date:20110810

http://news.discovery.com/space/edisons-anti-gravity-underwear-and-other-weighty-matters-110809.html

Washed in Cavorite.

I'd heard of all these AG folks but Roger Babson, founder of the Gravity
Research Foundation and author of the essay *Gravity - Our Enemy Number One.
*
*
*
T

Re: [Vo]:Edison's Antigravity Underwear

What is *Eugene Podkletnov doing lately?*

Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik coverage of Rossi - Defkalion split

Indeed, Krivits psychological interpretation on Mats Lewan's video was so
convincing, that I almost believed it! Quite impressive. However, it would
be good to have accurate temporal temperature graph for both April E-Cats.
If power manipulation hypothesis is true, it should be shown as temperature
variations. I do not see that it is possible for Mats to fail to see power
manipulation, because he observed two full demonstrations.

—Jouni

On Aug 10, 2011 6:33 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
 At 11:56 PM 8/8/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman, in this reasoning is one problem,
that it was not Rossi who exaggerated the test
results, but those independent and
semi-independent (levi) scientists, who made all
the calculations. They could have made it right
from the beginning, but they decided that they
can assume that E-Cat works in normal pressure,
what is itself ridiculous assumption by Galantini et al.

 Rossi is highly involved. He set up the
 conditions to suck experts into blessing his
 invention. And Rossi has made the same calculations. Remember the Krivit
video?

E.g. Mats Lewan calculated that outlet hose was
submerged into condensated water in the bucket
in depth ca. 20 cm, and calculated that this
will increase internal pressure or water boiling
temperature by 0.5Â°C. But failed to see that
most of the pressure is due that large amounts
of steam tries to come away from E-Cat via small
orifice (Ã¸5-10 mm). And indeed, kilowatt range steaming is lots of steam!

 Indeed.

As Rossi is innocent, i think that it is a false
argument to use this exaggeration as an evidence for a fraud.

 What pushed me over the edge into a fraud
 conclusion was his manipulation of the power,
 apparently to increase steam output for Lewan to
 video. Jouni, he was hiding that. Lewan came back
 more quickly than he expected. At least that is the strong appearance.

On the contrary, this sloppy science is good
evidence that E-Cat is real, because if there
was a hidden power source, rossi would make
demonstrations where every joule of hidden
hydrogen bottle would be utilizad for fraud, but
now we know only that E-Cat produced only
something like 40-80% of alleged output, but it
is difficult to know for sure how much because
of sloppy measurements. This does not sound
rational and convincing way to construct a hoax!

 Jouni, you are falling into the same error as
 many, assuming that Rossi is rational! There is lots of evidence he is
not.

Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?


Mark Iverson wrote:


1) In Galantini's report, it is clear that he was looking at several different 
sensors.
2) I seriously doubt that the RH sensor would physically fit in the opening 
where the outlet
temperature sensor is located.


It fits in a different port. You can see it in some of the photos.


3) Thus, you are very likely mistaken when you state that he is removing the 
temperature sensor to
determine if it is dry.


He said he did this. Abd thinks removing it would wipe it dry, but the 
probes I have seen are tapered, with the plug that seals it shut being 
the widest part, so I do not think this would be a problem.




Did Galantini remove the outlet hose in order to make the RH measurements?

No, he fit the probe into a port in the hose.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:NASA Researchers Put New Spin on Einstein\'s Relativity Theory

2011-08-10 Thread Mauro Lacy

 On 08/10/2011 03:54 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
 [snip]Albert Einstein might be astonished to learn that NASA physicists
have applied
 his relativity theory to a concept he introduced but later disliked
namely
 that
 two particles that interact could maintain a connection even if
separated
 by
 a vast distance. Researchers often refer to this connection as
 entanglement.[snip]



 I would suggest that the separation over vast distances is only spatial
and that both particles are entangled by their temporal coordinates -
We
 know that the time axis can appear like a normal spatial axis to a local
observer as you approach C  and my guess is these entangled particles
would appear to grow together from the perspective of an observer
approaching C. Spatially the particles are pivoting from a common time
coordinate.

Yes. Better said, manifestation in tri-dimensional space, happening,
occurring, or becoming in time, surges or comes from a common ground
which is neither spatial (in the tri-dimensional spatial sense) nor
temporal.
Time (local time) is in fact not more than the consequence or result of
the speed of that spatial manifestation. That's why local time (and local
space) are affected in turn by the speed of the frame in which the
manifestation is happening. And that's also the reason why we cannot in
principle directly or absolutely detect those changes.

That's what I call a physically sound interpretation of special
relativity and equivalent theories.

Entanglement would be the manifestation of an unique subjacent reality, in
two or more spatial locations. And being unique, happening at the same
time. A particle entangled in a frame at a given frame velocity, would
therefore, at least in principle, have original time and spatial
distortions which are similar in all its manifestations. Although it will
also probably be subjected to local distortions if there are different
frame velocities.
It will carry a timing fingerprint of the velocity of the frame at which
it was originally entangled, so to speak.

So: As long as the velocities of all the frames at which the particle is
manifesting are equal (like in the proposed experiment in my paper), those
manifestations will therefore be simultaneous, in an absolute, not
relative, sense.

Regards,
Mauro

 Regards
 Fran

Re: [Vo]:who is the secret big partner of Rossi in USA?

2011-08-10 Thread Axil Axil

Another Rossi puzzle…more fun!



A clue, Rossi says that if he told us in which city the 1 MW reactor demo is
to be held in, we would immediately know what company his American partner
is. Company towns like that are very rare anymore with most manufacturing
going overseas. The company must be big, American, long established and
global. Ford fits. Ford’s World Headquarters is Dearborn, Michigan.


On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Michael Ivanov ivanov...@gmail.com wrote:

 Any ideas? I heard about Ford, but could it be GE or GM?

Re: [Vo]:who is the secret big partner of Rossi in USA?

2011-08-10 Thread Craig Haynie

Redmond, WA.


 On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Michael Ivanov ivanov...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 Any ideas? I heard about Ford, but could it be GE or GM?

Re: [Vo]:who is the secret big partner of Rossi in USA?

2011-08-10 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson

From Axil:

 A clue, Rossi says that if he told us in which city the 1 MW reactor
 demo is to be held in, we would immediately know what company
 his American partner is. Company towns like that are very rare
 anymore with most manufacturing going overseas. The company
 must be big, American, long established and global. Ford fits.
 Ford’s World Headquarters is Dearborn, Michigan.

While Ford's headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan, is reasonable
speculation to make (under the circumstances) I find myself grappling
with what kind of a USA company or industry would have the most to
gain in attempting to exploit Rossi's eCat technology. I'm not
convinced that ECat technology, in its presumed current prototype
incarnation, would be of much use to the auto industry like Ford, or
any auto company for that matter. It's my understanding that eCat
technology at present can only generate excess heat in an efficient
manner. Said differently, the technology to convert excess  heat in an
efficient manner into electricity so that it can ultimately power an
automobile's drive shaft does not strike me as being quite prime
time - not quite yet. If someone would like to disagree with my
premise, by all means please explain why they might think it would
work.

At present, I'm more inclined to speculate that a hi-tech company like
Google would better stand to benefit more immediately, and in a more
direct manner. Large 1 MW structures would (I presume) be large enough
to efficiently incorporate the necessary engineering to convert
generated excess heat into electricity. Also, while I don't quite
understand the underlying technology involved, it is my understanding
that the excess heat can be used to produce a significant amount of
refrigeration efficiently. It is, in fact old technology - something I
suspect Rossi might have acquired some experience in managing during
his checkered career. When I weigh both of these factors, the capacity
to generate a significant amount of cooling combined with bulk
electricity, and perhaps simultaneously at that, it makes more sense
for me to speculate that a company like Google would be best poised in
incorporating Rossi eCat technology. Seems to me that incorporating a
series of 1 MW thermal generators ought to help reduce Google's
cooling and electricity bills. They have a huge collection of power
hungry servers that need constant care and feeding.

My two cents

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

Re: [Vo]:who is the secret big partner of Rossi in USA?

2011-08-10 Thread Michael Ivanov

BTW - what about Ampenergo who supposed to be a sole distributor in US?

Re: [Vo]:who is the secret big partner of Rossi in USA?

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:23 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson 
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'm not
 convinced that ECat technology, in its presumed current prototype
 incarnation, would be of much use to the auto industry like Ford, or
 any auto company for that matter.


A Stanley Steamer set the world record for the fastest mile in an
automobile (28.2 seconds) in 1906.

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

T

Re: [Vo]:who is the secret big partner of Rossi in USA?

2011-08-10 Thread Man on Bridges


Hi,

On 10-8-2011 10:58, Michael Ivanov wrote:

Any ideas? I heard about Ford, but could it be GE or GM?


I stick to my initial thought: Mountain View, Ca. (Google HQ) .

While looking at where we know that he traveled during April in the 
USA (North (Ohio) and South-East (Florida) states), I have the feeling 
that this was partially also done as a so-called smokescreen to hide the 
the fact he may have signed a contract with an organization/company 
in/with a South-West (California) state.
Sounds maybe weird, but don't forget that Rossi does a lot of things 
supposedly in an unlogical/unconventional way; however that is because 
he probably is a master in disguise.


Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:who is the secret big partner of Rossi in USA?


At 09:26 AM 8/10/2011, Michael Ivanov wrote:

BTW - what about Ampenergo who supposed to be a sole distributor in US?


No -- they're the middle-man. It was always said that they would 
license others.

Re: [Vo]:who is the secret big partner of Rossi in USA?

My guess will be Nasa and 1MW Demonstration will be held in Kennedy Space
Center, Florida. Great symbol that Rossi looks with his technology forward
beyond this planet, and ignores any immediate commercial plans as mere
chattering.

