Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

> At 07:56 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
>
>> Cude, Lomax:
>>
>> To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it
>> is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet.
>>
>> One presumption is that an auxillary source of heat energy, such as
>> resistive heating, is capable of controlling an exothermic reaction having
>> greater heat output than the auxillary heat supplied by a factor exceeding
>> about 6.
>>
>> Does this thermal energy gain obtained in this manner sound physically
>> reasonable to either of you?
>>
>
> It's plausible as a control method, depending on the temperature response
> of the active material.
>
> The active material will presumably have an increased reaction with
> increased temperature. If we raise the temperature to the point where there
> is the 6X evolution of heat, we may still be below self-sustaining
> temperature. So if the extra heat is removed, the reactor becomes cooler,
> and as it cools, the heat generation slows, etc.
>

I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the temperature up
to the ignition threshold, and then the thing generates 6 or more units of
power on its own, I can't see how removing the first one could possibly
bring the temperature below ignition.

To me, if the thing that initiates the reaction is heat, and the reaction
generates even more heat, it will sustain itself, just like combustion. You
need matches to start fires, but not to sustain them.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

> At 11:58 AM 7/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
>  On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Damon Craig <
>> de**cra...@gmail.com > wrote:
>> Cude, Lomax:
>>
>> To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it
>> is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet.
>>
>>
>> Evidence is the responsibility of the guy making the claim.
>>
>
> Okay, who is making the claim that we are examining here? Rossi? Rossi has
> zero responsibility to us
>
>
Well, Rossi is making claims and providing evidence. We are examining the
evidence and some of us find that it doesn't support his claims. I don't see
how we can use his evidence to prove his claims are wrong, and if his
evidence doesn't support his claims, I don't see why anyone should prove his
claims wrong.

If someone claims he can fly by flapping his arms, but can't demonstrate it,
who would bother to try to prove that it's not possible?

Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

> No, increased pressure is caused by the pump (I have little idea how much
> it will cause, but my guess is that this isn't enough to raise the pressure
> to atmospheric), and by steam pressure from boiling. Even a little boiled
> water will significantly raise the pressure.
>
> This leads to a possible analysis. [...] from an on-line calculator for
> steam flow through an orifice.
>
>
I also found an on-line calculator that calculates the pressure difference
to produce a given flow of steam through conduits of given diameter and so
on. For steam (unlike water) the pressure difference turns out to be most
sensitive to the number and geometry of the various fittings, like
expanders, reducers, and elbows, all of which are present, and give rise to
an overall K-factor.

But there is no category for 2-phase flow, even if we knew the ratio, and so
even with detailed knowledge of the geometry, I think the only purpose such
an analysis serves is to make a slightly elevated boiling point
plausible. Any attempt to extract enthalpy information from such slight
elevations, is trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, at least
without careful calibrations.

And why bother? Rossi could either decrease the flow rate so the steam was
dry and well above the boiling point (by tens of degrees), or increase the
flow rate to prevent any phase change, and these speculations would be
unnecessary.

Re: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview

[Damon Craig]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:

> At 06:47 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
>
>> OK. So no one has looked closely at the goofy temperature curve in the
>> Levi report of the December 16, 2010 demonstration which he claimed was
>> evidence of an exothermic reaction (and cold fusion).
>>
>  There is a copy of the report at http://freeenergydocs.com/wp-**
> content/uploads/2011/02/Levi-**and-Bianchini-Reports.pdf
> .
>
>>
>> Here's an analysis I wrote a few weeks ago:
>>
>>
>> In his report Levi claimed the temperature curve of the output as evidence
>> of an exothermic reaction. This bold and bewildering deduction lead many of
>> us to believe he possessed inside information he was not at the time
>> sharing. At the same he did not share information, if he had it, as to how
>> the input heat may have been varied over time.
>>
>
> Aw, c'mon. It's bold only because the very claim that the device exists is
> bold. The chart does show evidence of two shifts in heat production.
>
> OK, we agree.

>
>
>
 A pot of water placed on the stove undergoes three phases: warming,
>> simmering and boiling. The temperature curve reported could be described by
>> more common physics in the following scenario.
>>
>>
>> We can identify at least 4 different modes of heating in the Rossi device
>> with different effects on a thermometer measuring liquid in the chimney.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) The device is divided into two zones; vertical and horizontal. The
>> internal chamber within the horizontal zone restricts water flow between
>> these two zones.
>>
>>
>>
>> An internal heater within the "reaction" chamber and an external band
>> heater supply heat to the horizontal zone.
>>
>
> While two heaters is possible, it's not what is reported. The description
> here is a bit garbled. There are two chambers, the reaction chamber and the
> cooling chamber. There may be a third chamber, a closed coolant chamber that
> transfers heat from the reaction chamber to the cooling chamber. I think
> it's been said that this is a solution of water and some dissolved chemical
> that raises the boiling point.
>
> This extra cooling chamber sounds like some flight of fancy, imagined to
explain some peculiar observation. I don't think it's relevant, nor does
it's inclusion fit the profile of the device.


> If I'm correct, the external band heater supplies heat to the reaction
> chamber, which then implies that either the reaction chamber is at one end,
> or the reaction chamber surrounds the cooling chamber(s). I'm not looking at
> all the released information. But I've seen nothing that would indicate a
> second heater, though it's obviously not impossible.
>
> The external band heater supplies heat to the copper water jacket. The
reaction chamber is in the bulbous portion of the horizontal section,
constructed of 316 SS according to Rossi. In best reverse design estimates
it consists of a 1/2 standard class 3000, 316 SS "T", although Rossi is a
bit nutty so could be using class 150 (150 psi rating). See for example
McMaster Car part number 4443K644

http://www.mcmaster.com/#stainless-steel-pipe-fittings-and-pipe/=da8d5t

The internal cartridge heater is evidenced by the two fibre glass insulated
wires protruding from the pressure vessel. See Rossi's international patent
appication for confirmation.

Two pipe nipples, a plug then reduction fittings to accommodate the
cartridge heater complete a chamber that dictates the profile of the copper
jacket we've all become familiar with.

Pierce by a 12 mm. diameter cartridge heater the T fitting has a capacity of
113 grams Ni powder assuming a density of 6.9 g/cm^w3.


>
>  2) As heat is initially supplied, there is a relatively small rate of
>> temperature increase in the vertical zone through convection of water, and
>> conduction through the metal parts.
>>
>
> At this point, the theory goes, the heat is not being efficiently
> transferred to the chimney part of the cooling chamber.
>
>
>  3) During a second phase, in which the average water temperature is below
>> the boiling point, the water simmers on the heated surfaces. The agitation
>> provided by simmering increases the rate of convective heat transfer from
>> the horizontal to the vertical zone. dT/dt increase.
>>
>
> I'm a bit surprised to see a sharp knee if the cause of increased dT/dt is
> "simmering." That would generally have slow onset, I'd think, as bubble
> generating increases.
>
> Good point of disagreement. It seems the first knee would have a large
curvature.

>
>  4) During a third phase, after the water temperature in the horizontal
>> member reaches its boiling point, a steam bubble collects in the bulb of the
>> horizontal member. Hot water is forced into the vertical member, and dT/dt
>> of the vertical zone increases once again. The steam bubble quickly
>> overflows and steam enters into the vertical column.
>>
>
> Sur

Re: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

>
> While two heaters is possible, it's not what is reported. The description
> here is a bit garbled. There are two chambers, the reaction chamber and the
> cooling chamber. There may be a third chamber, a closed coolant chamber that
> transfers heat from the reaction chamber to the cooling chamber. I think
> it's been said that this is a solution of water and some dissolved chemical
> that raises the boiling point.
>
> If I'm correct, the external band heater supplies heat to the reaction
> chamber, which then implies that either the reaction chamber is at one end,
> or the reaction chamber surrounds the cooling chamber(s). I'm not looking at
> all the released information. But I've seen nothing that would indicate a
> second heater, though it's obviously not impossible.


The E & K report mentions an auxiliary heater inside the reactor, and shows
pictures of where the wires for it come out. It's hard to see how they could
claim a band heater could ignite the reaction, since they have said it
occurs at a few hundred degrees, but the water never exceeds 100C. In fact
it's hard to see the purpose of the band heater at all, except to heat the
water.

Re: [Vo]: Prof. Kullander now an Ecat critic?

