recirculate working 
fluid to reach a generated "internal ambient" 
temperature, then boost it with 
thermoelectric-generated power to produce 
reaction chamber temperature that's higher.


It's fun to think about but all this can easily be a waste of time.

The simple solution is to use mains power. You 
get heating that is (say) six times the mains 
power usage, which is certainly worth doing if 
the costs are low enough. You get easy control by 
electronics, no moving parts needed. The mains 
power is not wasted, it all ends up as heat.


Thermoelectrics would add a lot of equipment cost 
with not that much advantage that I can see. It's 
looking like an E-Cat is not much more than some 
plumbing, it could be very cheap to make with 
off-the-shelf parts. The expensive (and 
difficult) thing is the preparation of the 
catalyst/fuel, but they are claiming low 
refueling cost, and if that's true and not just 
smoke, then they will be, I'd expect, making 
money hand over fist at E 5000 per E-Cat, is that the price now?

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy


At 12:27 PM 6/18/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

On 2011-06-18 16:07, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info:


Some more info:

* * *

Could you please share a few extra details about the experiment?

- The size of the E-Cat (50cc or one liter in volume).
- How high the output went before the test had to end.
- What variables you are changing to allow for safe operation with zero input.

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=13#comment-46959

Dear Herald Patterson,
Thank you for your kind attention. Here are the answers:
1- 50 cc total
2- Once the Cat reached the stability, the 
output doesnât change. It ends within 20 minutes after you stop it.

3- hydrogen pressure, but it is still dangerous
Warm Regards,
A.R.


Bingo. Controlling with hydrogen input. Problem 
is, if you put in a little too much hydrogen, it 
would then run away. The fuel is not used up 
rapidly! That balance point might be very, very 
sensitive. Safer to keep the thing a little 
cooler, so that you've got some margin of control.

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy


At 12:08 PM 6/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Nothing took so long. They have been doing tests without input for a 
couple of years. Levi described one in December. However, Rossi 
claims this mode of running is dangerous because it cannot be controlled.


I've seen some rather silly skeptical comment protesting that you 
can't control heat with heat. Of course you can. Unstated is that 
cooling is also a control mechanism. The cooling is by generation of 
steam or hot water.


Assume that the reaction rate increases with temperature. At a 
certain temperature, it runs away, and there is risk of destruction 
of the device and other damage. With a certain rate of cooling and a 
certain input heat, the reaction can be kept below the temperature at 
which self-heating is adequate to run away (under the cooling 
conditions). The heating would be started at a high input to bring 
the cell up to operating temperature, then lowered to just maintain 
that temperature. If it's lowered too much, the operating temperature 
drops and the generated heat drops with it, further lowering the 
temperature until the whole thing cools down to a (much) lower temperature.


It's being operated, apparently, at a balance point. Other designs 
might limit the heat by limiting the fuel input, but that might be 
difficult to control as well, that is, there might be some OOP that 
is very sensitive. I can see why they'd want to control with input 
heat, it's pretty simple to manage, electrically, with few failure 
modes, and it's fail-safe, as long as one doesn't take the 
temperature up too high. Power failure, the thing shuts down.


This would be the worry, that some uncontrolled condition cause an 
unexpected increase in reaction rate, taking the cell over the 
runaway temperature, in which case, obviously, lowering the input 
heat to zero would be ineffective, one would have to actually cool. 
Or quench with nitrogen, as was apparently done in one case. Having a 
cooling port where water would gain more direct thermal contact with 
the reaction chamber would be a shutdown mechanism that could be controlled.


It is possible that the system could be engineered so that the 
presence of water in the cooling channels guarantees that the 
temperature doesn't go to runaway. All it would take is a *lot* of 
data and hard work.

Re: [Vo]:Helium does not correlate with total heat including electrolysis heat


At 12:00 PM 6/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:

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

(One skeptic has asserted that a hotter cell would leak more helium, 
say if seals were disturbed by the heat. As is common with 
pseudoskeptics, the explanations are fabricated and asserted as 
facts, when, for example, SRI used flow calorimetry, which 
maintained cell temperature at a constant value, so the "excess 
heat" is measured by the reduced power needed to keep the cell at 
constant temperature. Thus this would not be expected to have any 
effect on helium. In most PdD cold fusion, the temperature rise is small.)