—Jouni

On Aug 10, 2011 11:59 AM, Michael Ivanov ivanov...@gmail.com wrote:
 Any ideas? I heard about Ford, but could it be GE or GM?

[Vo]:Not off topic - 710 MHz

2011-08-10 Thread Jones Beene

700 MHz Cellphone Spectrum - a warning

Although the link between cell phones and cancer is supposedly not strong,
if you look at the actual details -the greatest connection to disease
correlates with the longest exposure periods. Things can only get worse,
since usage is increasing, the users are younger, and cell phones have not
been around long enough for the full effects to show up in large population
studies - and no one has paid attention to the most critical parameter of
all - the most active (resonant) frequencies for neural activation. 

A major study which found little overall increased risk, nevertheless
reported that participants with the highest level of cellphone use had a 40
percent higher risk of one type of cancer. Go figure. To me, this can be
interpreted as a warning than when you add anything extra (like resonance)
into the equation, and over increasing time - the negative effects will be
much worse, especially for heavy users.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/cellphone-radiation-may-cause-cance
r-advisory-panel-says/
 
The 700 MHz Band will be opening up for cell phones soon in the USA. It
could increase the exposure problem - due to the overlap of harmonics
(inside a cavity - the cranium, which is in effect a cavity resonator) and
the spin-flipping of protons (at an exact harmonic of 1420 MHz). The 710 MHz
frequency may already be in use in Europe, but no test that I am aware of
breaks down the results of health by frequency used. This should be done
before it is too late.

Cell phone frequencies are said NOT to be ionizing radiation, but that is
not exactly true when resonance enters into the equation and when the
material being irradiated already contains salt ions. There are known ways
to create free protons using non-ionizing radiation and these protons are
always ionized for some short period of time, even when they usually
recombine in situ. Everyone here remembers the John Kanzius'
salt-water-splitting experiment, using only the low frequency of 13.6 MHz.
Lots of free hydrogen. Higher frequencies are more energetic, yet this low
one splits water because sodium is resonant there.

Bottom line: cell phone radiation can be effectively ionizing - and some
frequencies are FAR more active than others (orders of magnitude worse). The
connection to cancer is that ionizing radiation over many years creates
genetic damage to DNA, this damage creates errant cells, and then
eventually: cancer. 

How can non-ionizing radiation create temporarily free protons? Three ways.
One is circular polarization, especially with crossed fields. Another is
resonance.  The third is by activating ions already present in blood and
especially in neural cells which communicate via ions. First - circular
polarization. When a strong effect is demonstrated in an experiment, then it
is not a huge leap of faith to imagine that a weaker effect (over a longer
period), can do the same thing. This study involves lasers and 700 MHz, but
the longer term effect of less intense radiation is likely.

http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v33/i1/p736_1
 
Possible ionization is also related to a similar effect that turns up in
NMR, where RF resonance causes the target atom to oscillate in a wild
fashion and re-radiate.  This new communication band opening up soon
consists of channels running from 698-806 MHz which are freed up as a result
of Digital Television. Billions of dollars went into securing this band for
the Telecoms. The other thing you need to know is the 1420 MHz resonance
line of hydrogen. The hydrogen line at 21 cm refers to the change in the
spin energy state of free hydrogen atoms - but even the bound hydrogen in
carbohydrates (and neurons and other grey matter) is susceptible to the
extra kinetic energy of this spin-flipping resonance. 

The 21 cm wavelength is already blocked for terrestrial communication (for a
number of reasons) but the fully harmonic radiation at 42 cm at 710 MHz
could be just as problematic, even more so - given the interior of the
cranium is closer to the exact size and because this wl propagates better in
many structural materials than the microwave intensity. It is a triple
problem.

In fact, the location of the 700 MHz Band -- just above the remaining TV
broadcast channels -- is known for its excellent propagation characteristics
- which actually encourages more energy to be used at each transmitter,
since fewer can be used per area of coverage. 

Blocking a narrow band now (say from 690 to 730 MHz) would cost the FCC
several billion in revenue, and that is not likely in today's political
climate - given the budget deficits. 

Sadly - Look for the negative health of the new spectrum results in about
7-10 years. 

As for yourself - it could be a wise precaution to make sure your carrier
does not use this band. ATT is the one company which will own it, IIRC but
it will be licensed to others.

Jones

attachment: winmail.dat

[Vo]:Another Defkalion statement on PESN




http://pesn.com/2011/08/10/9501891_Defkalion_Responds_in_Support_of_Rossi/
 
Sorry if it's already here ... I looked for it.
Hard to well if it's actually conflicting with what Rossi as said
(technically). 
They say it's built AROUND the core (not that they have one), AND that
they have (are?) set up a production line to make the cores if and when
Rossi reveals the secret ingredient.

Re: [Vo]:Another Defkalion statement on PESN

From the link:


Statement II

*We received the following from Symeon Tsalikoglou of Defkalion Green
Technologies on August 10, 2011 4:13 AM MST.*

Dear Sterling Allan,

In the link below you include a post from passi22 blog regarding an
anonymous email from inside Defkalion.

http://pesn.com/2011/08/09/9501890_Rossi_Gives_Reason_for_Split_from_Defkalion/


For your information, we are warning passi22 to remove this text, to provide
us with full information of the source, and will be acting legally against
the source as this is content is definitely not from Defkalion. Defkalion
makes only public announcements - however minimal - and under full authority
from its BoD. The suggested email is a faslity. Someone is trying to
implicate us. We advise that this link is removed also from your site.

Defkalion Green Technologies

I noticed yesterday at night that Rossi deleted his inflammatory message.

Re: [Vo]:who is the secret big partner of Rossi in USA?

2011-08-10 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson

From Jouni,

 My guess will be Nasa and 1MW Demonstration will be held in
 Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Great symbol that Rossi looks
 with his technology forward beyond this planet, and ignores any
 immediate commercial plans as mere chattering.

It is not that far-fetched of a possibility... assuming Rossi can
deliver on his promises.

Otherwise he may burn up during reentry.

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

Re: [Vo]:Another Defkalion statement on PESN



At 11:05 AM 8/10/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:


http://pesn.com/2011/08/10/9501891_Defkalion_Responds_in_Support_of_Rossi/
 
Andrea Rossi 

August 10th, 2011 at 4:02 AM 
Dear Luke Mortensen:
No one in the world holds any E-Cat, but us, so far.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hard to well if it's actually
conflicting with what Rossi as said (technically).

How many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin?
Defkalion could have submitted a system with a dummy core for Greek
qualification (hydrogen system etc), but that seems a bit pointless.
Rossi could have hand-carried a core to Defkalion, run tests, and then
taken it way with him.

Re: [Vo]:Another Defkalion statement on PESN

2011-08-10 Thread Susan Gipp

To be honest would be better to say:

*No one in the world holds any (working) E-Cat, even us, so far.*

2011/8/10 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com

  At 11:05 AM 8/10/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:

  http://pesn.com/2011/08/10/9501891_Defkalion_Responds_in_Support_of_Rossi/


 Andrea Rossi
  August 10th, 2011 at 4:02 
 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501cpage=11#comment-60743

 Dear Luke Mortensen:
 No one in the world holds any E-Cat, but us, so far.
 Warm Regards,
 A.R.


 Hard to well if it's actually conflicting with what Rossi as said
 (technically).


 How many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin?

 Defkalion could have submitted a system with a dummy core for Greek
 qualification (hydrogen system etc), but that seems a bit pointless.
 Rossi could have hand-carried a core to Defkalion, run tests, and then
 taken it way with him.

Re: [Vo]:Not off topic - 710 MHz

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 700 MHz Cellphone Spectrum - a warning


If this were a problem, would it not have been spotted when the UHF channels
were operating in these bands?  Populations near these station broadcast
transmitters were exposed to huge amounts of radiation from channels 49 thru
69. Here in Atlanta, the transmitter was on top of the Peachtree Plaza
hotel.

T

Re: [Vo]:who is the secret big partner of Rossi in USA?

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:

 My guess will be Nasa and 1MW Demonstration will be held in Kennedy Space
 Center, Florida.


 Is there anyone left at the Kennedy Space Center?

T

RE: [Vo]:Not off topic - 710 MHz

2011-08-10 Thread Jones Beene

Ya' know, I haven't been the same since enjoying the view and a few
cocktails

at the Sun Dial . back in the day .

 

 

From: Terry Blanton 

700 MHz Cellphone Spectrum - a warning

If this were a problem, would it not have been spotted when the UHF channels
were operating in these bands?  Populations near these station broadcast
transmitters were exposed to huge amounts of radiation from channels 49 thru
69. Here in Atlanta, the transmitter was on top of the Peachtree Plaza
hotel.

 

T

Re: [Vo]:Another Defkalion statement on PESN

2011-08-10 Thread Rich Murray

Yep, Susan Gipp,  you have a grip on the reality here...

Defkalion now stage-managing hour by hour -- perhaps their technicians
are running simulations on their magic catalyzt deprived devices to
verify the same kind of null results that actually ensued from the
publicized Rossi demos...

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

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Susan Gipp susan.g...@gmail.com wrote:
 To be honest would be better to say:

 No one in the world holds any (working) E-Cat, even us, so far.

Re: [Vo]:Not off topic - 710 MHz


Terry Blanton wrote:

If this were a problem, would it not have been spotted when the UHF 
channels were operating in these bands?  Populations near these 
station broadcast transmitters were exposed to huge amounts of 
radiation from channels 49 thru 69. Here in Atlanta, the transmitter 
was on top of the Peachtree Plaza hotel.


Isn't the radiation more intense when the signal is generated right next 
to your scull? I wouldn't know but that is what I heard. Cell phones are 
low powered but they are held right up against the head.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:NASA Researchers Put New Spin on Einstein\'s Relativity Theory

2011-08-10 Thread Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.