[Damon Craig]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:

> At 07:30 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
>
>
>> Essen and Kullander:
>>
>>  "At the end of the horizontal section there is an auxiliary electric
>> heater to initialize the burning and also to act as a safety if the heat
>> evolution should get out of control."
>>
>> This is the first mistake: presumption presented as fact. The presumption
>> is that there exists in the device anomalous heat generation.
>>
>
> Give me a break, he's just reporting there, the claimed function of a part
> of the device.
>
> No. This is the first unobjective statement within the report presenting
hearsay as fact. It's simply poor science probably aggrivated by the fact
that Rossi payed for their junket to Italy.

>
>  However, I'm not interested in picking these poor guys apart piece by
>> piece, combing every sentence they've written to leverage ridicule. They're
>> going to have enough of this soon enough. They probably already know if
>> they're monitoring anything coming out of Vortex-L.
>>
>
> By the way, that claim of function has been ridiculed. How can a heater be
> used as a "safety" if heat evolution "gets out of control." But E&K were
> probably just reporting the claim here. After all, this part of their report
> was obviously not based on an observation of what happens during runaway!
>
> They seem to have garbbled something they were told.

>

Personally, if I saw signs of runaway with this thing, I'd look for the
> nearest exit or object that might shield me from shrapnel.
>
> The "auxiliary electric heater" is used, it appears to be claimed, to
> control the temperature of the reaction chamber when it is operating below
> runaway temperature (i.e, self-maintaining temperature or anything above
> it). By requiring this extra heat, there is then some control of the
> reaction. Rossi also has added cooling power to shut the reaction down,
> apparently. Looks like Defkalion may be planning on using hydrogen pressure
> for control.
>
> Sometime this weekend I may have something closer to a definative answer
on: The control of a large amout of exothermic reaction by a smaller
quantity of heat and if the over unity gain claimed by Rossi is physically
feasible. My aging version of MathCad has not made the job easy.

However, manually changing pressure and water flow is not real time process
control. These are not control methods but would be safety measures. It's
all bogus anyway.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

I think I'll have to take this one step at a time.

Do you all realize that you could swim up into the sky in
steam containing 90% by mass water?

It is not a part of our life experiences to have witnessed steam at anytime
having this anywhere near this liquid water content. Keep the eyes open to
what everyday experience teaches us about the physical world we live in.

As there is not information on the WWW on what to expect on steam wetness,
but we can resort to our life experiences in boyancy in regards to our
encounters with steam to infer what we should expect in a rough way.

The key word is boyancy. What is the densest thing you have ever seen
floating in a vapor of steam, Joshua?


On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Damon Craig  wrote:
>
>>  Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the "really wet steam" theory anymore
>> the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize that.
>>
>
> What gives you that idea? To my mind, really wet steam is still the most
> likely explanation for what is observed in Rossi's demos. My earlier reply
> to Lomax was devoted to making this point. By the time it reaches the end of
> the hose, I suspect there is probably some separation of phases; that is
> from entrained droplets to some flowing liquid. Lewan collects about half of
> the input liquid in his bucket. The rest of the liquid probably comes out as
> fine droplets (mist).
>
>
>>
>>
>> Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid
>> by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it.
>>
>
> Please. 97% liquid by mass is still only 2% liquid by volume. That means
> the density would be .02*1g/cc + .98*(1/1700)g/cc = .02 g/cc, about 50 times
> less dense than water. This sort of wet steam (3% quality) is entirely
> plausible and is studied extensively in the literature.
>
>
>> Even 10% mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my
>> estimate.
>>
>
> And what is your estimate based on? Probably not on forcing steam and water
> through a conduit using a pump. The mist produced by an ultrasonic mist
> humidifier contains only liquid (at first). There is no vapor produced at
> all. The fine droplets evaporate after they are suspended in the air.
>
> I was interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid.
>>
>
> Obviously the droplets are not buoyed by the steam. They are entrained.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, but not
>> that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing it. It seems it
>> would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break surface tension so
>> often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the argument would defeat
>> itself.
>>
>
> What is huge? It takes far more energy to vaporize it. In fact in
> calorimetric measurements of steam quality, no consideration of surface
> tension is made. It is negligible.
>
>>
>>
>> The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a Niagara
>> Falls and I don't think this would float a cork.
>>
>
> That mist, like the mist from a cool humidifier is of course mixed with
> air, but what you do see is that the droplets are in fact suspended in the
> air. And when it's windy, the mist is carried along with the wind.
> Entrainment!
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

The steam temperature is not measure at the location of evolution but futher
along in the device toward the exit.

For those of us adhering to the Water Flow-though Hypothesis, the
thermometer is further toward the water surface at the height of the outlet
where the pressure is less than that where it originates.


On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Joe Catania  wrote:

> I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its
> characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem that
> the metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass of water
> which will increase the pressure somewhat over ambient. This raises the
> steam formation temp so that the steam over the ambient steam formation
> temp.
>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the temperature up
> to the ignition threshold, and then the thing generates 6 or more units of
> power on its own, I can't see how removing the first one could possibly
> bring the temperature below ignition.
>
> I don't either.

Do have a sound argument that says it can't happen? I don't. I'm looking for
it.

A good of an uncontrollable exothermic reaction is the ignition of gun
powder. Taking away the match will not stop the reaction.

A counter example is the evolution of tunsten vapor from a heated light bulb
fiaiment. If, somewhere in the filament is a length that is two or three
percent smaller in diameter than the rest, the filament will eventually burn
through at this spot.

The narrow section runs a little hotter. Because it runs a little hotter,
the tungsten in this section vaporizes a little faster than the rest of the
filament. This causes it's resistance to decrease faster than the rest of
the wire.

This in turn causes it to vaporize faster, so there is positive feedback.
Eventually the tiny difference in diameter will cause the filament to fail
at this point. And this is how most light bulbs eventually fail.

But it's easy to control. We just turn off the light switch and we've turned
off the run-away reaction.

In the same way a heat source that stimulates an small exothermic reaction
can be controlled if it requires a large source of heat.

SoHow is this quantified, and does it disclude the claims
made of Rossi's gadget as non physical?




> To me, if the thing that initiates the reaction is heat, and the reaction
> generates even more heat, it will sustain itself, just like combustion. You
> need matches to start fires, but not to sustain them.
>
> Yes, another good example of an uncontrollable exothermic reaction.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Jouni Valkonen]

Craig, indeed that is true, liquid water does not contribute to the pressure
at all, because water does not gently flow out of the E-Cat, but is spilled
due to rather violent boiling at kW range in closed container.

Only thing that contributes for the pressure is steam flow pressure out of
the E-Cat and in the hose. Steam flow resistance is roughly the same in all
E-Cat setups, therefore steam temperature is depended directly and
comparably on total water heating power.

It was well established that wetness of the steam was something in order of
1-2% that is typical for normal boiling in closed container where there is
lots of spilling and water droplet density is high.

—Jouni

Ps. Craig, although Joshua's ultrawet steam is crack pot theory, he is
right, because 90% steam is not dense at all, but you measured it
volumetrically, i.e. you kept the volume constant. But do not play Joshua's
own game, because as discusser, he is a perpetual motion machine, whose
purpose is to flood as much as possible so that any meaningful discussion is
overflown. Volumetric measurement is completely irrelevant, because it
depends heavily on pressure.
On Jul 22, 2011 2:00 PM, "Damon Craig"  wrote:
> The steam temperature is not measure at the location of evolution but
futher
> along in the device toward the exit.
>
> For those of us adhering to the Water Flow-though Hypothesis, the
> thermometer is further toward the water surface at the height of the
outlet
> where the pressure is less than that where it originates.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Joe Catania  wrote:
>
>> I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its
>> characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem
that
>> the metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass of
water
>> which will increase the pressure somewhat over ambient. This raises the
>> steam formation temp so that the steam over the ambient steam formation
>> temp.
>>
>>>
>>
>>

RE: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview

[Robert Leguillon]

http://evworld.com/press/e-cat_cutaway.jpg

Two heaters.  The internal heater makes sense for bringing up the Ni-H to 
operating temperatures (and, presumably, keep it there). It's the purpose of 
the external heater that's puzzling.

Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 04:06:00 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview
From: joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com



On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  
wrote:



While two heaters is possible, it's not what is reported. The description here 
is a bit garbled. There are two chambers, the reaction chamber and the cooling 
chamber. There may be a third chamber, a closed coolant chamber that transfers 
heat from the reaction chamber to the cooling chamber. I think it's been said 
that this is a solution of water and some dissolved chemical that raises the 
boiling point.




If I'm correct, the external band heater supplies heat to the reaction chamber, 
which then implies that either the reaction chamber is at one end, or the 
reaction chamber surrounds the cooling chamber(s). I'm not looking at all the 
released information. But I've seen nothing that would indicate a second 
heater, though it's obviously not impossible.

The E & K report mentions an auxiliary heater inside the reactor, and shows 
pictures of where the wires for it come out. It's hard to see how they could 
claim a band heater could ignite the reaction, since they have said it occurs 
at a few hundred degrees, but the water never exceeds 100C. In fact it's hard 
to see the purpose of the band heater at all, except to heat the water.



  

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

I don't know how to visually estimate the wetness of steam. Why do you think
it's less than 5%?
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Damon,
>
> This is what I tried to explain before. Discussing about wetness of
> the steam is a moot point. The mass of  liquid in any of those video
> is visually less 5%, if that much. More than that, the liquid hose
> would pour bubbles. But forget about it, people won't listen to this.
> It seems they forgot these experiments can still have hidden power
> sources.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

Do you have an online reference or text reference to the 1-2% value for
typical wetness of steam?

I would like to have a reference source.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

> It was well established that wetness of the steam was something in order of
> 1-2% that is typical for normal boiling in closed container where there is
> lots of spilling and water droplet density is high.
>
> —Jouni
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Jouni Valkonen]

Damon, little two sec googling with cell phone gave me this link:

http://brewery.org/library/SteInjCS1295.html

It says that all boiling chambers produces about 98% dry steam. Therefore
wetness measurement that was 1.4-1.2% feels very reliable. I think that
wetness depens slightly on temperature difference between heating element
and water, but if this is the case, difference is rather small.

—Jouni
On Jul 22, 2011 2:36 PM, "Damon Craig"  wrote:

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

"the burden of proof lies with the claimant"

it does?

1) prove it.

2) in having made the burden-of-proof argument, are you obligated to me to
prove it?

3) what is your burden/penalty if you decide not to oblige me?


On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Damon Craig  wrote:
>
>> Cude, Lomax:
>>
>> To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it
>> is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet.
>>
>
> Evidence is the responsibility of the guy making the claim.
>
>>
>> One presumption is that an auxillary source of heat energy,
>>
>
> Until there is evidence of excess heat, this is not necessary.
>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Robert Leguillon
 wrote:
> http://evworld.com/press/e-cat_cutaway.jpg
>
> Two heaters.  The internal heater makes sense for bringing up the Ni-H to
> operating temperatures (and, presumably, keep it there). It's the purpose of
> the external heater that's puzzling.

Early on, I speculated that the band heater serves as an anode with
the internal heater as a cathode allowing a current to flow through
the reactor core providing an excess of electrons (in addition to
heating the core).  After all, the theory is one of electron capture,
eh?

T

Re: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview

[Jouni Valkonen]

Perhaps auxiliary heater is for preheating inlet water so that the
temperature gradient of water is smoother. This would help to maintain more
constant temperature in the core and thus increase controllability, as heat
energy from reactor core is used for making steam at constant temperature,
but not for warming water. Finding equilibrium might be more difficult if
there is extra variable involved with warming water.

This could explain why small reactors do not reduce input power when
reaction starts, because it is just diverted to auxiliary heater. With large
E-Cats, there presumably was not auxiliary heater, but when reactor was
started, input power was just reduced. But as power output was so large,
warming little water did not make much of difference.

As Rossi was in hurry to build working MW-plant for public demo purpose,
this kind of short cut in design would make sense, because control issues
could be solved later. And as Rossi and Stremmenos now confirmed, it is now
solved.

—Jouni
On Jul 22, 2011 3:37 PM, "Terry Blanton"  wrote:

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig  wrote:

> I think I'll have to take this one step at a time.
>
> Do you all realize that you could swim up into the sky in
> steam containing 90% by mass water?
>

I don't think you read what I wrote. The density of water vapor at 100C is
1700 times lower than that of liquid water. That means that even steam that
has 97% liquid by mass in it has a density 50 times less than water. You
can't swim in that.

Steam that is 90% liquid by mass is 99.4% vapor by volume. That means the
density is about 200 times less than water. You see, density involves mass
and volume, and very wet steam is still mostly vapor by volume.

Think about that before you make ridiculous comments about buoyancy.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joe Catania]

Yes its not measured but it follows that it must be higher due to the increased 
pressure.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Damon Craig 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 6:59 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement


  The steam temperature is not measure at the location of evolution but futher 
along in the device toward the exit.

  For those of us adhering to the Water Flow-though Hypothesis, the thermometer 
is further toward the water surface at the height of the outlet where the 
pressure is less than that where it originates.


  On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Joe Catania  wrote:

I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its 
characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem that the 
metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass of water which 
will increase the pressure somewhat over ambient. This raises the steam 
formation temp so that the steam over the ambient steam formation temp. 

[Vo]:Seebeck effect in the E-Cat?

[Jones Beene]

Terry,

Stray current between two resistance heaters would be counter-intuitive,
since the heaters are supposed to be well insulated electrically, and
therefore not thermionic - so we must ask: what kind of current flow is even
possible between two resistance heaters should you desire to maximize that
feature? Could the heaters have been altered to assist in thermionics? I
believe they could.

Of course, everything about the Rossi device is a bit counterintuitive
(assuming it is producing anomalous heat above the trigger temperature but
I'm surprised no one has considered a thermionic possibility more than
superficially. Current flow could be vitally important. A few catalysts work
ONLY when charged. 

To restate the obvious, the external band heater, operating through the
water flow CANNOT heat the reactor more than superficially to begin with -
presenting the case that it almost has to have *some other function.* What
is that function?

We know the power supply is PWM from the type of controller used - but we do
not know the details, and PWM covers a wide range of possibilities. There
appears to be no dedicated ground (earth). The internal heater will
naturally be hotter, due to its location, and would naturally function as a
thermionic cathode to some degree, to the extent that it can do so - since
electron flow will follow thermal flow. The voltage difference between the
two heaters would be minimal but current could be stronger than anyone
realizes.

Matter of fact, even when the heaters are off, there could be current flow
if the "lead shielding" is in fact there for the main purpose of creating a
Seebeck effect. Bianchini proved that there was zero radioactivity during a
long period of operation (not low, but zero above background) so the 
"lead" must serve some other purpose.

All of this is based on supposition more than fact, but why not consider the
possibility that current flow through the device is necessary, and the
Seebeck effect provides it when the resistence heaters are turned off ?  



-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

Early on, I speculated that the band heater serves as an anode with
the internal heater as a cathode allowing a current to flow through
the reactor core providing an excess of electrons (in addition to
heating the core).  After all, the theory is one of electron capture,
eh?

T

<>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joe Catania]

A major error in my previous post. It should be ~4J/gK x 70K= ~300J/g whereas 
heat of vaporization is ~2200J/g so obviously the inlet cold water will not be 
able to provide 100% of the cooling to condense the steam but only about 10%. 
But perhaps the large bulk of water in the E-Cat could provide the rest of it. 
I fail to see the purpose of the inlet temp sensor. Perhaps there was a sensor 
more toward the middle of the E-cat that Rossi decided to eliminate because it 
showed less than 100C and would have raised flags amongst the critical public.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Joe Catania 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 8:43 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement


  Yes its not measured but it follows that it must be higher due to the 
increased pressure.
- Original Message - 
From: Damon Craig 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement


The steam temperature is not measure at the location of evolution but 
futher along in the device toward the exit.

For those of us adhering to the Water Flow-though Hypothesis, the 
thermometer is further toward the water surface at the height of the outlet 
where the pressure is less than that where it originates.


On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Joe Catania  wrote:

  I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its 
characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem that the 
metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass of water which 
will increase the pressure somewhat over ambient. This raises the steam 
formation temp so that the steam over the ambient steam formation temp. 