I do not know which skeptic asserted this, but I asked Miles about 
this hypothesis. He pointed out that the total heat coming from the 
cells includes heat from electrolysis plus anomalous heat. This 
total heat does not correlate with helium. In some cases, there was 
no anomalous heat but electrolysis heat alone was higher than runs 
with anomalous heat. In these cases helium did not exceed the cell 
background. (I do not mean the atmospheric background, which is much higher.)


Shanahan came up with it in discussions on Wikipedia, as I recall. 
This is what I mean by ad hoc attempts to explain away the results. 
Someone is sitting in an armchair, so to speak, and thinks of how 
heat and helium could possibly be correlated without having a common 
cause. The levels of helium are too low to have helium somehow cause 
the heat, unless the heat/He-4 is very high. Like nuclear reaction high.


So the skeptic goes to having the heat cause the helium in some way, 
other than by actually generating it, since generating helium is, 
again, nuclear.


An alternate version of this has the hot cathode being contaminated 
with helium, which is driven out by the heat. That's not any better, 
for reasons Jed has well explained. They aren't "hotter." They have 
more excess heat if there is more helium, but "excess heat" doesn't 
mean "hotter." It means "hotter than expected from the energy input."


It gets even more complicated, one could imagine some kind of 
reaction in the cell involving helium that generates a heat anomaly 
(perhaps some kind of reaction) that, chemically in some way, drives 
out the helium contaminant. That, however, wouldn't explain helium 
above ambient unless the cathode material were *really* contaminated, 
and postulating this across the range of experiments gets Rube Golbergian.


A sane analyst at this point simply concludes that fusion is likely 
and moves on, if satisfied, to investigate other aspects. People in 
the field, already convinced by multiple evidences, have done this, 
nobody is falling over themselves trying to confirm heat/helium, 
because it's expensive and difficult. This is work that the U.S. DoE 
might, in theory, fund, it would be exactly what the 2004 report 
recommended, it would clarify issues.


This is the reproducible experiment that was supposedly so elusive. 
It had been improperly defined, people were looking for a single cell 
design that would always, with the same apparent conditions, produce 
the same heat. No, the "single experiment" should aim to produce the 
FPHE and measure helium, with maximum accuracy (accuracy for the heat 
is pretty easy, it's the helium, capturing all of it, that's tough, 
but it could be done). This "single experiment" would consist of a 
series of FP cells, large enough for the results to be overwhelmingly 
significant. The heat results can vary all over the map! That is, the 
fabulous "irreproducibility" actually becomes a valuable control.


I find this enormously funny. I think that we in the field had a kind 
of embarrassment about the variation in results, so it wasn't 
emphasized. What's truly important about SRI P13/P14 -- besides the 
famous event that has been displayed in red and blue all over the 
place -- was the two previous current ramps, same heavy water, same 
cathodes, same temperature, etc., where they saw nothing, before they 
saw the chimera, with its fabulous feathers and untamed personality. 
Third try is a charm. Once an experimenter saw this animal, they were 
never the same, no matter how many others asked them, "You saw WHAT? 
But that's impossible. We all know that chimeras are just a myth, 
they don't exist. Look, I tried and saw nothing. I even tried twice, 
just to be sure!"

Re: [Vo]:Steam velocity at black rubber hose exit point


At 11:38 AM 6/18/2011, Jeff Driscoll wrote:


Why does Rossi and Levi insist on doing tough steam measurements
versus creating a big tank of hot water?  I think the reason is
because they are perpetrating fraud.


There are two alternate explanations here that are, at present, 
impossible to disentangle. One is as you say, Jeff. The other is that 
they don't mind, or even want, to appear so.


While that is not a complete list of possible explanations, at least 
those two possibilities should be kept in mind.