That's exactly what Larson's Reciprocal System unified theory says:
particles are in contact if they are either adjacent in 3D space or 3D time.

So called antimatter ( really inverse matter where time and space are
interchanged ) gravitates into aggregates in 3D time and can only be viewed
by us as the occasional cosmic ray or cosmic background radiation.

Hypothetical cosmic humans would be 80 light years tall and have a lifetime
of 6 nanoseconds, and we'd appear likewise to them.

http://library.rstheory.org/articles/KVK/NonLocality.html
http://library.rstheory.org/video/rs-101
http://library.rstheory.org/video/dbl-1978


  -Original Message-
  From: Roarty, Francis X [mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com]
  Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:50 AM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA Researchers Put New Spin on Einstein\'s Relativity
Theory


On 08/10/2011 03:54 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:[snip]Albert Einstein might
be astonished to learn that NASA physicists have applied

  his relativity theory to a concept he introduced but later disliked namely
that

  two particles that interact could maintain a connection even if separated
by

  a vast distance. Researchers often refer to this connection as
entanglement.[snip]







  I would suggest that the separation over vast distances is only spatial
and that both particles are entangled by their temporal coordinates - We
know that the time axis can appear like a normal spatial axis to a local
observer as you approach C  and my guess is these en tangled particles would
appear to grow together from the perspective of an observer approaching C.
Spatially the particles are pivoting from a common time coordinate.

  Regards

  Fran

Re: [Vo]:Not off topic - 710 MHz

2011-08-10 Thread Man on Bridges


Hi,

On 10-8-2011 22:14, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Terry Blanton wrote:

If this were a problem, would it not have been spotted when the UHF 
channels were operating in these bands?  Populations near these 
station broadcast transmitters were exposed to huge amounts of 
radiation from channels 49 thru 69. Here in Atlanta, the transmitter 
was on top of the Peachtree Plaza hotel.


Isn't the radiation more intense when the signal is generated right 
next to your scull? I wouldn't know but that is what I heard. Cell 
phones are low powered but they are held right up against the head.


- Jed


From what a former colleague (he was a GSM/Cell phone equipment trainer 
(i.e. transmitter and switching equipment, so NOT the mobiles 
there-self)) of me (at former ATT/Lucent Technogies) years ago told me, 
was that it was not wise to climb in the pole due to high radiation 
levels, where the antenna was attached; as this could be compared to 
frying something in an unprotected microwave oven, but that according to 
him the mobiles them-selfs were not dangerous due to the low radiation 
level.


Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:Another Defkalion statement on PESN


Alan J Fletcher wrote:

Defkalion could have submitted a system with a dummy core for Greek 
qualification (hydrogen system etc), but that seems a bit pointless.
Rossi could have hand-carried a core to Defkalion, run tests, and then 
taken it way with him.


No regulator or government agency in the EU, the U.S. or Japan would 
allow that. It is unthinkable. These organizations have many faults but 
they are thorough. They do things rigorously, by the book. Running a few 
tests with Rossi standing by is simply out of the question.


In their website discussion group, Defkalion repeatedly claimed that 
various Greek Ministries were testing their devices. It that is true, it 
contradicts Rossi's assertions. There is no way the two sides can be 
reconciled; one or the other is lying. Defkalion's major website claims 
are gathered here:


http://pesn.com/2011/08/07/9501887_An_E-Cat_Full_of_Lies_-_Rossi_or_Defkalion/

For what it is worth, I think Rossi was upset and he was saying all 
kinds of things he did not mean. I would call it an angry outburst. He 
has already backtracked and said the dispute is about money only, not 
technology. My guess is that is his way of retracting and apologizing. I 
hope the parties can reach a new agreement and people will forget about 
this incident in a few weeks.


In the past, many famous innovators such as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates 
also acted abominably, but that was before the Internet, so they did not 
have the opportunity to plaster their bad behavior all over the world. 
Plus they had more sense than to do this. There were notable exceptions 
such as the time Bill Gates got drunk and talked to reporters about how 
IBM was on the verge of extinction. The modern Internet goldfish bowl 
lets us see people making fools of themselves in real time, rather than 
reading about it in history books years later.


In this document:

http://pesn.com/2011/08/10/9501891_Defkalion_Responds_in_Support_of_Rossi/

I agree with the last note, by Hank Mills. Defkalion is being evasive 
and not answering the two key questions. Perhaps it would put it in a 
better light to say they are being diplomatic, and trying not to rile 
Rossi. They call this affair micro-politics which I take as an 
interesting new way of saying let's hope this stuff blows over and 
Rossi forgets about it. I suppose micro-politics means a tempest in 
a teapot. Let us hope that's what it is.


I know nothing about the nature of the dispute. Frankly I don't want to 
know. It is none of my business.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another Defkalion statement on PESN

Jed, there is a way to reconcile everything. Defkalion designed the Hyperion
differently from Rossi's, the core exactly like Rossi's but they don't have
the recipe for the catalyzer. So, all they have are units that can still
work for a few months with the last loading of the catalyzer. They can still
make designs, test tem continuously, even with the government, but for just
a limited time.

So, they are trying to control the situation, because, although it is bad,
for the meanwhile, it is manageable. After all, the won't sell before early
next year.

RE: [Vo]:NASA Researchers Put New Spin on Einstein\'s Relativity Theory



At 01:30 PM 8/10/2011, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote:

That's exactly what Larson's Reciprocal System unified theory says:
particles are in contact if they are either adjacent in 3D space or 3D
time.
Space/Time? That's SO last-millenium!
Beyond space-time: Welcome to phase space

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128241.700-beyond-spacetime-welcome-to-phase-space.html?full=true


http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.0931v2.pdf
We do not live in spacetime. We live in
Hilbert space, and the classical approximation to that is that
we live in phase space. (4 space-time dimensions, and 4 curved
momentum-space dimensions)

Re: [Vo]:Another Defkalion statement on PESN


At 01:46 PM 8/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Alan J Fletcher wrote:
Rossi could have hand-carried a core to Defkalion, run tests, and 
then taken it way with him.


No regulator or government agency in the EU, the U.S. or Japan would 
allow that. It is unthinkable. These organizations have many faults 
but they are thorough. They do things rigorously, by the book. 
Running a few tests with Rossi standing by is simply out of the question.


I meant that Rossi could have taken a core to Defkalion for internal 
tests in a Hyperion rig -- NOT the government tests -- but not left 
it with them.


This would allow the following two statements to be true:

R: Nobody has an eCat
D: We measured 6-20x energy gain

Re: [Vo]:Another Defkalion statement on PESN

Or that both Rossi and Defkalion have proprietary cores but only Rossi has
the catalyzer.

2011/8/10 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com

 At 01:46 PM 8/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:

  Alan J Fletcher wrote:

 Rossi could have hand-carried a core to Defkalion, run tests, and then
 taken it way with him.


 No regulator or government agency in the EU, the U.S. or Japan would allow
 that. It is unthinkable. These organizations have many faults but they are
 thorough. They do things rigorously, by the book. Running a few tests with
 Rossi standing by is simply out of the question.


 I meant that Rossi could have taken a core to Defkalion for internal tests
 in a Hyperion rig -- NOT the government tests -- but not left it with them.

 This would allow the following two statements to be true:

 R: Nobody has an eCat
 D: We measured 6-20x energy gain

Re: [Vo]:Another Defkalion statement on PESN


Alan J Fletcher wrote:

I meant that Rossi could have taken a core to Defkalion for internal 
tests in a Hyperion rig -- NOT the government tests -- but not left it 
with them.


This would allow the following two statements to be true:

R: Nobody has an eCat
D: We measured 6-20x energy gain


That simply cannot be reconciled with Defkalion's statements. They 
clearly, repeatedly said they are getting excess heat, and they 
delivered systems to the Greek government. Therefore they must have 
eCats, and Rossi either delivered a bunch of cores to them permanently, 
or they manufactured the cores themselves. Assuming they are telling the 
truth, there is no chance that Rossi brought some cores over, stood by, 
and then brought them back.


Defkalion's response in PESN says clearly that they have working reactors:

Defkalion Green Technologies has designed, built and tested the 
materials and components for the final Hyperion products that are based 
on the same kernels (reactors) as of Andrea Rossi's e-cats. Their 
official testing, certification and approval by the Greek Authorities is 
still in progress.


http://pesn.com/2011/08/10/9501891_Defkalion_Responds_in_Support_of_Rossi/

Rossi got excited and wrote some things he did not mean. He more or less 
retracted, saying this is a dispute over money, not technical claims. 
Let us hope it is a tempest in a teapot, and the two parties reconcile 
their differences soon.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Not off topic - 710 MHz

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:


 Isn't the radiation more intense when the signal is generated right next to
 your scull? I wouldn't know but that is what I heard. Cell phones are low
 powered but they are held right up against the head.


It follows the inverse square law, basically.  But, the cell phones are
typically 100 milliWatts; whereas, the broadcast signals are in the megaWatt
range.

There are levels considered safe for non-ionizing radiation; however, those
numbers vary from country to country.  For example, Russia considers safe
levels which are 100 times less than what we consider safe.  Truth is, no
one really knows what is a safe level.

T

Re: [Vo]:Not off topic - 710 MHz

2011-08-10 Thread Michele Comitini

In the meanwhile I am going to have some metal plates implanted over my skull...
no over the whole body... newer phones are always connected and
trasmitting due to internet connection.

mic

2011/8/10 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com:


 On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:


 Isn't the radiation more intense when the signal is generated right next
 to your scull? I wouldn't know but that is what I heard. Cell phones are low
 powered but they are held right up against the head.