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig  wrote:

> It is not a part of our life experiences to have witnessed steam at anytime
> having this anywhere near this liquid water content.
>

It depends on your life experience. It is certainly part of Mitra et al's
experience as documented in IEEE Sensors Journal 11 (2011) 1214, where they
not only produce steam more than 95% wet by mass, but find a way to measure
it.

Keep the eyes open to what everyday experience teaches us about the physical
> world we live in.
>

The sort of wet steam that I'm talking about is produced in confined
conduits with rapidly moving steam; just the sort of thing that could exist
inside the ecat, and not the sort of thing that is part of most people's
life experience; at least not that they would be aware.


As there is not information on the WWW on what to expect on steam wetness,
> but we can resort to our life experiences in boyancy in regards to our
> encounters with steam to infer what we should expect in a rough way.
>

Why exactly would you expect your experience with buoyancy in a static,
unconfined fluid inform your idea of what happens with a rapidly moving
2-phase fluid in a confined volume?

>
> The key word is boyancy. What is the densest thing you have ever seen
> floating in a vapor of steam, Joshua?
>

I don't claim to have seen 97% wet steam (by mass); I claim its existence in
the ecat is entirely plausible -- even likely. In any case, even styrofoam
is denser than 97% wet steam (by mass), and I don't know any solids with
lower density than that.

Re: [Vo]:Seebeck effect in the E-Cat?

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> Terry,
>
> Stray current between two resistance heaters would be counter-intuitive,
> since the heaters are supposed to be well insulated electrically,

Not necessarily.  Note that the internal heater could be a nichrome or
tungsten wire in actual contact with the reactor powder for direct
heating (oh, have you considered it could also have a small motor to
stir up the powder a la Les Case?).  As long as the reactor housing is
isolated from ground and the PWM supply, it would not be a problem.

The band heater works by a heating element in the bottom of the band.
If one lead of this heater is used as a current (electron) return,
then one of the internal elements could be used as a source.  The
return lead of the band heater would have to be tied to the housing of
the ecat or the band with no insulation between the band and the
housing.  Indeed, there are probably band heaters where the return
lead is connected to the band for safety purposes.

However, I am not discounting your comment regarding the Seebeck
effect.  I'll need to wrap my head around that one for a bit.

T

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 04:06 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:


On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
<a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
It's plausible as a control method, depending on the temperature 
response of the active material.


The active material will presumably have an increased reaction with 
increased temperature. If we raise the temperature to the point 
where there is the 6X evolution of heat, we may still be below 
self-sustaining temperature. So if the extra heat is removed, the 
reactor becomes cooler, and as it cools, the heat generation slows, etc.



I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the 
temperature up to the ignition threshold, and then the thing 
generates 6 or more units of power on its own, I can't see how 
removing the first one could possibly bring the temperature below ignition.


First of all, I don't believe the 6X ratio, it's looking like a bit 
less to me, because of factors that have been discussed in many 
places. But let's assume that.


To me, if the thing that initiates the reaction is heat, and the 
reaction generates even more heat, it will sustain itself, just like 
combustion. You need matches to start fires, but not to sustain them.


No, it doesn't generate "even more heat." Initiation is not truly 
abrupt, not to 6X power, as we can see from the temperature behavior. 
(We actually can't see the final adjustment, no data has been 
provided for that. It can't be seen in the chimney temperature 
profiles, because they are already nailed to boiling.


Look at it this way. If we assume a reaction rate that depends on 
temperature, increasing with increased temperature, there would be a 
temperature at which the reaction generates just enough heat to 
maintain that temperature under the conditions, which includes a 
cooling chamber at the boiling point.


This would be an equilibrium temperature, but it would be unstable, 
because, if any condition varies, the reaction would either quench as 
it cools or run away as it heats, assuming that runaway is possible.


There would be a temperature below that at which the reaction would 
not be generating that much heat. The heater(s) are used to bring the 
reaction chamber to a desired temperature, known to be below the 
self-sustaining temperature. Running closer to the equilibrium 
temperature, the device becomes more potentially unstable. The 6X 
ratio, apparently, represents a compromise temperature, below 
self-sustaining, requiring external heat to be maintained. Much 
higher ratios have been reported, along with some fear (real or 
pretended) of runaway.


I'm becoming very uncertain about the E-Cat design itself. If it's 
true that the external heater is heating the cooling chamber, its 
only function would be to speed up the process of reaching operating 
temperatures, and that only a little. In the Kullander and Essen 
demo, input power was noted as being only a little more than the 300 
Watt rated heating power of the outer band heater. What's heating the 
reaction chamber to the higher temperatures, then?


I'd been thinking of a reversed design, with the reaction chamber 
being on the outside, so that the band heater heated it, with cooling 
being on the inside. The insulated wires? Temperature sensor in the 
reaction chamber, necessary for control. This idea about the band 
heater, though, would require the band heater itself to go to 
probably over 400 degrees. Is that sensible? Any sign that this thing 
was getting that hot?


It's like opening a can of spaghetti and finding that half of the 
pasta is actually worms. "Gee, it looked like pasta to me!"


Easy test for temperatures like that: touching it with some water, 
those who witnessed open demos. That water should instantly sizzle 
and vaporize. Spit will do.


I can't resist this:

A certain Italian engineer/inventor/entrepreneur:

"What you doing? You spit on my invention? You snake, you clown, you 
spy! Leave and never come back, you and everyone like you!" 

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 06:48 AM 7/22/2011, Damon Craig wrote:

I think I'll have to take this one step at a time.

Do you all realize that you could swim up into the sky in steam 
containing 90% by mass water?


Absolutly not. You are thinking, Damon, of 90% by volume. 

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 06:59 AM 7/22/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
The steam temperature is not measure at the location of evolution 
but futher along in the device toward the exit.


For those of us adhering to the Water Flow-though Hypothesis, the 
thermometer is further toward the water surface at the height of the 
outlet where the pressure is less than that where it originates.


"Adhering to a hypothesis," I call "believing."

We don't really know where the thermometer level is, though it is 
well below the outlet to the hose. It could be at the level of the 
steam generation. Maybe. 

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 07:24 AM 7/22/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

Craig, indeed that is true, liquid water does 
not contribute to the pressure at all, because 
water does not gently flow out of the E-Cat, but 
is spilled due to rather violent boiling at kW range in closed container.


No, that's an error. The E-Cat operation, in the 
demos, begins with water flowing through, due to 
the pumping. That would be gentle flow. What 
happens later is unclear, and that depends on 
internal conditions that we cannot observe directly.


Only thing that contributes for the pressure is 
steam flow pressure out of the E-Cat and in the 
hose. Steam flow resistance is roughly the same 
in all E-Cat setups, therefore steam temperature 
is depended directly and comparably on total water heating power.


An analysis of temperature and pressure, I just 
wrote for the CMNS list. I'll add it below.


It was well established that wetness of the 
steam was something in order of 1-2% that is 
typical for normal boiling in closed container 
where there is lots of spilling and water droplet density is high.


It is very much not well-established. However, 
there are two problems, both somewhat semantic in 
nature. The real question is how much water is 
vaporized. Failure to vaporise a known flow can 
come from two sources: literal overflow of liquid 
water and wetness of steam. Both would be 
expected to some degree. What degree is actually 
found? We don't know, we have inadequate data, 
and that inadequacy has been maintained by Rossi 
unwillingness to allow definitive demonstrations.


from my post to CMNS:

Assume Temperature of chimney: 100.5 degrees.
Assume Boiling at ambient pressure of 99.6 degrees.

Interpolate pressure in chimney from 
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/saturated-steam-properties-d_457.html


pressure: 1 bar, temperature 99.63 C.
pressure: 1.1 bar, temperature, 102.32 C.

Interpolated pressure at 100.5 C.: 1.036 bar
Interpolated steam density: 0.610 kg/m^3

Raw steam flow if no hose. Assume orifice from chamber, 1/2 inch.

Estimate from http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/steam-flow-orifices-d_1158.html

Overpressure, 0.036 bar, 1 psig = 68.948×10^3 bar, 0.522 psig

This is off the chart. However, assuming 
linearity, I come up with 40 lb./hour, which is 
18 kilograms, and the claimed flow rate is 5 
g/sec, oir 18.5 kg/hr. That is an amazing 
coincidence, and is not a confirmation of that 
exact value, considering how rough the chart is.