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

Peter Gluck  wrote:

> As regarding heat after death in classical CF it was rather rare- I cannot
> remember  more than 5 documented cases.
>

Not true. Fleischmann andPons in France produced heat after death hundreds
of times. They ran banks of 64 cells and pushed them all to a boil-off
followed by heat after death. Biberian and Lonchampt replicated that.
McKubre and the people at Energetics Technologies also say they have
frequently observed heat after death.

Frankly, I do not think heat after death is particularly important, or that
it holds any deep secret. I think it is caused by having a large bulk of Pd
that stores a lot of deuterium which gradually comes of the bulk to the
surface.

I do not think heat after death has any commercial value. On the contrary,
you do not want a reaction that cannot be quickly quenched.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

2011-06-18 Thread Peter Gluck

Dear Mike,

As regarding heat after death in classical CF it was rather rare- I cannot
remember  more than 5 documented cases.
 Surely the Piantelli Cells and the E-cats have to be heated and stimulated
to start. When I am thinking or writing about the Ecat I imagine that I am
using one instead of my home Bosch gas burner for heating and warm water.
We still have to learn much about the E-cats. The Defkalion
Press Conference next week will be an opportunity, those nice people have to
manufacture and sell the units, fast enough to be profitable and depend on
real customers.They have my deepest empathy.
Peter

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Mike Carrell  wrote:

> Dear Peter,
>
> Rossi is dancing again. In CF it is called ‘heat after death’, but an
> energy investment is needed to elevated the cell into a operating region.
> Thereafter, with proper insulation, the reaction can continue indefinitely,
> against the cooling effect of phase conversion of water to steam. Randy
> conceived of a similar situation for one of his solid catalyst systems. If
> the E-Cat reaction has an inherent variability, managing a reactor array
> could be exciting, one might say. Such is an aspect of “commecializability”
> and can be a black hole for money in the attempt for 1 MW.
>
> ** **
>
> Warmest Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 18, 2011 10:28 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
>
> ** **
>
> Stimulating is good, negative stimulents as Steve's reaction
>
> are better, it seems. (No more tests, who said it?) 
>
> ** **
>
> We had the opportunity  to observe that the E-cat has quite sharp verbal
> claws, not always retracted.
>
> ** **
>
> Let's hope there will be energetically independent greater E-cats. 
>
> ** **
>
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Akira Shirakawa <
> shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello group,
>
> Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info:
>
> * * *
>
> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=12#comment-46906
>
> Dear C.Monti:
> Thanks for your smart insight.
> About the question: in these days we are making tests with zero energy
> input, to try to make them safe. Probably we are close. The day before
> yesterday a new Cat worked for one hour producing 15 kWh/h without energy
> input, then I had to stop mit because it was continuing to raise energy
> output. Anyway: yes, we have a power back up if grid goes black out.
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
>
> * * *
>
> When people start doubting, release new unexpected info.
>
> It appears Rossi is now close to producing 15 kW E-Cat devices that can
> reliabily work with no input energy. Magnificent! Now, let's hope he will
> soon be able to show one of them to the public for a reasonably long amount
> of time. That would be the conclusive proof of validity.
>
> Cheers,
> S.A.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
>
> Cluj, Romania
>
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>
> ** **
>
>
> 
> This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T.
> Department.
>



-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy


On 2011-06-18 18:27, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

Some more info:


* * *

3) What do you consider is the maximum “safe” output level?

4) Do you think the one megawatt power plant being opened by Defkalion 
might operate with zero input?


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=13#comment-46963

Dear Herald OPatterson,
Here are the additional answers:
3- the maximum safe output level is 10 kW per module
4- Not so far, it is too dangerous. So far. We are making modiles 
operate without input in this precise moment, but under my direct control.

Thans to you for communicate with me.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

* * *

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy


On 2011-06-18 16:07, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info:


Some more info:

* * *

Could you please share a few extra details about the experiment?

- The size of the E-Cat (50cc or one liter in volume).
- How high the output went before the test had to end.
- What variables you are changing to allow for safe operation with zero 
input.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=13#comment-46959

Dear Herald Patterson,
Thank you for your kind attention. Here are the answers:
1- 50 cc total
2- Once the Cat reached the stability, the output doesn’t change. It 
ends within 20 minutes after you stop it.