 It follows the inverse square law, basically.  But, the cell phones are
 typically 100 milliWatts; whereas, the broadcast signals are in the megaWatt
 range.
 There are levels considered safe for non-ionizing radiation; however, those
 numbers vary from country to country.  For example, Russia considers safe
 levels which are 100 times less than what we consider safe.  Truth is, no
 one really knows what is a safe level.
 T

[Vo]:Celani's email on gamma measurements during the January public test

2011-08-10 Thread Akira Shirakawa


Hello group,

Daniele Passerini just posted on his blog (with permission) an email by 
Francesco Celani describing in detail how he performed gamma 
measurements during the public E-Cat test at Bologna in January, in 
answer to a question submitted to him by Passerini himself from a blog user.


The Google translated text in English is overall readable but it's 
ambiguous on a few paragraphs (I can help in case problems arise). For 
some reason, names get translated too (for example Rossi becomes Smith):


http://goo.gl/nghnQ

Source link: 
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/08/celani-risponde-sulla-misura-dei-gamma.html


Cheers,
S.A.

[Vo]:Trade secrets do not allow companies to sell products without telling the world what is in them


Daniel Rocha wrote:

Jed, there is a way to reconcile everything. Defkalion designed the 
Hyperion differently from Rossi's, the core exactly like Rossi's but 
they don't have the recipe for the catalyzer. So, all they have are 
units that can still work for a few months with the last loading of 
the catalyzer. They can still make designs, test tem continuously, 
even with the government, but for just a limited time.


I think this scenario is out of the question. An EU government will not 
test or license a preliminary design. They will demand an exact copy of 
whatever the company plans to sell, with the full performance the 
customers will experience. It would be insane to test a faulty, 
incomplete or non-working version. It would be against the rules.


Furthermore, Defkalion has said repeatedly they have ready-for-market 
technology. Not a half-baked version.


Also, by the way, no government agency and no agency such as 
Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) will allow a company to sell a secret 
design with unknown materials in it. I have seen the forms UL sends out 
to applicants. You have to specify the exact nature of every single 
component in the machine, including the screws in the faceplate. I am 
not exaggerating. They say they will do destructive testing to ensure 
that every component meets the specifications you give and has the exact 
components you list. For example, if you say a widget inside the machine 
is made from a certain quality stainless steel, they make sure that is 
the case. They demand a list of every vendor and every part number you 
purchase. The blueprints of your product and their test results are 
available to any insurance company (any underwriter). That's the whole 
point. They ensure consumer safety by learning all about every item they 
certify.


As a practical matter, no consumer product in the U.S. can be sold 
without UL certification. No retailer would touch it. This means that no 
one can sell any consumer product in the U.S. with hidden or untested 
components. I expect similar regulations are in place in the EU and 
Japan. This makes trade secrets difficult to maintain. Even without 
rivals doing reverse engineering, trade secrets in important products 
are short-lived. Minor niche products may have them.


If eCats are sold in any first-world nation, the exact composition of 
the powder and any nuclear signature it produces will be a matter of 
public record before the first unit is placed in the first customer 
site. This is how modern commerce works. You would not want to live in a 
world where corporations are allowed to sell machines, food or anything 
else with secret components or unlisted, untested chemicals in them.


Secret sauces and the like were banned back in the early 20th century. 
You can have trade secrets in your production lines and in-house 
methods, but you cannot sell things without telling people what 
components are in them, and how those components perform. That is, how 
hot they can get, how likely they are to fail, what failure modes are 
anticipated (such as how often a tire will blow out), and so on. Even 
the so-called secret behind Coca Cola, which was grandfathered into 
the pure food and drug act, is no secret at all. Coca Cola is authorized 
to use denatured cocaine. This is common knowledge.


- Jed

[Vo]:Interesting mail from Celani about E-cats gammas

2011-08-10 Thread Michele Comitini

From Daniele Passerini's 22passi:

http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/08/celani-risponde-sulla-misura-dei-gamma.html

google translation: http://goo.gl/L9rYf

mic

Re: [Vo]:Not off topic - 710 MHz

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Michele Comitini 
michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote:

 In the meanwhile I am going to have some metal plates implanted over my
 skull...
 no over the whole body... newer phones are always connected and
 trasmitting due to internet connection.

 A simple aluminum hat will suffice.  But it must be grounded.

T
attachment: Hat.jpg

[Vo]:Everyone is overlooking Thermacore

2011-08-10 Thread Jones Beene

It is a mystery why nobody seems to be giving DGT (or PDGT) enough credit
for being able to enlist credible scientific expertise, and then to
replicate a 17 year old experiment in the public domain. These are
intelligent people, and they are wealthy.

Unless this drama is about stupidity or poverty, then they easily could have
retained all rights to E-Cat technology (or resold their position to many
companies). But consider that when the truth is finally known - DGT may not
have wanted the contract at the original price. IOW, this could be a
bargaining strategy since they had discovered that the Thermacore reactor
works as well, or almost as well.

Of course, if it is all about having no money, then that is another way to
look at it. Everyone seems to have backed off of that possibility for now.
And most of the people involved are reputed to be very wealthy. Anyone with
a few million can hire good scientists in the USA and top scientists over
there. Why would they not have hired good scientists if they have both the
capital and the inspiration (from having seen E-Cat first hand)? 

All that DGT needed to do in this instance - assuming that all of the
parties are honest is to present to the Greek government with a working
reactor that proved to be safe while producing substantial heat and which
they CAN and Will take into production if they have to. The testing agency
would likely not have even tested the claim of excess heat, but there could
easily have been excess, if they had looked for it. The testers must know
the identity of all the ingredients which are in there, so DGT can tell them
every detail, if this is based on Thermacore's work.

It does not matter if it worked extremely well or moderately well. The
testing was for safety- not performance. Thus the Greek Officials could have
verified the safety of a Hyperion reactor that is marketable, even if not
the E-Cat. Apparently they did verify something, but has anyone actually
seen the translated report? And most of all - DGT could be willing to go to
market with a Thermacore knock-off, even if the E-Cat is better. That is
their bargaining chip.

Even without knowing the precise ingredients of the E-Cat design, DGT could
very easily have read and replicated the following paper from 1994,
submitted to the US agency DARPA by one the most respected high-tech
companies in the World: Thermacore (they actually invented the 'heat pipe'
for instance).

http://free-energy.xf.cz/H2/papers/Anomalous-Heat-from-Atomic-Hydrogen.pdf

We have referred to this paper dozens of times over the years, so it is no
secret. If DGT do not tune into vortex of course, then there is no hope for
them :-)

While it is true that such an old reactor design, which came along before
the advent of nano anything - might not have been as robust as E-Cat, this
old design produced many watts of excess energy for a long time (Thermacore
later was able to run it over a year in continuous OU mode - up to 100,000
excess watt-hrs has been mentioned) and best of all for the purposes of this
official testing: zero radioactivity. But simply going 'nano' in 2011 would
probably have improved it significantly.

This 1994 episode is the greatest missed opportunity in all of alternative
energy. Shortly after this report, the company was sold to Modine, many of
the participants took early retirement - and the new owners dropped the
project for unknown reasons.

At any rate, this 17 year old design could have been built in a few weeks
and have passed the Greek Gov'm't tests with flying colors. Rossi may not
have even known about it. It might sell like hotcakes if the price comes in
at much less than E-Cat.

Thus, everyone is as honest as they can be about what they have said, given
that they did not know the machinations taking place behind the scenes.

It is even possible, as we have been saying, that by simply going to 'nano'
with the old Thermacore design, DGT would have greatly exceeded the old 1994
results, and that breakthrough is what led them to pursue a strategy of
renegotiating the original contract to get a better deal, or to delay the
large sum further into the future. 

The more one thinks about the alternatives, the suggestion of this episode
being little more than a bargaining chip in a larger financial drama, is
likely to be at least partly accurate. Nothing else makes as much sense.

Jones


From: Daniel Rocha 

Or that both Rossi and Defkalion have proprietary cores but only Rossi has
the catalyzer.
Alan J Fletcher wrote:
Rossi could have hand-carried a core to Defkalion, run tests, and then taken
it way with him.


attachment: winmail.dat

[Vo]:DGT citation: unsuccesful test of end of july 2011

2011-08-10 Thread Angela Kemmler

Was offline a couple of days. Mayme, its not new to you. Just saw this citation 
on a swedish website, it may help to explain why Defkalion did not pay EFA srl 
(Rossis wife), and Rossi was upset.
 

citation:


The Licence and Technology Transfer Agreement (The LTTA) contains a mile stone 
payment arrangement. According to said arrangement, DGT's release of the first 
payment to EFA is pending on that EFA meet several technical requirements. As 
anticipated in the LTTA for the purpose of determining if EFA has met said 
requirements, a test was performed in late July 2011. While the test 
conclusively showed that most of these requirements indeed were reached, some 
were not; the most important one being full working stability of the reactor. 
As provided in the LTTA, DGT therefore requested a second test. However, EFA 
has refused to participate in such a test despite the fact that such 
non-participation clearly constitutes a material breach of contract. Such a 
test is and has always been a prerequisite for DGT confidently going forward 
with the collaboration with EFA.
   
-- 
Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de

Re: [Vo]:DGT citation: unsuccesful test of end of july 2011



 citation:


  However, EFA has refused to participate in such a test despite the fact
 that such non-participation clearly constitutes a material breach of
 contract.


Likely because they know they cannot meet the stability requirements at this
time.

Revealing!

T

Re: [Vo]:Trade secrets do not allow companies to sell products without telling the world what is in them

But I didn't say it was a different design. I am comparing Hyperion, which
will be sold, with the e-cat, which will not.

Re: [Vo]:DGT citation: unsuccesful test of end of july 2011

2011-08-10 Thread Akira Shirakawa


On 2011-08-11 01:02, Angela Kemmler wrote:

Was offline a couple of days. Mayme, its not new to you. Just saw this citation 
on a swedish website, it may help to explain why Defkalion did not pay EFA srl 
(Rossis wife), and Rossi was upset.