However, there is a hose attached. If we assume 
18.5 kg/hr flow, 3 meters of 15 mm ID hose, steam density of 0.590 kg/m^3,


http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/steam-pressure-drop-calculator-d_1093.html

gives a drop of  10978 Pa. 1 Pa = 10^-5 bar. That 
would be a drop of about 0.1 bar, as has been 
stated. However, we don't, in this marginal 
calculation, have any pressure left, the flow 
through the orifice was estimated based on the 
pressure difference with atmospheric.


In fact, the steam flow will be reduced because 
of back pressure from the hose, so that the 
figures match, with the sum of pressures 
equalling the total elevation of chimney pressure over ambient.


The expansion of the steam into the hose is a 
factor of 1.40 by area ratio. Steam cannot cool 
until the wetness approaches 100%, but the steam 
will become wetter, reducing the steam volume, so 
that "steam flow" is reduced. If I take the Mats 
Lewan report as indicating that half the steam 
condenses in the hose, this will reduce the 
"steam flow" to 9.25 kg/hr, reducing back pressure to 2744 Pa.


I'm not going further with this. If I take the 
data straight, as it is, and assume accuracy 
(which is unreasonable, but it does allow us to 
see what ball-park estimates could be), I come up 
with an indication that 75% vaporization, very 
roughly and without doing more exact math than is 
found above, seems quite reasonable. Given the 
roughness of the data, it is not impossible that 
there is full vaporization, and it is possible 
that vaporization is below 50%, I have not done an exact analysis.


And the reason for that is not only lack of time, 
but that this is not going to nail anything down, 
there is so little data. I return to my basic 
conclusion, we don't have enough data to be sure 
about the Rossi E-Cat either way.


However, claims that the data is contradictory, 
on the basis of steam pressure calculations, seem to fail.

Re: [Vo]:Seebeck effect in the E-Cat?

[Axil Axil]

There are two counterarguments to the proposition that an electric or
electronic based mechanism contributes to the establishment or the control
of the Rossi effect.



First, for much of the long history of the Cat-e development, a single
heater was used to activate and control the Cold fusion reaction in the
Cat-e.  Such a design was documented in the patent Rossi originally made
public. The second heater option was added in one particular deign
configuration when the ultra-small Cat-e was developed to counter the
downsizing of the primary internal heater at start up.



A critical reaction mechanism must be reflected in every design option to be
considered as causative to the reaction, IMHO.



Second, there is a cat-e design option currently in development that does
not use any input energy to control the Rossi reaction. This type of design
will absolutely speak against any non-thermal control agent affecting the
Cat-e reaction.



Best regards



Axil


On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Terry,
>
> Stray current between two resistance heaters would be counter-intuitive,
> since the heaters are supposed to be well insulated electrically, and
> therefore not thermionic - so we must ask: what kind of current flow is
> even
> possible between two resistance heaters should you desire to maximize that
> feature? Could the heaters have been altered to assist in thermionics? I
> believe they could.
>
> Of course, everything about the Rossi device is a bit counterintuitive
> (assuming it is producing anomalous heat above the trigger temperature but
> I'm surprised no one has considered a thermionic possibility more than
> superficially. Current flow could be vitally important. A few catalysts
> work
> ONLY when charged.
>
> To restate the obvious, the external band heater, operating through the
> water flow CANNOT heat the reactor more than superficially to begin with -
> presenting the case that it almost has to have *some other function.* What
> is that function?
>
> We know the power supply is PWM from the type of controller used - but we
> do
> not know the details, and PWM covers a wide range of possibilities. There
> appears to be no dedicated ground (earth). The internal heater will
> naturally be hotter, due to its location, and would naturally function as a
> thermionic cathode to some degree, to the extent that it can do so - since
> electron flow will follow thermal flow. The voltage difference between the
> two heaters would be minimal but current could be stronger than anyone
> realizes.
>
> Matter of fact, even when the heaters are off, there could be current flow
> if the "lead shielding" is in fact there for the main purpose of creating a
> Seebeck effect. Bianchini proved that there was zero radioactivity during a
> long period of operation (not low, but zero above background) so the
> "lead" must serve some other purpose.
>
> All of this is based on supposition more than fact, but why not consider
> the
> possibility that current flow through the device is necessary, and the
> Seebeck effect provides it when the resistence heaters are turned off ?
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Terry Blanton
>
> Early on, I speculated that the band heater serves as an anode with
> the internal heater as a cathode allowing a current to flow through
> the reactor core providing an excess of electrons (in addition to
> heating the core).  After all, the theory is one of electron capture,
> eh?
>
> T
>
>

RE: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 07:27 AM 7/22/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote:

http://evworld.com/press/e-cat_cutaway.jpg

Two heaters.  The internal heater makes sense for bringing up the 
Ni-H to operating temperatures (and, presumably, keep it there). 
It's the purpose of the external heater that's puzzling.


How authoritative is that drawing? It's from Passerini, and is 
labeled "speculative rendering." This is no source at all for the structure.


The external heater would rapidly raise the coolant to boiling, thus 
expediting turn-on. It's a very strange method of control, if the 
external heater is thought to be a control. The real control, with 
much more rapid response, would be the internal heater.


If the 300 W is going into the external band heater, in those demos, 
what's left for the internal heater?


Something is radically off here. 

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 07:48 AM 7/22/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:


Damon, little two sec googling with cell phone gave me this link:

http://brewery.org/library/SteInjCS1295.html

It says that all boiling chambers produces about 98% dry steam. 
Therefore wetness measurement that was 1.4-1.2% feels very reliable. 
I think that wetness depens slightly on temperature difference 
between heating element and water, but if this is the case, 
difference is rather small.


As a Wikipedia editor, I became very sensitive to "synthesis," where 
someone asserts that a source says something that it doesn't.


That source actually says this:

All boiling chambers usually produce steam that is 98% saturated 
vapour and 2% water droplets, i.e. it is "wet" and "saturated". This 
is important to remember. The % dry is called the steam "quality".


Notice that the source says "usually." That's because commercial 
boilers, what is being described, are designed to produce good-quality steam!


Jouni, quoting the source, left out the word "usually," strongly 
changing the meaning.


Further, the context is completely lost, that this isn't really "all 
boiling chambers," i.e., every possible boiling chamber, but rather 
normal ones. He's talking, later, about using a pressure cooker, 
i.e., a large, open chamber, with a single escape opening at the top. 
Design a different boiling chamber where steam must heavily mix with 
water under more turbulent conditions, you can and will get higher wetness.


The "wetness measurement" would refer to certain measurements using 
unknown and unstated procedures, based on readings from a relative 
humidity meter. Nobody has been able to explain how to use an RH 
meter for steam quality, and it appears impossible, the RH meter will 
give the same readings for any saturated steam, i.e., any level of wetness.


In other places, a small elevation in temperature was used to claim 
that the steam was dry, whereas the chamber was clearly nailed at 
boiling, for the likely pressure, but dry steam would not be 
self-regulating at that temperature. The steam, from the temperature 
records, appears to be wet, wetness being unmeasured.


In some demos, temperature varies slightly, which is easily 
attributed to variations in pressure produced by how the hose was 
handled. It's slight.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 07:48 AM 7/22/2011, Damon Craig wrote:

"the burden of proof lies with the claimant"

it does?

1) prove it.

2) in having made the burden-of-proof argument, are you obligated to 
me to prove it?


3) what is your burden/penalty if you decide not to oblige me?


Arguments like this assume absolutes that aren't, they are 
interpretations, sometimes widely supported, which doesn't change 
that they are intepretations.


Essentially, "burden" is a social construct, it doesn't exist aside 
from human conventions. There is no "burden meter."


So, when there are arguments over this, they can easily boil down to 
"My imagined absolute standards are better than your imagined 
absolute standards. You are wrong, I'm right. Q.E.D."


This can then take various forms: "My imagined absolute standards are 
shared by all right-thinking people. People who do not share these 
standards are, by definition, not "right-thinking.'"


Sometimes, the claimant asserts that "The majority support my 
position." Sometimes this could be established -- this can be made 
into an objective assessment under some conditions -- but often it's 
just an assertion, based on the belief of the claimant that his or 
her own position is obviously the only reasonable one, and we assume 
that the majority are reasonable, right?


Wrong. Not necessarily! Majority opinion is certainly of interest, 
but anyone who makes it into an authority has lost the possibility of 
moving out of established ideas. The majority, even, may be *usually* 
right, but about what?