3- hydrogen pressure, but it is still dangerous
Warm Regards,
A.R.

* * *

Cheers,
S.A.

RE: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

2011-06-18 Thread Mike Carrell

Dear Peter,

Rossi is dancing again. In CF it is called 'heat after death', but an energy
investment is needed to elevated the cell into a operating region.
Thereafter, with proper insulation, the reaction can continue indefinitely,
against the cooling effect of phase conversion of water to steam. Randy
conceived of a similar situation for one of his solid catalyst systems. If
the E-Cat reaction has an inherent variability, managing a reactor array
could be exciting, one might say. Such is an aspect of "commecializability"
and can be a black hole for money in the attempt for 1 MW.

 

Warmest Regards,

Mike

 

 

From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 10:28 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

 

Stimulating is good, negative stimulents as Steve's reaction

are better, it seems. (No more tests, who said it?) 

 

We had the opportunity  to observe that the E-cat has quite sharp verbal
claws, not always retracted.

 

Let's hope there will be energetically independent greater E-cats. 

 

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Akira Shirakawa 
wrote:

Hello group,

Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info:

* * *

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360

&cpage=12#comment-46906

Dear C.Monti:
Thanks for your smart insight.
About the question: in these days we are making tests with zero energy
input, to try to make them safe. Probably we are close. The day before
yesterday a new Cat worked for one hour producing 15 kWh/h without energy
input, then I had to stop mit because it was continuing to raise energy
output. Anyway: yes, we have a power back up if grid goes black out.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

* * *

When people start doubting, release new unexpected info.

It appears Rossi is now close to producing 15 kW E-Cat devices that can
reliabily work with no input energy. Magnificent! Now, let's hope he will
soon be able to show one of them to the public for a reasonably long amount
of time. That would be the conclusive proof of validity.

Cheers,
S.A.




-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck

Cluj, Romania

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

 



This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

2011-06-18 Thread Peter Gluck

Please do not forget, Piantelli had a cell  working with no input, at 70W
already in 2000. Then his lab was relocated more times and his progress has
slowed down. But now he is working again
.
Therefore a working zero input E-cat is quite "naturaL' even if as Rossi
claims, the two Ni-H LENR processes are not related
Peter

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>   What took so long?
>>
>
> Nothing took so long. They have been doing tests without input for a couple
> of years. Levi described one in December. However, Rossi claims this mode of
> running is dangerous because it cannot be controlled. This has often been
> discussed here. It is listed here:
>
>
> http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator:Rossi%27s_Hints
>
> "The reaction can be made self-sustaining with the resistance heaters
> turned off. This was done in a preliminary test with U. Bologna professors.
> (SL)"
>
>
> This is “good-news/bad-news” in a way. But it totally expected. In short,
>> it can be shown logically that multiple units of any thermally triggered,
>> overunity device MUST be amenable to operation with no input energy, once
>> started.
>>
>
> I don't see why. That is like saying an internal combustion engine should
> be able to run with the fuel pump turned off.
>
>
>
>> IOW – this result is completely expected . . .
>>
>
> It is not "expected." That implies future tense. This result has already
> been reported. (It is conceivable that the reports are untrue, but in any
> case, something that has already reported cannot be "expected.")
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

Jones Beene  wrote:

  What took so long?
>

Nothing took so long. They have been doing tests without input for a couple
of years. Levi described one in December. However, Rossi claims this mode of
running is dangerous because it cannot be controlled. This has often been
discussed here. It is listed here:

http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator:Rossi%27s_Hints

"The reaction can be made self-sustaining with the resistance heaters turned
off. This was done in a preliminary test with U. Bologna professors. (SL)"

This is “good-news/bad-news” in a way. But it totally expected. In short, it
> can be shown logically that multiple units of any thermally triggered,
> overunity device MUST be amenable to operation with no input energy, once
> started.
>

I don't see why. That is like saying an internal combustion engine should be
able to run with the fuel pump turned off.

> IOW – this result is completely expected . . .
>

It is not "expected." That implies future tense. This result has already
been reported. (It is conceivable that the reports are untrue, but in any
case, something that has already reported cannot be "expected.")