[snip]

Be warned that Defkalion GT is apparently trying to act legally against 
sources who according to them are spreading misinformation or falsities. 
I'm referring for example to the email that can be (as of now) seen on 
this page (search for Anonymous Email From An Inside Source at 
Defkalion), that you might have missed:


http://pesn.com/2011/08/09/9501890_Rossi_Gives_Reason_for_Split_from_Defkalion/

Cheers,
S.A.

[Vo]:The Galantini report examined in detail

What did Galantini actually say? We finally have
a detailed report from him after so many months,
but it leaves many, many questions unanswered. It
should be remembered that Galantini does not
appear to have qualifications as a steam expert.
He's a chemist and he has a company that provides
environmental analyses, and probably just
happened to have the Testo meter on hand.

Report of the measurements of the steam
qualità generated by means of the E-Cats made by Leonardo Corporation.
1- The probes which have been utilized and the
connected elaborators measure the quantity of
evaporated water in grams/cubic meter, with a margin of error of +/- 12 grams

http://www.testo.de/online/embedded/Sites/INT/SharedDocuments/ProductBrochures/0563_6501_en_01.pdf

The Testo meter does not measure the quantity of
evaporated water, rather obviously. It actually
measures humidity, using a capacitative sensor,
and is insensitive to the wetness of steam. It
will display a calculated value from the sensor,
which is a poymer dielectric which changes
capacitance with water vapor vs. air. The meter
is less accurate close to 100% humidity; in any
case, humidity is what it measures, which is
derived from evaporated water, but the meter
provides no indication of what liquid water is
present. The humidity probe has a rated accuracy
of +/3.5% at humidity greater than 95%. In any
case, what the meter reads is just the relative
humidity translated into absolute humidity based on temperature and pressure.

2- We chosen as a parameter the temperature of
101.1 Celsius, at which at atmospheric pressure
at sea level (100 kPa) in 1 cubic meter must be
contained 585 grams of vaporized water, if the
steam is saturated, as well known

The pressure in the E-cat will be different from
atmospheric pressure. On the one hand, the device
is not operating at sea level, which would lower
the ambient pressure, and thus the boiling point,
but if steam is being evolved inside the E-cat,
there must be elevated pressure. Because we can
assume that the steam is saturated and at least
somewhat wet, the temperature will correspond exactly to the pressure.

3- The pressure in the system has been regulated
balancing the induced aspiration of the chimney
after the sink with the pressure drop along the
pipe, until we reached the atmospheric pressure
in the chimney and the pipe of the system. The
pressure has been measured with a deprimometer
with an error margin of +/- 0,5 Pa, which is an
error irrelevant to the boiling point of the water

The first sentence makes no sense to me. The
pressure at the end of the hose must be ambient.
There is some pressure drop along the hose,
though it is likely small. The largest pressure
drop will take place as steam flows and then
expands through the outlet port. The inner
dimension of that port is a critical dimension,
it will produce a given flow rate from a given
pressure of steam. If accurate data were
collected, then it could actually be possible to
estimate the evaporation rate. It wasn't
collected. One would need to know the temperature
more accurately, to get a better measure of the pressure inside the E-Cat.

What pressure was measured? If he means the
pressure in the system, where in the system?
How, physically, did he measure it? He says a
deprimometer, which appears to be an Italian
term for a pressure meter. The Testo 650 does
take a pressure probe. 1 Pa is 10-5 bar. He's
claiming pressure accuracy of 0.5 Pa, but the
pressure probe for the Testo 650 has an accuracy
of 0.1% or 0.2% of full scale, it depends on the
specific probe. Full scale is 2000 hPa. (2 bar)
So the accuracy would be +/- 200 to 400 Pa. Not
0.5. But this should still be accurate. But he
doesn't say what pressure was measured,he doesn't
give the reading. So what's the point of saying that he measured the pressure?

4- The thermometers have a margin of error of +/- 0,05 Celsius

This depends on the probe. However, from other
data (such as probe rated temperature of 150 C.)
the probe has an accuracy of +/- 0.4 C. He's
greatly overstated the accuracy, it seems, and
that is crucial here. The *resolution* is 0.1 C.,
and I think he munges that into +/- 0.05.

5- I made my measurements only when the temperature was exactly 100.1 Celsius

Plus or minus 0.4 C.

6- Since the amount of evaporated water , for
the saturated steam, is 585 grams/cubic meter,
as a consequence if the measured amount of
evaporated water is less than this figure, the
difference must be or water not evaporated, or
condensed water. Conservatively, we calculated
the missing steam totally as if it was non evaporated water

This is totally bogus. Non-evaporated water will
be present as wetness in the steam. This will not
affect the humidity of the steam, thus it will
not affect the g/m^3 display. The accuracy of the
meter above 95% is +/- 3.5%. The meter is going
to be reading as low as 96.5%

RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik coverage of Rossi - Defkalion split


At 03:27 AM 8/10/2011, Mark Iverson wrote:
I think it is obvious that the vapor will be traveling faster than 
ANY liquid water that is part of
a layer of liquid on the inner wall of the hose, due to the adhesion 
of the liquid to the hose.


Sure. I don't think there will be much of that. However, water can 
accumulate in pipes from condensation, and creates water hammer. A 
plug of water forms and is then blown at high velocity through the 
pipe. When it hits a bend, it can seriously whack the bend. Steam 
pipes get broken this way.


For our purposes, we need to know that there is water in the hose, 
period. We can't tell how much is from overflow and how much is from 
condensation. Not with the methods used in the demonstrations.


The real question is the heat being carried and that can be measured 
directly, and why that wasn't done is part of what is so nuts about 
this whole thing.



  The
amount and size of liquid water droplets that can be suspended 
within the vapor flow is most

definitely dependent on the flow rate...


What do we care whether the water remains suspended or collects at the bottom?


 And the temperature of the vapor of course.


The vapor is at a constant temperature, and will be the same 
temperature as the liquid water, at least after the hose has had time 
to heat up. I'm not solid on what happens to collected water. It's 
being sparged with steam, if any steam is reaching the end of the 
hose, it should be at boiling. Note that as the pressure drops along 
the hose, as it will, the steam will cool slightly.



  Just as in
clouds, coalescing rain drops will eventually fall out of the cloud 
when they reach a size that can
no longer be supported against the force of gravity by the strong 
updrafts within the cloud.  I

don't think I need to state that gravity still works inside the hose!


That's right. But in a hurricane, those drops travel with the wind, 
mostly. And the velocity of the steam, if this thing is cooking like 
they claim, will be greater than in a hurricane.




Abd wrote:
In fact, though, at that rate, the water would be flowing over a 
lip where it is easily broken up

and carried along as small droplets.

That is not 'fact'... That is your suspicion.


I get to assert suspicion as fact. It's a claim. It's very clear to 
me. If I blow across a thin bead of water, it sprays.



I agree that SOME water droplets would get picked up,
but the amount and size would again depend on the vapor flow rate, 
as well as the TURBULENCE of the

spillover liquid and vapor flows...


The overflow rate is only a few grams per second. There is only maybe 
a milliliter of water in the opening at any given time (assuming that 
the hose isn't full!) That small amount of water will be as nothing 
to the steam flow from even 5% of the claimed evaporation rate.

Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?


At 10:04 AM 8/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Essentially, depending on the thermometer being wet to inform the 
observer of the lack of water is foolish.


No, it isn't. Galantini knows what he is doing. The probe would be 
wet because these probes are tapered. The plug that seals it is 
wider than the probe itself.


Great. What happens when the probe is removed? Does steam spray out?

Jed, you have reliable information about the flowing water test? 
How do you know whether he left it alone or not?


I don't know if it is reliable or not, but here is what they told 
me. It lasted 18-hours, which is most of a day. They did not babysit 
it the entire time. They went home, leaving a video camera to watch 
the instruments overnight.


I understand the video was on the water meter. The rest could be 
recorded with the computer, I'd think.



Elsewhere you wrote:


Jed, if you could not see the boiling, how could you judge the level?


By the sound and temperature.


You can't tell the level from the temperature, until the water really 
runs out. Sure, you might become familiar with the sound, but how? We 
become familiar when we have an observation to match. I.e., we see 
the level, we hear the sound. Rossi would only have the sound.


Sure, you can speculate that he did this or that, so he knew. Maybe 
he did. But, Jed, this was to be a demonstration to show the thing. 
What did he show?


 I can estimate the water level in my miniature steam engine boiler 
by similar means. It has a window but when the water level is high 
or low you cannot see it. An experienced cook can judge the water 
level in a pot by sound, for example with a pot of vegetables being 
steamed, with just a little water at the bottom.


Granted, this is a complicated way of doing things. The Defalion 
reactors reportedly have a primary cooling loop with glycol or some 
other liquid with a high boiling point. Water going into the 
secondary loop in the heat exchanger boils.


Yes. I want to remind everyone that I do *not* have a belief that 
there is no excess heat in the Rossi device. I've come to a 
conclusion that he has exaggerated and possibly sometimes falsified 
his results, which might relate to unreliability, which is a serious 
problem. I simply have concluded that, for various reasons, the 
demonstrations and claims are not convincing. They could possibly be 
made convincing.

Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?


At 10:38 AM 8/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Mark Iverson wrote:

1) In Galantini's report, it is clear that he was looking at 
several different sensors.
2) I seriously doubt that the RH sensor would physically fit in the 
opening where the outlet

temperature sensor is located.


It fits in a different port. You can see it in some of the photos.

3) Thus, you are very likely mistaken when you state that he is 
removing the temperature sensor to

determine if it is dry.