About usual questions, those they have experience with 

Re: [Vo]:Seebeck effect in the E-Cat?

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Second, there is a cat-e design option currently in development that does
> not use any input energy to control the Rossi reaction.

Allegedly.  Unless, of course, you have taken a job with Defkalion and
aren't telling us.  ;-)

I'll bet 'cha there will always be an electric component to the
initiation of the reaction either way.

T

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat open source replication

[Axil Axil]

RE: The evidence for nano-powder welding as one of Rossi’s secrets is strong
but circumstantial in the 10kw unit whose reaction vessel volume is 1 liter.



In one recent demo of the 10-kw Cat-e, a short output power excursion
occurred where the  input output ratio went over 1600 during the 130 kW
burst.



This extreme intensity of this output power excursion is conclusive proof
that the nano-powder must be coated evenly over the entire surface area of
the reaction vessel walls.



If this extreme burst of power was concentrated in a 100 gram pile of nickel
nano-powder that pile would have surely liquefied and burnt a hole in the
reaction vessel wall upon which it sat.



Unless the 100 grans of nickel nano-powder was evenly distributed over the
entire surface of the reaction vessel, the burn-through of the reaction
vessel is certain.


On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The evidence for nano-powder welding as one of Rossi’s secrets is strong
> but circumstantial in the 10kw unit whose reaction vessel volume is 1 liter.
>
>
>
>
>
> First, the 100 gram pure nickel nano-powder fills only 1% of the volume of
> this one liter reaction vessel. This small amount of powder cannot be
> “packed” in such a large volume. A 100 gram pile of nano-powder would form a
> small clump at the bottom of the reaction vessel.
>
>
>
> If all the heat came from this small 100 gram pile of powder, the pile
> would burn a hole in the reaction vessel through the formation of a very hot
> spot.
>
>
>
> Second, Rossi said that the powder can reach a temperature of 1600C. Nickel
> Nano-powder will melt and/or degrade well below this melting point (1000C?)
> of the bulk material at 1350C.
>
>
>
>
>
> Third, the ash of the Rossi reactor he gave to the Swedes contains 10% iron
> that Rossi said was not produced through the action of transmutation from
> the reaction,,, but was produced by “scrubbing”; a Rossi quote.
>
>
>
>
>
> Forth, the nuclear heat that will have been produced by a pile of
> nano-powder throughout the entire though minuscule volume of this powder
> will be poorly conducted through that volume.
>
>
>
>
>
> This is caused by the randomized surface structures and associated
> protuberances and irregularities of each nano-powder particle. This
> porcupine like tubules will keep the surfaces of each nano-particle from
> mating flush with its neighbors to make efficient transfer of heat
> impossible to all the surrounding walls of the reaction vessel; in sum, any
> heat conduction through the volume of such a powder will be very poor.
>
>
>
> By contrast in support of the powder coating case, Rossi is using tubercles
> to increase the cross-section of his reaction well over what can be produced
> in a well ordered smooth nickel lattice. A tubercle is atomic mound of
> randomized topology created on the metal’s surface. Rossi is using these
> tubercles to disrupt the regularity of the nickel lattice to increase the
> strength of the atomic bonds of the nickel atoms.
>
>
>
> When there is a lattice defect on the surface of a lattice, the
> coordination number (CN) of the atoms that form the defect decreases. As a
> result, the remaining atomic bonds shorten and deform; this increases the
> strength of the remaining bonds of the nickel atoms on the walls in and
> around the tubercles.
>
>
>
> These atomic CN imperfections induce bond contraction and the associated
> bond-strength gain deepens the potential well of the trapping in the surface
> skin. This CN reduction also produces an increase of charge density, energy,
> and mass of the enclosed hydrogen contained in the relaxed surface skin
> imperfection. This increased density is far higher than it normally would be
> at other sites inside the solid.
>
>
>
> Because of this energy densification, surface stress and tension that is in
> the dimension of energy density will increase in the relaxed region of the
> disruption lattice bonds.
>
>
>
> For example, when a nickel wall lattice phonon wave breaks upon the surface
> imperfection, it is amplified by the abrupt discontinuity in the lattice and
> is concentrated by the increased bond-order-length-strength (BOLS) of the
> nickel atoms that form the walls of the cavity.
>
>
>
> His phonon behavior is highly improbable is a simple pile of nano-powder.
>
>
>
> This tight coupling allows the thermodynamic feedback mechanism to control
> and mediate the reaction. It also amplifies and focuses the compressive
> effects that phonons have on the hydrogen (Rydberg atoms) contained in the
> lattice defects. These defects increase the intensity of the electron
> screening because of the increased bond tension inside the defects.
>
>
>
> Nano-defects are very tough. This toughness and associated resistance to
> melting and stress is conducive to the production of high pressure inside
> the defect.
>
>
>
> Rossi has stated that his temperature of his nano-powder can reach 1600C
> before it melts. Nano-powder usually m

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Jouni Valkonen]

2011/7/22 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax :
> However, claims that the data is contradictory, on the basis of steam
> pressure calculations, seem to fail.
>

Thanks for these calculations – they sound reasonable. For me it seems
that E-Cat worked properly only in Mats Lewan's hands where power
output was comparable to that what was claimed. In other
demonstrations there are, I think, significant discrepancies, but at
least in all demonstrations, expect perhaps in June, there is clear
excess heat present.

For memory refreshment, here are the temperature anomalies and my
estimations for corresponding total power output in all 6
demonstrations of E-Cat: in December (101.6°C / 9kW), January (101.2°C
/ 6kW), March (100.2°C / 1.2 kW), April (100.6°C / 2kW) and June
(100.1°C / 1kW)

Estimations for December and January demonstrations are very rough,
but I think that they are over 5kW in any case, as inflow rate of
water was 13kg/h.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:

> At 04:06 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
>> I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the temperature
>> up to the ignition threshold, and then the thing generates 6 or more units
>> of power on its own, I can't see how removing the first one could possibly
>> bring the temperature below ignition.
>>
>
> First of all, I don't believe the 6X ratio, it's looking like a bit less to
> me, because of factors that have been discussed in many places. But let's
> assume that.


They've claimed much more than that: 20 times or so in the January demo.

Of course you know I don't buy the ratio either. And that's why I don't
spend much time thinking about the workings of the ecat. All I'm saying is
that if the ratio is more than 2, the need for the input doesn't make sense.
So there appears to be an inconsistency apart from the failure to
demonstrate the ratio.


>
>
>  To me, if the thing that initiates the reaction is heat, and the reaction
>> generates even more heat, it will sustain itself, just like combustion. You
>> need matches to start fires, but not to sustain them.
>>
>
> No, it doesn't generate "even more heat."


I agree, but they certainly claim it does.



> Initiation is not truly abrupt, not to 6X power, as we can see from the
> temperature behavior.


It doesn't have to be abrupt. But once the thing is generating as much power
as was needed to start the process, it should be able to maintain it on its
own.



> Look at it this way. If we assume a reaction rate that depends on
> temperature, increasing with increased temperature, there would be a
> temperature at which the reaction generates just enough heat to maintain
> that temperature under the conditions, which includes a cooling chamber at
> the boiling point.
>

The temperature T0 that the input power brings it to is enough to get the
reaction going. Once the reaction produces that much power or more, then the
temperature will not drop below T0 and so the reaction will keep going. What
am I missing?


>
> There would be a temperature below that at which the reaction would not be
> generating that much heat. The heater(s) are used to bring the reaction
> chamber to a desired temperature, known to be below the self-sustaining
> temperature.


If that temperature initiates the reaction, and the reaction can produce the
same power as the input, then that would be a self-sustaining temperature.

>
> I'm becoming very uncertain about the E-Cat design itself. If it's true
> that the external heater is heating the cooling chamber, its only function
> would be to speed up the process of reaching operating temperatures, and
> that only a little. In the Kullander and Essen demo, input power was noted
> as being only a little more than the 300 Watt rated heating power of the
> outer band heater. What's heating the reaction chamber to the higher
> temperatures, then?
>

The K&E report claims an auxiliary heater in the reactor, and shows pictures
of the leads for it.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Jouni Valkonen]

2011/7/22 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax :
> Essentially, "burden" is a social construct, it doesn't exist aside from
> human conventions. There is no "burden meter."
>

Again you are on a roll! This burden of proof argument is silly and
widely spread pseudoargument.

Usually it works, because if Alice tells something to Bob, Alice
usually wants Bob to believe her. Therefore burden of proof is here in
Alice's hands. But in this case Rossi has made a bold claim, but does
not benefit a single bit whether we believe him or not, but instead
our endless curiosity does not rest until we get some, even partial
clarification. Therefore in this case, burden of proof is in our hands
and we need to find discrepancies or evidences whether E-Cat claim is
trustworthy or not.

Although, excess heat claims are exaggerated, I think that considering
how many persons are involved to this magic performance, I still trust
100% to Rossi. With a hoax in hand, it is impossible to make money,
not least because in order to sell anything that contains nuclear
reactions, you need to have licence from the authorities, to ensure
it's safety. Oddities on how E-Cat was brought into discussion makes
some sense, because Rossi has very clear cut personal philosophy,
although his choice was not the most sensible one. But I am accusing
ridiculous patent legislation!

–Jouni

[Vo]:PESN reports that Rossi 1 MW reactor may be self-sustaining

[Jed Rothwell]

See new article. There are some statements in this article I have not heard,
and some stuff I doubt is true:

http://pesn.com/2011/07/21/9501874_Rossis_Self_Sustaining_One_Megawatt_Reactor/

I think it is more likely that it will require minimal input energy. The
input to output ratio will be high.

People here have described the ratio as 1:6. That it may be in many recent
tests, but it has been much higher in some other tests, and it has been
infinite in heat after death. There is no reason whatever to think it is
stuck at 1:6. That is just a matter of engineering.

I think someone here referred to the idea that the device is a sort of
energy amplifier. That is, something that uses a flow of energy to tap into
a source of energy and extract it at rate depending on input power. I do not
think any cold fusion reactor fits this description. The connection between
input energy and output heat is complicated and indirect. With the
electrochemical cells, all else being equal, output is somewhat proportional
to input because high input boosts high loading which in turn boosts the
heat. But I would not call that amplification.

- Jed

[Vo]:Neutrons from Piezonuclear Reactions

[Harry Veeder]

paper from Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 34 no 2, 2009

Neutrons from Piezonuclear Reactions
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-​342/aflb342m669.pdf

ABSTRACT. We report the results obtained by cavitating water solutions
of iron salts (Fe(Cl)3 and Fe(NO3)3) with different concentrations
at different ultrasound powers. In all cases we detected a
neutron radiation well higher than the background level. The neutron
production is perfectly reproducible and can at some extent be controlled.
These evidences for neutron emission generated by cavitation
support some preliminary clues for the possibility of piezonuclear reactions
(namely nuclear reactions induced by pressure and shock waves)
obtained in the last ten years. We have been able for the first time to
state some basic features of such a neutron emission induced by cavitation,
namely: 1) a marked threshold behavior in power, energy and
time; 2) its apparent occurring without a concomitant production of 
radiation.
(They used passive neutron detectors made by BTI.) 

slide show presentation
http://iccf15.frascati.enea.it/ICCF15-PRESENTATIONS/S6_O5_Carpinteri_Lacidogna.pdf


Harry

Re: [Vo]:Seebeck effect in the E-Cat?

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Terry sez:

...

> I'll bet 'cha there will always be an electric component to the
> initiation of the reaction either way.

Nah! All'ya need is a Ford Model "T" crank.

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

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Harry Veeder]

It would be more accurate to say the reaction depends on a temperature 
difference between the reactor and the water rather than on the temperature of 
the reactor. 
 
No?
Harry

From: Joshua Cude 
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 1:11:59 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
>
>
>
>
>
>On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  
>wrote:
>
>At 04:06 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the temperature up 
>>>to the ignition threshold, and then the thing generates 6 or more units of 
>>>power on its own, I can't see how removing the first one could possibly 
>>>bring the temperature below ignition.
>>> 
>>First of all, I don't believe the 6X ratio, it's looking like a bit less to 
>>me, because of factors that have been discussed in many places. But let's 
>>assume that.
>
>
>They've claimed much more than that: 20 times or so in the January demo. 
>
>
>Of course you know I don't buy the ratio either. And that's why I don't spend 
>much time thinking about the workings of the ecat. All I'm saying is that if 
>the ratio is more than 2, the need for the input doesn't make sense. So there 
>appears to be an inconsistency apart from the failure to demonstrate the 
>ratio. 
>
>
>>
>>
>>To me, if the thing that initiates the reaction is heat, and the reaction 
>>generates even more heat, it will sustain itself, just like combustion. You 
>>need matches to start fires, but not to sustain them.
>>> 
>>
No, it doesn't generate "even more heat." 
>
>
>I agree, but they certainly claim it does.
>
>
>
>Initiation is not truly abrupt, not to 6X power, as we can see from the 
>temperature behavior. 
>
>
>It doesn't have to be abrupt. But once the thing is generating as much power 
>as was needed to start the process, it should be able to maintain it on its 
>own. 
>
>
>
>Look at it this way. If we assume a reaction rate that depends on temperature, 
>increasing with increased temperature, there would be a temperature at which 
>the reaction generates just enough heat to maintain that temperature under the 
>conditions, which includes a cooling chamber at the boiling point.
>>
>
>
>The temperature T0 that the input power brings it to is enough to get the 
>reaction going. Once the reaction produces that much power or more, then the 
>temperature will not drop below T0 and so the reaction will keep going. What 
>am I missing? 
>
>
>>There would be a temperature below that at which the reaction would not be 
>>generating that much heat. The heater(s) are used to bring the reaction 
>>chamber to a desired temperature, known to be below the self-sustaining 
>>temperature. 
>
>
>If that temperature initiates the reaction, and the reaction can produce the 
>same power as the input, then that would be a self-sustaining temperature.
>
>>I'm becoming very uncertain about the E-Cat design itself. If it's true that 
>>the external heater is heating the cooling chamber, its only function would 
>>be to speed up the process of reaching operating temperatures, and that only 
>>a little. In the Kullander and Essen demo, input power was noted as being 
>>only a little more than the 300 Watt rated heating power of the outer band 
>>heater. What's heating the reaction chamber to the higher temperatures, then?
>>
>
>
>The K&E report claims an auxiliary heater in the reactor, and shows pictures 
>of the leads for it.  
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Seebeck effect in the E-Cat?

[Jed Rothwell]

Steven V Johnson wrote:


Nah! All'ya need is a Ford Model "T" crank.


We're in luck, then. We have plenty of cranks in this field.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Harry Veeder]

To be more precise, the temperature difference between the inside of the 
reaction vessel and the water cannot be greater than a certain value  or 
the generation of heat will cease and the difference cannot be less than a 
certain value or the reactor temperature will then begin to rise 
autonomously until the vessel melts. These curcial temperature differences are 
calculated by subtracting the water temperature from the optimal operating 
temperature of the vessel's interior. 
 
 
Harry 

From: Harry Veeder 
>To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" 
>Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 4:11:42 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
>
>
>It would be more accurate to say the reaction depends on a temperature 
>difference between the reactor and the water rather than on the temperature of 
>the reactor. 
> 
>No?
>Harry
>
>
>From: Joshua Cude 
>>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 1:11:59 PM
>>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  
>>wrote:
>>
>>At 04:06 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the temperature up 
to the ignition threshold, and then the thing generates 6 or more units of 
power on its own, I can't see how removing the first one could possibly 
bring the temperature below ignition.
 
>>>First of all, I don't believe the 6X ratio, it's looking like a bit less to 
>>>me, because of factors that have been discussed in many places. But let's 
>>>assume that.
>>
>>
>>They've claimed much more than that: 20 times or so in the January demo. 
>>
>>
>>Of course you know I don't buy the ratio either. And that's why I don't spend 
>>much time thinking about the workings of the ecat. All I'm saying is that if 
>>the ratio is more than 2, the need for the input doesn't make sense. So there 
>>appears to be an inconsistency apart from the failure to demonstrate the 
>>ratio. 
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>To me, if the thing that initiates the reaction is heat, and the reaction 
>>>generates even more heat, it will sustain itself, just like combustion. You 
>>>need matches to start fires, but not to sustain them.
 