- Jed

[Vo]:Helium does not correlate with total heat including electrolysis heat

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

(One skeptic has asserted that a hotter cell would leak more helium, say if
> seals were disturbed by the heat. As is common with pseudoskeptics, the
> explanations are fabricated and asserted as facts, when, for example, SRI
> used flow calorimetry, which maintained cell temperature at a constant
> value, so the "excess heat" is measured by the reduced power needed to keep
> the cell at constant temperature. Thus this would not be expected to have
> any effect on helium. In most PdD cold fusion, the temperature rise is
> small.)
>

I do not know which skeptic asserted this, but I asked Miles about this
hypothesis. He pointed out that the total heat coming from the cells
includes heat from electrolysis plus anomalous heat. This total heat does
not correlate with helium. In some cases, there was no anomalous heat but
electrolysis heat alone was higher than runs with anomalous heat. In these
cases helium did not exceed the cell background. (I do not mean the
atmospheric background, which is much higher.)

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

2011-06-18 Thread Jones Beene

What took so long?

 

This is "good-news/bad-news" in a way. But it totally expected. In short, it
can be shown logically that multiple units of any thermally triggered,
overunity device MUST be amenable to operation with no input energy, once
started. 

 

IOW - this result is completely expected, and should not be a surprise to
anyone - instead, the bad-news is why it has taken so long to become a part
of the record.

 

>From recent images of the 4-unit E-Cat array - there does seem to be extra
plumbing which is visible, and this would be the obvious way that excess
heat from one unit is shared with others, so that eventually - the unit
which started the recirculation process can itself be powered by the others;
such that no input energy from outside the system is required. 

 

The probable reason this expected result has been delayed is that the
trigger temperature is higher than Rossi has previously indicated. 

 

Indeed, Brian Ahern's results indicate a thermal trigger in the range of 500
C for his active material, which is not as active as Rossi's (yet) but which
is already near the limit of the safe operating range, so temperature
control becomes the big issue - if an when - you try to recirculate the
working fluid between multiple units . and for ease of operation, you must
AVOID steam, if possible.

 

It would not surprise me to hear - and I will make this an "official
prediction" that when the MW unit is put into production, water will NOT be
the heat transfer medium between the E-Cats. 

 

Instead all of the units will be interconnected using a dedicated heat
transfer fluid with lower volatility, which heat is eventually ported to an
attached heat exchanger, which then heats the water for use in the factory
or to drive a turbine. 

 

The fluid will probably be one of the new replacements for PCBs like
"diphenyl ether" - the new "Therminol" or an equivalent, which is the
current choice for solar trough units, despite some toxicity issues.

 

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

 

Jones

[Vo]:Steam velocity at black rubber hose exit point

2011-06-18 Thread Jeff Driscoll

On Steve Krivit's blog:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/

Steve writes:
"On my request Tuesday, Rossi removed the hose from the drain.
Before doing so, he carefully lifted the last meter of the hose above
the height of the drain, allowed any water in it to flow down the
drain for a few seconds, and then removed the hose from the drain,
keeping the open end pointed up. I could see some white steam slowly
exiting from the hose. He said he had to put it back in the drain
quickly, after a few seconds, otherwise it could be dangerous."

It is hard to know the velocity of the steam exiting the black rubber
hose in Rossi's experiment. Below are some calculations in Excel
based on all the liquid turning to vapor.

Krivit says (above) "I could see some white steam slowly exiting from
the hose".

Caveat: In Krivit's observation we don't know the thermal power level,
the water flow rate or if it is just at the beginning.

Let's look at human breath velocity when blowing really hard as a reference.

I don't know the velocity of human breath - I tried to google it but
got nothing. I did a back of the envelope calculation.
Assume One breath = 1000 cc (I measured mine when blowing very hard)
and assume you open your mouth so that the opening has a size of about
0.7 cm tall and 1.5 cm wide (I measured this to get this estimate)
and assume you blow it all out in 0.25 seconds.
This gives a breath velocity of 90 mph.