He said he did this. Abd thinks removing it would wipe it dry, but 
the probes I have seen are tapered, with the plug that seals it shut 
being the widest part, so I do not think this would be a problem.


He didn't say which probe he used.


Did Galantini remove the outlet hose in order to make the RH measurements?

No, he fit the probe into a port in the hose.


In the hose? You sure?

In the hose, if there is overflow water, it would be atomized, my 
theory. There would be, near the E-cat, no coagulated liquid water, 
even if steam qualtiy is quite low, perhaps as low as 5%.

Re: [Vo]:Trade secrets do not allow companies to sell products without telling the world what is in them

And I imagine that the secret sauce is just a combination of specific
procedures, not the composition of the powder.

Re: [Vo]:Another Defkalion statement on PESN

2011-08-10 Thread Man on Bridges


Hi,

On 10-8-2011 23:37, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Alan J Fletcher wrote:

I meant that Rossi could have taken a core to Defkalion for internal 
tests in a Hyperion rig -- NOT the government tests -- but not left 
it with them.


This would allow the following two statements to be true:

R: Nobody has an eCat
D: We measured 6-20x energy gain


That simply cannot be reconciled with Defkalion's statements. They 
clearly, repeatedly said they are getting excess heat, and they 
delivered systems to the Greek government. Therefore they must have 
eCats, and Rossi either delivered a bunch of cores to them 
permanently, or they manufactured the cores themselves. Assuming they 
are telling the truth, there is no chance that Rossi brought some 
cores over, stood by, and then brought them back.


Defkalion's response in PESN says clearly that they have working 
reactors:


Defkalion Green Technologies has designed, built and tested the 
materials and components for the final Hyperion products that are 
based on the same kernels (reactors) as of Andrea Rossi's e-cats. 
Their official testing, certification and approval by the Greek 
Authorities is still in progress.


No, I think the wrong questions are put forward.
Rossi says: Nobody has eCat.

As an engineer myself this can be very well true, as an eCat is in my 
perception the full device with all inlet/outlet pipes made by Rossi 
with possibly a very small replaceable closed 
core/container/cartridge/vessel/module with the catalyzer inside it, 
which cannot be opened.
This would allow for easy refill at site with a new module, without the 
need to take the full device out of service for to long and bring it to 
the factory.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of Defkalions requirements to Rossi.
This maybe one of the main reasons we don't know how the full eCat 
reactor looks like inside.


Remember version 4 at Danielle's Blog of May 15th, 2011?

But has anyone asked him if Defkalion has the inner module part with the 
catalyzer in it?
If they have several moduleS, then the only thing they need to do is 
design+engineer+manufacture+integrate+test their own hyperionS with the 
moduleS provided by Rossi. In that case both are telling the full truth.


Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:The Galantini report examined in detail

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

This depends on the probe. However, from other data (such as probe rated
 temperature of 150 C.) the probe has an accuracy of +/- 0.4 C. He's greatly
 overstated the accuracy, it seems, and that is crucial here. The
 *resolution* is 0.1 C., and I think he munges that into +/- 0.05.

  5- I made my measurements only when the temperature was exactly 100.1
 Celsius


 Plus or minus 0.4 C.


I have a number of electronic and red-liquid thermometers. I have never
heard of one with higher resolution than accuracy, after you calibrate. That
makes no sense. If it was plus/minus 0.4 deg C they would set the display to
show only half-degrees. (Some do that.)

Also, I have not heard of a thermocouple that goes from 0 to 150 deg C but
is plus/minus 0.4 deg C. That's 0.3% accuracy. My old Radio Shack one circa
1975 was like that, which is why it displayed only 0.5 deg C increments. I
doubt any modern laboratory grade electronic instrument would is
that inaccurate. Here are the specs for my Omega HH12B:

*Measurement Range:* -200 to 1372°C (-328 to 1999°F) Accuracy (Type K
Chromium-Alum): ± (0.1% rdg +1°C) on -60 to 1372°C ± (0.1% rdg +2°C) on -60
to -200°C ± (0.1% rdg +2°F) on -76 to 1999°F ± (0.1% rdg +4°F) on -76 to
-328°F

http://www.omega.com/ppt/pptsc.asp?ref=HH11B

That's 0.1%, for an instrument costing $74. It has a gigantic range, but
anyway it is 0.1%.

It may be difficult to measure a given temperature to within 0.4 deg C. For
example, hot water in a pot is likely to have large thermal gradients. The
display will fluctuate a great deal, but the fluctuations real, are not an
artifact of the instrument. The instrument itself is good to 0.1 deg C,
after calibration. The calibration OFFSET screw only adjusts to a fraction
of a degree.

- Jed

[Vo]:On a Quixotic mission

2011-08-10 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

A recent Google newsfeed on Blacklight Power brought to my attention a
link from someone with a handle of sam_michael who claims Dr. Mills and
Blacklight Power is a scam operation of immense proportions. 

 

See:

 

http://www.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/blacklight-power-most-incredible-scam

 

Sam's channel:

 

http://www.nowpublic.com/sam-micheal

 

 

Sam claims: I take the risk of slander/libel here but must take a stand
to protect investors and the general public about a HUGE scam that has been
propagating for YEARS: Blacklight Power.

 

And why is he doing this? He states: My motivation for 'attacking' you?
Wikipedia.. They deleted three decent science articles i posted but kept
yours up.. Why? Because you graduated from Harvard Medical School? That
makes you an authority on quantum chemistry? Bowl sheet.

 

Sam gives me the impression that he is on a quixotic mission to attack all
the evil windmills of the world - and BLP is right up at the absolute top.
Sam also seems to have a strong martyrdom streak. For example, he claims
he has no money, so he doesn't care if BLP attempts to sue him. 

I guess I'm sort of curious (in a macabre way) as to whether BLP's legal
team would deem it necessary to grind Sam into a bag of flour, or not as
the case may be. Personally, I suspect Sam is hoping for an actual
confrontation with BLP. More dragons to slay.

 

Jones, you're a former lawyer. What tends to happen under these kinds of
circumstances where someone appears to be on a self-righteous kamikaze
mission to destroy the reputation of an individual and his company.

 

Where's Sancho.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:On a Quixotic mission

I guess Witch Doctor is right about BLP. ;)

Re: [Vo]:The Galantini report examined in detail

Galantini stated a fact from manual: «4- The thermometers have a margin of
error of +/- 0,05 Celsius»

Lomax replied with speculation: «This depends on the probe. However, from
other data (such as probe rated temperature of 150 C.) the probe has an
accuracy of +/- 0.4 C. He's greatly overstated the accuracy, it seems, and
that is crucial here. The *resolution* is 0.1 C., and I think he munges that
into +/- 0.05.»

Thermometer must be calibrated in respect of boiling point of water (or
other known temperature that is relevant for what is measured) before it can
be used for accurate measurements. Without calibration, it's accuracy is
just ±0.4°C. But thermometer reproducibility is ±0.05°C and this means that
thermometer gives same reading with this accuracy in two consecutive
measurements.

As Mats Lewan calibrated the thermometer that boiling point was 99.6°C,
altough real boiling point in Bologna in that particular day was 99.9°C.
This is what it meas that thermometer accuracy is ±0.4. But relative
accuracy or precision or reproducibility is always higher in thermometer
than the resolution of display. In this case digits are by one decimal,
hence ±0.05°C accuracy.

I have said this before, but it seems that you are not familiar with this
calibration issue. But it was from Galantine vulgar mistake to think that
reproducibility or resolution (±0.05) is the same thing as absolute accuracy
without calibration (±0.4).

But, no other negative comments on your Galantini critique. It was quite
accurate up to precision of ±0.05.

—Jouni
On Aug 11, 2011 3:27 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
What did Galantini actually say? We finally have
a detailed report from him after so many months,
but it leaves many, many questions unanswered. It
should be remembered that Galantini does not
appear to have qualifications as a steam expert.
He's a chemist and he has a company that provides
environmental analyses, and probably just
happened to have the Testo meter on hand.

http://www.testo.de/online/embedded/Sites/INT/SharedDocuments/ProductBrochures/0563_6501_en_01.pdf

What pressure was measured? If he means the
pressure in the system, where in the system?
How, physically, did he measure it? He says a
deprimometer, which appears to

Re: [Vo]:Another Defkalion statement on PESN

Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

Or that both Rossi and Defkalion have proprietary cores but only Rossi has
 the catalyzer.


In this discussion core and catalyzer mean the same thing. They mean the
cell at the heart of the reactor which is filled with nickel powder,
hydrogen, and some other mystery ingredients. This is also called a kernel
as in Defkalion's statement at PESN:

Defkalion Green Technologies has designed, built and tested the materials
and components for the final Hyperion products that are based on the same
kernels (reactors) as of Andrea Rossi's e-cats.

Assuming Defkalion's claims are true, they must have some of these cells.
Whether they got them from Rossi or made them in Greece I cannot say, but
they must have them, on a permanent basis. Rossi cannot be bringing them to
Greece, standing by, and then taking them home. There is no way you could do
RD on that basis. The Min. of Energy would not consent to test them with
Rossi standing by waiting to take the cell home every day. The Ministry
would not consent to testing a dummy cell that produces no heat. The
statement clearly says these are the final Hyperion products, meaning the
market-ready models that will be sold.

(I suppose there might be minor variations after approval. Commercial
products such as space-heaters and automobiles are often tweaked and given
model upgrades. They seldom match the user manual exactly. I do not think
they have to be re-licensed from scratch every time. When Ford changes the
cup-holders or headlights on a 2012 model car, I doubt they have to do
crash-tests all over again.)