>>>
No, it doesn't generate "even more heat." 
>>
>>
>>I agree, but they certainly claim it does.
>>
>>
>>
>>Initiation is not truly abrupt, not to 6X power, as we can see from the 
>>temperature behavior. 
>>
>>
>>It doesn't have to be abrupt. But once the thing is generating as much power 
>>as was needed to start the process, it should be able to maintain it on its 
>>own. 
>>
>>
>>
>>Look at it this way. If we assume a reaction rate that depends on 
>>temperature, increasing with increased temperature, there would be a 
>>temperature at which the reaction generates just enough heat to maintain that 
>>temperature under the conditions, which includes a cooling chamber at the 
>>boiling point.
>>>
>>
>>
>>The temperature T0 that the input power brings it to is enough to get the 
>>reaction going. Once the reaction produces that much power or more, then the 
>>temperature will not drop below T0 and so the reaction will keep going. What 
>>am I missing? 
>>
>>
>>>There would be a temperature below that at which the reaction would not be 
>>>generating that much heat. The heater(s) are used to bring the reaction 
>>>chamber to a desired temperature, known to be below the self-sustaining 
>>>temperature. 
>>
>>
>>If that temperature initiates the reaction, and the reaction can produce the 
>>same power as the input, then that would be a self-sustaining temperature.
>>
>>>I'm becoming very uncertain about the E-Cat design itself. If it's true that 
>>>the external heater is heating the cooling chamber, its only function would 
>>>be to speed up the process of reaching operating temperatures, and that only 
>>>a little. In the Kullander and Essen demo, input power was noted as being 
>>>only a little more than the 300 Watt rated heating power of the outer band 
>>>heater. What's heating the reaction chamber to the higher temperatures, then?
>>>
>>
>>
>>The K&E report claims an auxiliary heater in the reactor, and shows pictures 
>>of the leads for it.  
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview

[Rich Murray]

Without exact details of external and internal geometries,
thicknesses, and volumes, the world is whistling in the dark re any
attempts to make and test dummy copies of the Rossi reactor, with some
Ni micropower and no catalyst, to establish the null hypothesis that
the observed complex water-froth-mist-dry steam output and
temperatures match that in the several Rossi demos.

Also, has any detailed evidence been shared re radiations,
transmutations, and isotopic shifts?

Any names for any of the many technicians and scientists who have
worked with the Rossi devices during the last 3 years?

In mutual service,  Rich Murray
rmfor...@gmail.com  505-819-7388

Re: [Vo]:Seebeck effect in the E-Cat?

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Steven V Johnson wrote:
>
>> Nah! All'ya need is a Ford Model "T" crank.
>
> We're in luck, then. We have plenty of cranks in this field.


Yep,

T (Crank)

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
 wrote:

> It's like opening a can of spaghetti and finding that half of the pasta is
> actually worms. "Gee, it looked like pasta to me!"


Hey, that's an insult to us pastafarians!

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

T

Re: [Vo]:Neutrons from Piezonuclear Reactions

[Harry Veeder]

Search for "Neutrons from Piezonuclear Reactions" using google, 
then click the first link listed. That should work.
 
Harry

From: Drowning Trout 
>To: Harry Veeder 
>Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 6:46:04 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Neutrons from Piezonuclear Reactions
>
>
>"Neutrons from Piezonuclear Reactions 
>http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-​342/aflb342m669.pdf "
>
>Appears to be a dead link.
>
>
>On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:
>
>paper from Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 34 no 2, 2009
>>
>>Neutrons from Piezonuclear Reactions
>>http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-​342/aflb342m669.pdf
>>
>>ABSTRACT. We report the results obtained by cavitating water solutions
>>of iron salts (Fe(Cl)3 and Fe(NO3)3) with different concentrations
>>at different ultrasound powers. In all cases we detected a
>>neutron radiation well higher than the background level. The neutron
>>production is perfectly reproducible and can at some extent be controlled.
>>These evidences for neutron emission generated by cavitation
>>support some preliminary clues for the possibility of piezonuclear reactions
>>(namely nuclear reactions induced by pressure and shock waves)
>>obtained in the last ten years. We have been able for the first time to
>>state some basic features of such a neutron emission induced by cavitation,
>>namely: 1) a marked threshold behavior in power, energy and
>>time; 2) its apparent occurring without a concomitant production of
>>radiation.
>>(They used passive neutron detectors made by BTI.)
>>
>>slide show presentation
>>http://iccf15.frascati.enea.it/ICCF15-PRESENTATIONS/S6_O5_Carpinteri_Lacidogna.pdf
>>
>>
>>Harry
>>
>>
>
>
>

Fw: [Vo]:Neutrons from Piezonuclear Reactions

[Harry Veeder]

- Forwarded Message -
>From: Axil Axil 
>To: Harry Veeder 
>Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 9:38:34 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Neutrons from Piezonuclear Reactions
>
>
>From a very quick scan of the referenced paper, the process in play within the 
>cavatation bubble  may very well be very much like the process going on during 
>the Rossi reaction. That is a high pressure high temperature hydrogen envelope 
>possibly producing Rydberg hydrogen matter in plasma interacting with a 
>transition metal.  
>The Rydberg matter will be coherent which would mitigate the formation of 
>gamma radiation. 
>I would have like to see the addition of lithium chloride as an additive to 
>supplement the iron chloride salt and iron in the second and the fifth 
>experiment, with Iron Chloride and Iron Nitrate respectively, whose measured 
>neutron radiation was incompatible with the neutron background level.  
>Additionally, what I would expect to see in this cavatation bubble experiment 
>would have been an enhanced production of Rydberg matter consistent with my 
>speculation about the “secret alkaline catalyst” theory of Rydberg matter 
>production enhancement and an associated resulting vigorous enhancement of the 
>production of neutrons from increased nuclear activity. 
>
>.
>
>
> 
>On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:
>
>paper from Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 34 no 2, 2009
>>
>>Neutrons from Piezonuclear Reactions
>>http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-​342/aflb342m669.pdf
>>
>>ABSTRACT. We report the results obtained by cavitating water solutions
>>of iron salts (Fe(Cl)3 and Fe(NO3)3) with different concentrations
>>at different ultrasound powers. In all cases we detected a
>>neutron radiation well higher than the background level. The neutron
>>production is perfectly reproducible and can at some extent be controlled.
>>These evidences for neutron emission generated by cavitation
>>support some preliminary clues for the possibility of piezonuclear reactions
>>(namely nuclear reactions induced by pressure and shock waves)
>>obtained in the last ten years. We have been able for the first time to
>>state some basic features of such a neutron emission induced by cavitation,
>>namely: 1) a marked threshold behavior in power, energy and
>>time; 2) its apparent occurring without a concomitant production of
>>radiation.
>>(They used passive neutron detectors made by BTI.)
>>
>>slide show presentation
>>http://iccf15.frascati.enea.it/ICCF15-PRESENTATIONS/S6_O5_Carpinteri_Lacidogna.pdf
>>
>>
>>Harry
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:PESN reports that Rossi 1 MW reactor may be self-sustaining

[fznidarsic]

Did you forget about CETI's preheater Jed?



The connection between input energy and output heat is complicated and 
indirect. With the electrochemical cells, all else being equal, output is 
somewhat proportional to input because high input boosts high loading which in 
turn boosts the heat. But I would not call that amplification.


- Jed







-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Jul 22, 2011 10:29 am
Subject: [Vo]:PESN reports that Rossi 1 MW reactor may be self-sustaining


See new article. There are some statements in this article I have not heard, 
and some stuff I doubt is true:


http://pesn.com/2011/07/21/9501874_Rossis_Self_Sustaining_One_Megawatt_Reactor/


I think it is more likely that it will require minimal input energy. The input 
to output ratio will be high.


People here have described the ratio as 1:6. That it may be in many recent 
tests, but it has been much higher in some other tests, and it has been 
infinite in heat after death. There is no reason whatever to think it is stuck 
at 1:6. That is just a matter of engineering.


I think someone here referred to the idea that the device is a sort of energy 
amplifier. That is, something that uses a flow of energy to tap into a source 
of energy and extract it at rate depending on input power. I do not think any 
cold fusion reactor fits this description. The connection between input energy 
and output heat is complicated and indirect. With the electrochemical cells, 
all else being equal, output is somewhat proportional to input because high 
input boosts high loading which in turn boosts the heat. But I would not call 
that amplification.


- Jed