The equation for the water vapor velocity in the chart below is:
velocity = 7366 * water mass flow rate / (diameter^2)

where:
velocity is mph
mass flow rate is in grams/sec
black hose inner diameter is in inches

The equation for Power in the chart below was based on heating water
from 10 C to 100 C and then totally vaporizing it.
The equation for Power is:
Power = mass flow rate * 2.634
where:
Power is in kW
mass flow rate is in grams/sec

Below is a chart of steam vapor exit velocity for Rossi's experiment
for reference. It's a mixture of SI units and English units (i.e.
inches, mph, grams).

Col 1. Black Hose Inner Diameter (in)
Col 2. Mass flow rate in grams per sec (g/s)
Col 3. Steam 100% Vapor Exit Velocity (mph)
Col 4. Thermal Power (kW)

Col 1Col 2 Col 3 Col 4
---------
0.4 5 23013.2
0.5 5 14713.2
0.6 5 10213.2
0.7 5 7513.2
0.8 5 5713.2
0.9 5 4513.2
0.4 3 138 7.9
0.5 3 88 7.9
0.6 3 61 7.9
0.7 3 45 7.9
0.8 3 35 7.9
0.9 3 27 7.9
0.4 2 92 5.3
0.5 2 59 5.3
0.6 2 41 5.3
0.7 2 30 5.3
0.8 2 23 5.3
0.9 2 18 5.3

My question is:

What did the steam look like when it exited the black hose? Was it
transparent right at the exit point? If it is white then it is a
mixture of vapor and droplets. Theoretically the steam could be 100%
tiny droplets and have very little thermal energy in it (it would be
1/6 of the energy in totally transparent 100% vapor on a mass basis).

Was it moving as fast as a person could blow?

Why does Rossi and Levi insist on doing tough steam measurements
versus creating a big tank of hot water? I think the reason is
because they are perpetrating fraud.

Jeff

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative

2011-06-18 Thread Terry Blanton

Rich has always formed opinions with insufficient data . . . at least
for the 15 or so years I have been on this list.

T

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative


At 12:07 AM 6/18/2011, Rich Murray wrote:
Say, you two, what do you mean by, "Well, Rich, your underpants are 
showing." ?

I asking, because I don't get it...


It means that your personal bias is visible, what's underneath your opinions.



I meant that I'm sure there's no excess heat in the Rossi devices, and
I mean it when I said I regret that.

I prefer to state that I'm sure, rather than hedge my bets.


You imagine that your own certainty is about the thing rather than 
about yourself. "Sure" means "certainty."


Given how little information we have, certainty is much more a 
product of expectation than of observation. Certainty, in this 
environment, reflects internal closure of issues.


Internal closure is placing a bet. Nothing wrong with placing a bet, 
it's a choice. If you are not "hedging your bets," then you are 
betting without hedge, i.e., placing all your eggs in one basket, the 
basket of Bad Science, Bogosity, Error.



I imagine that Rossi and associates are genuinely, innocently self-deluded.


I can imagine all kinds of things, but as soon as I treat my 
imagination as if it were observation, I'm sunk, stuck. I might 
happen to be right, on occasion, as to ultimate fact, but 
procedurally I'm wrong. My approach will miss things, important 
things, transformative things, things that break the boxes we live in.


Skepticism at this point, about Rossi, is quite understandable, and 
is not pseudoskepticism when it is not based on certainty of 
impossibility. Pseudoskepticism is "pseudo" because it forgets to be 
skeptical about itself. A real skeptic is skeptical about his or her 
own skepticism, which is why real skeptics are curious, at least to a degree.


They may not put a lot of energy into investigation, that's a "bet" 
that we all must consider, and we put significant energy into what we 
imagine might be fruitful. It's an error, though, to take the 
necessity of this kind of betting and turn it into an accusation 
against others, which is one of the things that pseudoskeptics do.


"Not only is the field completely bogus pseudoscience, but anyone who 
even thinks, for a moment, that it might be real, even gives someone 
else a forum to explain the evidence they have found, is 
"self-deluded." With no evidence as to *that* other than the 
pseudoskeptics own certainty.


Skeptical certainty is an oxymoron.


So, the parade leads to the moment when a little boy, underpants
showing, cries, "The Emperor has no clothes!"