Also, they must have tested these cells, so Rossi's initial assertion that
there have been no tests other than his own cannot be true.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Galantini report examined in detail

Galantini stated a fact from manual: «4- The thermometers have a margin of
error of +/- 0,05 Celsius»

Lomax replied with speculation: «This depends on the probe. However, from
other data (such as probe rated temperature of 150 C.) the probe has an
accuracy of +/- 0.4 C. He's greatly overstated the accuracy, it seems, and
that is crucial here. The *resolution* is 0.1 C., and I think he munges that
into +/- 0.05.»

You still do not get it that thermometer must be calibrated in respect of
boiling or freezing point of water before it can be used for accurate
measurements. Without calibration, it's accuracy is just ±0.4°C. But
thermometer reproducibility is ±0.05°C and this means that thermometer gives
same reading with this accuracy in two consequetive measurements.

As Mats Lewan calibrated the thermometer that boiling point was 99.6°C,
altough real boiling point in Bologna in that particular day was 99.9°C.
This is what it meas that thermometer accuracy is ±0.4. But relative
accuracy or precision or reproducibility is always higher in thermometer
than the resolution of display. In this case digits are by one decimal,
hence ±0.05°C accuracy.

I have said this before, but it seems that you are not familiar with this
calibration issue.

But, no other negative comments on your Galantini critique. It was quite
accurate with precision ±0.05.

—Jouni

Re: [Vo]:The Galantini report examined in detail

Sorry about accidental double post. My cell phone blundered and resent old
draft. First post is is the correct one, latter is unfortunate draft. —Jouni

Re: [Vo]:The Galantini report examined in detail

Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:

 Thermometer must be calibrated in respect of boiling point of water (or
 other known temperature that is relevant for what is measured) before it can
 be used for accurate measurements. Without calibration, it's accuracy is
 just ±0.4°C. But thermometer reproducibility is ±0.05°C and this means that
 thermometer gives same reading with this accuracy in two consecutive
 measurements.

Yes. Right. That's what I was trying to say, but you explained it better.


 As Mats Lewan calibrated the thermometer that boiling point was 99.6°C,
 altough real boiling point in Bologna in that particular day was 99.9°C.
 This is what it meas that thermometer accuracy is ±0.4. But relative
 accuracy or precision or reproducibility is always higher in thermometer
 than the resolution of display. In this case digits are by one decimal,
 hence ±0.05°C accuracy.

Right.  There is a small screw on the HH12B at the bottom marked OFFSET.
As I said, it adjusts to within a fraction of 1 degree. If Lewan had this
thermometer he might have moved the temperature up to 99.9 deg C and then --
as you say -- it would go back to this in consecutive readings. It would be
accurate to within a wide range of temperatures around 100 deg C.

Precision is better than accuracy with thermocouples. That is to say, even
if it is 0.4 deg C away from the real temperature (because you do not bother
to calibrate) it can still measure a temperature difference of 0.1 deg C
with confidence.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another Defkalion statement on PESN

It doesn't make much sense to me to equalize core and catalyzer. The core is
just what Rossi attempted to explain in his patent application.  Catalyzer,
as I understand, is an additive to the fuel or part of the fuel. And, as I
understand, they could have enough fuel catalyzer to sustain the
experimental operation of a few hundreds of Hyperions for a few months.

Re: [Vo]:Another Defkalion statement on PESN

Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

It doesn't make much sense to me to equalize core and catalyzer.


I mean in the context of this discussion we have been treating the two to
mean the same thing. Defkalkion calls core+catalyzer a kernel.



  The core is just what Rossi attempted to explain in his patent
 application.  Catalyzer, as I understand, is an additive to the fuel or part
 of the fuel.


If you are going to make that distinction I think catalyzer would be the
nickel powder.


And, as I understand, they could have enough fuel catalyzer to sustain the
 experimental operation of a few hundreds of Hyperions for a few months.


I do not know how much fuel catalyzer they have. But they say that one batch
lasts for 6 months. That is the claim for the commercial product. I believe
they said the stuff actually lasts longer than that, but regular maintenance
every 6 months is recommended.

My point is, Defkalion says they have the final, commercial version of the
cell and catalyzer, and that is what they have submitted for government
testing. They have not submitted a weaker version, or catalyzer that does
not last as long as Rossi's. They said final and they said it is the same
kernel (reactor) as Rossi's eCats.

By the way, I think the word catalyzer in this context is a misnomer. I do
not think it catalyzes in the normal chemical sense of the term. There are
so-called nuclear catalysts but they enhance reactions, they do not trigger
them.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another Defkalion statement on PESN

Alright, so Defkalion has a Kernel for a limited time, while the catalyzer
lasts. And it seems to me that catalyzer is something they apply to nickel
powder. Anyway, since they once they tested a thousand devices
simultaneously and Defkalion is still a young company, it is likely they
still have a lot leftover for research, at least of small devices and for
governmental tests.

Re: [Vo]:The Galantini report examined in detail


At 09:17 PM 8/10/2011, you wrote:

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

This depends on the probe. However, from other 
data (such as probe rated temperature of 150 C.) 
the probe has an accuracy of +/- 0.4 C. He's 
greatly overstated the accuracy, it seems, and 
that is crucial here. The *resolution* is 0.1 
C., and I think he munges that into +/- 0.05.


5- I made my measurements only when the temperature was exactly 100.1 Celsius


Plus or minus 0.4 C.


I have a number of electronic and red-liquid 
thermometers. I have never heard of one with 
higher resolution than accuracy, after you 
calibrate. That makes no sense. If it was 
plus/minus 0.4 deg C they would set the display 
to show only half-degrees. (Some do that.)


No, they wouldn't. You can use the resolution to 
make temperature comparisons. Jed, maybe I 
misread the specifications. I did not, however, 
make this up. And I do know for a fact that most 
instruments have higher resolution than accuracy. 
I'm surprised you way what you said.



Also, I have not heard of a thermocouple that 
goes from 0 to 150 deg C but is plus/minus 0.4 
deg C. That's 0.3% accuracy. My old Radio Shack 
one circa 1975 was like that, which is why it 
displayed only 0.5 deg C increments. I doubt any 
modern laboratory grade electronic instrument 
would is that inaccurate. Here are the specs for my Omega HH12B:


Measurement Range: -200 to 1372°C (-328 to 
1999°F) Accuracy (Type K Chromium-Alum): ± (0.1% 
rdg +1°C) on -60 to 1372°C ± (0.1% rdg +2°C) on 
-60 to -200°C ± (0.1% rdg +2°F) on -76 to 1999°F 
± (0.1% rdg +4°F) on -76 to -328°F


http://www.omega.com/ppt/pptsc.asp?ref=HH11Bhttp://www.omega.com/ppt/pptsc.asp?ref=HH11B

That's 0.1%, for an instrument costing $74. It 
has a gigantic range, but anyway it is 0.1%.


Apples and Oranges. Sure, it might be possible to 
calibrate the thing. Galantini mentioned no calibration.


Now, I didn't check something. There is a 
high-precision probe, but Galantini has not specified it.


It does have an accuracy of +/- 0.05 C.

However, Galantini, in his mail to Krivit, said 
he used testo 176 H2 That's a 4-channel data 
logger for temperature and humidity. Accuracy, 
+/- 0.4 C. (Resolution 0.1 C). But those are the probes that come with it.


I have some probes for my LabJack. I think I 
bought the cheap probes, they are +/- 1 C. The 
more expensive probes are +/- 0.4 C. Apparently 
that's some kind of common standard accuracy 
Resolution is not a probe characteristic, this is 
an analog device. The cheaper probe provides a 
voltage, 10 mv/degree K.  The higher accuracy 
probe provides about 18 mv per degree K. The 
resolution is the resolution of the voltmeter, 
and don't remember how that works out, with the 
A/D converters in the LabJack


This isn't about percentage accuracy. It's about absolute temperature accuracy.

Re: [Vo]:On a Quixotic mission

Is this the whole thing? Does Sam Michael present any evidence that
Blacklight Power is a scam? As far as I can tell, Steven Johnson quoted the
entire set of assertions:


 “Sam” claims: I take the risk of slander/libel here but must take a stand
 to protect investors and the general public about a HUGE scam that has been
 propagating for YEARS: Blacklight Power.”


etc.

I doubt Mills would bother to sue for libel because:

1. Lots of people say this about Blacklight power.

2. Sam makes no specific allegations, such as (for example): the name of a
party who has been scammed, the contract promises not kept, technical claims
not met, or what-have-you. If everyone involved in the transaction expresses
satisfaction, and none of the parties involved files a lawsuit or complains
in public, I do not see this could be construed as a scam. At worst, it
would be a technical venture that failed. Most technical ventures fail.

In other words, scamming is not a victim-less crime. If there are no
dissatisfied parties, and no one comes forward and says Blacklight Power
misled them or failed to produce something it was contractually obligated to
produce, it is not a scam. It may be a stupid idea. It may be a physical
impossibility. But it is not a scam.

I suppose BLP's lawyers write those contracts carefully to avoid making
promises they may not be able to keep.

Sam is making a baseless accusation with no specifics and nothing legally
actionable as far as I can see. He is expressing his own opinion. It is no
different from saying BLP sounds like a scam to me or opening a cupcake
store in Atlanta sounds like a losing proposition, since that fad is
over. Sam would have to say Company X paid a sum of money to BLP under a
contract that promised deliverable Y. Y was never delivered, and Company X
is now suing. That is verifiable. If it is not true, Sam would be liable
for libel.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Galantini report examined in detail

I wrote:


 Maybe he forgot which probe he used. Again, this is like what you said
 above: maybe he did not calibrate. Yes, we all agree that if you don't
 calibrate or you use the wrong probe, it does not work. Yes, people do make
 mistakes.


To summarize Abd's assertions:

If Galantini made a mistake, then he got the wrong answer.

OR

If he did it wrong, then it wasn't right.


Unless you have evidence that he made these mistakes, these assertions seem
pointless.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Galantini report examined in detail


At 09:34 PM 8/10/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

Galantini stated a fact from manual: Â«4- The 
thermometers have a margin of error of +/- 0,05 CelsiusÂ»


Lomax replied with speculation: Â«This depends 
on the probe. However, from other data (such as 
probe rated temperature of 150 C.) the probe has 
an accuracy of +/- 0.4 C. He's greatly 
overstated the accuracy, it seems, and that is 
crucial here. The *resolution* is 0.1 C., and I 
think he munges that into +/- 0.05.Â»


Thermometer must be calibrated in respect of 
boiling point of water (or other known 
temperature that is relevant for what is 
measured) before it can be used for accurate 
measurements. Without calibration, it's accuracy 
is just Â±0.4Â°C. But thermometer 
reproducibility is Â±0.05Â°C and this means that 
thermometer gives same reading with this 
accuracy in two consecutive measurements.


No, the resolution is 0.1 degree.


As Mats Lewan calibrated the thermometer that 
boiling point was 99.6Â°C, altough real boiling 
point in Bologna in that particular day was 
99.9Â°C. This is what it meas that thermometer 
accuracy is Â±0.4. But relative accuracy or 
precision or reproducibility is always higher in 
thermometer than the resolution of display. In 
this case digits are by one decimal, hence Â±0.05Â°C accuracy.


This assumes that if one sees, say, 100.1 C., 
that the real temperature is between 100.05 and 
100.15. However, the calibration, even if done 
with a perfect temperature standard, would only 
be good to that range. The maximum error in the 
actual measurement, then, will be +/- 0.1 degree, 
plus a little, so that it *might* be off by 
another digit under some circumstances. I.e, 
suppose the calibration reads 100.0, but the 
internals of the meter is saying 100.0499. So we 
then have a systematic error of -0.0499 degree. 
Then we go to measure a temperature of 100.0998 
degrees. The meter will read 100.0499, rounding 
down to 100.0. An error of almost 0.1 degree.


With fancy calibration you might be able to 
improve this. You'd adjust to the center between flips of a digit.


I have said this before, but it seems that you 
are not familiar with this calibration issue.


Actually, I wrote extensively about it.

But it was from Galantine vulgar mistake to 
think that reproducibility or resolution 
(Â±0.05) is the same thing as absolute accuracy without calibration (Â±0.4).


But, no other negative comments on your 
Galantini critique. It was quite accurate up to precision of Â±0.05.


Why, thanks. However, the resoluton is 0.1 C. He 
made up the 0.05. The manufacturer says 0.1, and 
that's how these things work. It's a displayed 
resolution, it's not really a +/- thing.

Re: [Vo]:Trade secrets do not allow companies to sell products without telling the world what is in them

Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

And I imagine that the secret sauce is just a combination of specific
 procedures, not the composition of the powder.


That is probably true. For conventional chemical catalysts that is usually
the situation. Hydrogenation catalysts such as palladium on activated carbon
have been around for a long time. I doubt they are covered by patents.
Everyone knows what is in them. The manufacturer specifies the Pd percent of
content. They are protected by trade secrets because other companies do not
know how to fabricate them.

(Les Case used hydrogenation catalysts in cold fusion experiments.)

I believe there is a limited market for hydrogenation catalysts and it would
cost a lot of money to reverse engineer one, so that trade secret is
probably safe. The Rossi Ni powder, on the other hand, will have a huge
market, and there will be tremendous incentive to reverse engineer it, so
that trade secret will be less safe.

My point is that trade secret in the 20th and 21st centuries does not
refer to a product sold with mystery components inside; that is, secret
elements or chemicals. Such things are not allowed. They used to be. I do
not think there is a law that says you have to list the ingredients of
something like a Nicad battery on the battery itself, the way food
ingredients are listed. But there are laws and regulations that say:

The UL and other organizations have to know the full set of ingredients.

If there is anything toxic inside, you have to warn the customer, even
though no one is likely to smash open a Nicad battery and eat it.


Another huge change from the past is the ready availability of mass
spectrometers and SEMs, which quickly reveal the make-up of objects. Such
things were not widely available until the 1970s. The latest generation,
described at ICCF16, seemed like something out of science fiction to me. The
capabilities are astounding. You cannot hide things even if you want to.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another Defkalion statement on PESN

Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

Alright, so Defkalion has a Kernel for a limited time, while the catalyzer
 lasts. And it seems to me that catalyzer is something they apply to nickel
 powder. Anyway, since they once they tested a thousand devices
 simultaneously and Defkalion is still a young company, it is likely they
 still have a lot leftover for research, at least of small devices and for
 governmental tests.


It seems they make the catalyzer themselves, as much as they want. I don't
know that for sure, but they say:

Defkalion Green Technologies has designed, built and tested the materials
and components for the final Hyperion products . . .

They don't add: everything but the catalyzer powder, that is. They say
the materials and components. I assume that includes the powder.

Where ever the powder comes from, I suppose they have an unlimited supply.
They are setting up a factory to produce 300,000 reactors a year. To do
that, they have to secure a source of carefully tested, reliable powder.
Whether they make it themselves or Rossi supplies it, they need a lot, and
they need it soon. Around 30,000 kg per year. Right?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:DGT citation: unsuccesful test of end of july 2011

2011-08-10 Thread Enzo

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Angela Kemmler angela.kemm...@gmx.de wrote:

 citation:


 The Licence and Technology Transfer Agreement (The LTTA) contains a mile 
 stone payment arrangement. According to said arrangement, DGT's release of 
 the first payment to EFA is pending on that EFA meet several technical 
 requirements. As anticipated in the LTTA for the purpose of determining if 
 EFA has met said requirements, a test was performed in late July 2011. While 
 the test conclusively showed that most of these requirements indeed were 
 reached, some were not; the most important one being full working stability 
 of the reactor. As provided in the LTTA, DGT therefore requested a second 
 test. However, EFA has refused to participate in such a test despite the fact 
 that such non-participation clearly constitutes a material breach of 
 contract. Such a test is and has always been a prerequisite for DGT 
 confidently going forward with the collaboration with EFA.

can you provide a link?

Re: [Vo]:Celani's email on gamma measurements during the January public test

2011-08-10 Thread Enzo

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Akira Shirakawa
shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote:
 names get translated too (for example Rossi becomes Smith):

 Rossi becames Smith because in Italy Rossi is a very common name and
it's often used as the name of the average person. John Smith would
be Mario Rossi in italian :)

Re: [Vo]:The Galantini report examined in detail

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


 The maximum error in the actual measurement, then, will be +/- 0.1 degree,
 plus a little, so that it *might* be off by another digit under some
 circumstances. I.e, suppose the calibration reads 100.0, but the internals
 of the meter is saying 100.0499. So we then have a systematic error of
 -0.0499 degree. Then we go to measure a temperature of 100.0998 degrees. The
 meter will read 100.0499, rounding down to 100.0. An error of almost 0.1
 degree.


Good point. On a meter with a fixed display, you cannot calibrate any finer
than the last digit displayed, minus a tad. McKubre can calibrate RTDs (I
think they are) to a fraction of a degree because he is looking at a
computer screen with as many digits as you like.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Galantini report examined in detail


At 09:46 PM 8/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Precision is better than accuracy with thermocouples. That is to 
say, even if it is 0.4 deg C away from the real temperature (because 
you do not bother to calibrate) it can still measure a temperature 
difference of 0.1 deg C with confidence.


Not with this meter. It only displays a resolution of 0.1 C, and when 
you are measuring differential temperature, you have the roundoff 
errror for both measurements. As I mention in another post, you might 
be able to do some fancy setting, where you rotate the pot to an 
intermediate position between display shifts. I wouldn't care to bet 
I'd do this right the first time, though

Re: [Vo]:The Galantini report examined in detail

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

No, they wouldn't. You can use the resolution to make temperature
 comparisons. Jed, maybe I misread the specifications. I did not, however,
 make this up. And I do know for a fact that most instruments have higher
 resolution than accuracy.


I have not seen an electronic thermometer that does.


Apples and Oranges. Sure, it might be possible to calibrate the thing.
 Galantini mentioned no calibration.


If you don't calibrate, it does not work. No tool works if you do not follow
directions and you use it wrong. My Geo Metro gets 35 mpg. If you borrow it
and you never shift out of first gear, you will not get 35 mpg. Plus I
suppose you would wreck the transmission.



 Now, I didn't check something. There is a high-precision probe, but
 Galantini has not specified it.



 It does have an accuracy of +/- 0.05 C.


 However, Galantini, in his mail to Krivit, said he used testo 176 H2
 That's a 4-channel data logger for temperature and humidity. Accuracy, +/-
 0.4 C. (Resolution 0.1 C). But those are the probes that come with it.


Well, maybe he is confused in that case. Maybe he forgot which probe he
used. Again, this is like what you said above: maybe he did not calibrate.
Yes, we all agree that if you don't calibrate or you use the wrong probe, it
does not work. Yes, people do make mistakes.

(I think my HH12B auto-adjusts the display from 0.1 deg C to show 1 deg C
when you put a different kind of probe with a wide range into it. Haven't
got one . . .)

He used another kind of instrument in earlier tests.



 This isn't about percentage accuracy. It's about absolute temperature
 accuracy.


I know. You have to calibrate to achieve that. That's what the manual
says. Put it in boiling water. Compare it to a better instrument. That's
what you have to do with at $74 electronic thermometer. Then, for the rest
of the week, you can be sure it will hit the same spot accurately.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Trade secrets do not allow companies to sell products without telling the world what is in them

Jed, composition is not enough. I am talking about lattice defects and how
to produce them. This is about arranging nucleus, not really about just
chemistry.

Re: [Vo]:Another Defkalion statement on PESN