I've been wanting to believe, too.


Maybe that's part of the problem, Rich. You are looking for a reason 
to believe, but prematurely judging the evidence, because you want 
answers. Genuine skepticism requires high levels of patience, 
requires accepting that one may never know.


The Fleischmann-Pons effect was extremely difficult to set up. We now 
know a lot of reasons why this was so, and with what has been 
elaborated, the entire body of experimental evidence fits together 
like a giant jigsaw puzzle. But to see this can take massive exposure 
to the data, without classifying it into "junk" and "good." Or, for 
that matter, "negative" and "positive." Experimental results are just 
experimental results, what happened. Where we get into trouble is in 
the interpretation. What does this "mean"?


As we read the reports, if we classify them into Positive and 
Negative, we then build up some kind of voting system, and we look 
for a majority winner. But that's not science, it's politics, and has 
little to do with truth. The truth is the experimental results, we 
get no closer to truth than that. Theory and "meaning" are human 
inventions, supplied by us, they are not a part of reality itself. As 
I'm hearing frequently now -- Rich, you probably know where I'm 
getting these ideas -- "human beings are meaning-making machines." 
It's what we do, and we are good at it.


However, it also can trap us, when we confuse the meanings we have 
created with what actually happened. If we think that there were 500 
"negative papers" and 600 "positive papers," what's our conclusion? 
Easy: "preponderance of the 'evidence' is positive."


But what if there is a possible interpretation that all the papers 
confirm? Isn't this much more likely to be "the truth," i.e, of 
higher predictive value, as well as higher value in organizing data 
and experience?


That kind of interpretation becomes possible when one becomes 
familiar with the entire corpus of work, and the entire effort at 
theorizing regarding it. I found, at the LANR Colloquium last 
weekend, that I heard a number of theorists discuss the physics of 
cold fusion, each with his own approach. And they were dovetailing, 
all leading toward the same conclusions, a picture of what happened, 
with experiment and theory.


Peter Hagelstein presented some theoretical analysis of models 
regarding deuterium loading in SRI experiments. He pointed out that 
the models classically used by electrochemists -- and the 
electrochem

Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy

2011-06-18 Thread Peter Gluck

Stimulating is good, negative stimulents as Steve's reaction
are better, it seems. (No more tests, who said it?)

We had the opportunity  to observe that the E-cat has quite sharp verbal
claws, not always retracted.

Let's hope there will be energetically independent greater E-cats.

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Akira Shirakawa
wrote:

> Hello group,
>
> Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info:
>
> * * *
>
> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-**physics.com/?p=360&cpage=12#**
> comment-46906
>
> Dear C.Monti:
> Thanks for your smart insight.
> About the question: in these days we are making tests with zero energy
> input, to try to make them safe. Probably we are close. The day before
> yesterday a new Cat worked for one hour producing 15 kWh/h without energy
> input, then I had to stop mit because it was continuing to raise energy
> output. Anyway: yes, we have a power back up if grid goes black out.
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
>
> * * *
>
> When people start doubting, release new unexpected info.
>
> It appears Rossi is now close to producing 15 kW E-Cat devices that can
> reliabily work with no input energy. Magnificent! Now, let's hope he will
> soon be able to show one of them to the public for a reasonably long amount
> of time. That would be the conclusive proof of validity.
>
> Cheers,
> S.A.
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy


Hello group,

Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info:

* * *

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=12#comment-46906

Dear C.Monti:
Thanks for your smart insight.
About the question: in these days we are making tests with zero energy 
input, to try to make them safe. Probably we are close. The day before 
yesterday a new Cat worked for one hour producing 15 kWh/h without 
energy input, then I had to stop mit because it was continuing to raise 
energy output. Anyway: yes, we have a power back up if grid goes black out.

Warm Regards,
A.R.

* * *

When people start doubting, release new unexpected info.

It appears Rossi is now close to producing 15 kW E-Cat devices that can 
reliabily work with no input energy. Magnificent! Now, let's hope he 
will soon be able to show one of them to the public for a reasonably 
long amount of time. That would be the conclusive proof of validity.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative