[Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

[Peter Gluck]

a) See the E-cat run in the self sustaining mode

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece

b) Here is Rossi' s 1 Megawatt plant:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264361.ece

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays

[Peter Heckert]

Am 14.09.2011 08:20, schrieb Peter Heckert:


As soon as it is totally and unmistakenly clear, this is a nuclear 
reaction that produces large amounts of energy,  law will stop him. 
And international scientific research will start.
You cannot discover the stone of philosophers and commercialize this 
and keep it secret, this is impossible.

This must be done in a scientific way.
As soon as large amounts of energy are produced, it must be also 
scientifically investigated, if this can be abused to build bombs and 
so on. Rossi says no, this is not possible, but as long as it is a 
secret he cannot proof it is without dangers.
I think no government can tolerate something like this going on and 
reaching very large dimensions unsupervised.

The unknown potential of danger is too high.
Only if his customer is NASA or another large scientific and trusted  
organisation he could have luck selling this.

It will also be impossible to sell this internationally and keep it secret.
How to get around customs controls?  Rossi was involved in gold smuggle, 
if it is true, what they write.
If he wants to sell internationally then he must produce in these 
countries where he sells.



Best,

Peter

Re: [Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays

[Peter Heckert]

Am 14.09.2011 02:17, schrieb Man on Bridges:

Hi,

On 14-9-2011 1:20, Horace Heffner wrote:





Just a thought.

Let's suppose Rossi is using a gamma radiation source as a catalyzer.
Is it then possible to determine the source ("catalyzer") of the gamma 
source, if the following parameters are known?


1. Maximum allowed gamma radiation level which passes safety 
certification.

2. Maximum lead shielding thickness used around the reactor.

No this is not possible if the spatial dimension and size of the gamma 
source is unknown.

The only possibility is to measure the spectrum of gamma radiation.
And as verification it would be great if someone could do a gamma 
spectrum/intensity scan close to the Rossi reactor.
Rossi doesnt allow to measure the spectrum. Bianchini was not allowed to 
measure it.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays

[Peter Heckert]

Am 14.09.2011 01:20, schrieb Horace Heffner:


On Sep 13, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Peter Heckert wrote:


Am 13.09.2011 22:47, schrieb Man on Bridges:

Hi,

On 13-9-2011 20:44, Horace Heffner wrote:



Hmmm, is there a way to start and stop a gamma radiation source, as 
it may be used only to trigger the process?



There is no other way than shielding or increasing the distance.
Rossi could inside use a shield that is moved electrically or by heat 
(bimetal).

Or he could control the distance to the gamma source.
If it is a very small point source the /local/ intensity of radiation 
could be changed by factor 10^2 or 10^3.


Peter


The above is incorrect.  A 2 cm thick lead shield will only reduce 
Co-60 gammas by 75%.


   I = I0 * exp (-0.694 * x)

So we want I/Io = 0.01 to achieve 1/100 reduction factor.

   I/I0  = exp (-0.694 * x)

   0.01  = exp (-0.694 * x)

   ln(0.01) = -0.694*x

   x = ln(0.01)/(-0.694) = 6.63

It takes 6.6 cm of lead to divide Co-60 gamma intensity by 100. 
Similarly, it takes about 10 cm of lead (on all sides) to attenuate 
CO60 gammas by a factor of 1/1000.



Maybe I am in error.
I understand it this way:
A shield cannot alter the wavelength and so it cannot alter the photon 
energy respective frequency.
Only the amount or density of gamma photons can be changed by photon 
absorption.
Now, lets assume the gamma radiator has a volume of 1mm. Then the photon 
density in 100mm distance must be 4 times weaker as the density 
directly measured in 0.5 mm distance at the surface of the gamma source. 
(Inverse square law as in optics)
Even without shield we can get a large attentuation factor purely from 
distance, if the diameter of the source is small.
So if the gamma source is in direct contact with nickel, the photon 
density must be 100 times larger than in 10 mm distance.

Is this wrong?

Another thought:
I think Rossi is naive and will loose if he think he can commercialize a 
discovery of this magnitude and eternal history changing importance and 
keep it secret. This is impossible to do, he must go the scientific 
route, not the commercial route.

Also his fans and investors are naive to believe this.

As soon as it is totally and unmistakenly clear, this is a nuclear 
reaction that produces large amounts of energy,  law will stop him. And 
international scientific research will start.
You cannot discover the stone of philosophers and commercialize this and 
keep it secret, this is impossible.

This must be done in a scientific way.
As soon as large amounts of energy are produced, it must be also 
scientifically investigated, if this can be abused to build bombs and so 
on. Rossi says no, this is not possible, but as long as it is a secret 
he cannot proof it is without dangers.
I think no government can tolerate something like this going on and 
reaching very large dimensions unsupervised.

The unknown potential of danger is too high.
Only if his customer is NASA or another large scientific and trusted  
organisation he could have luck selling this.


Best,

Peter

Re: [Vo]:What is a UFO detector?

[David Jonsson]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

> Well, given that this is an offtopic subject, when will be you next session
> with Witch Doctor? Can we suggest questions for you?


This is not off topic. Measuring magnetic field deviations is a suitable
subject for this list. Magnetic fields are caused by vortex like motion of
electric charges.

David

[Vo]:logical jiu-jitsu, continuation

[Peter Gluck]

Andrea Rossi says:
Andrea Rossi

September 13th, 2011 at 3:02
PM

No, the plant is not yet ready. There has been a misunderstanding. The tests
will be done in end October.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
But he has graciously helped this misunderstanding:

In a longer lamento he lets us know that the rich, mystery Uncle
Sam is not generous:

Dear Koen Vandewalle:
Yes, everything is going on as scheduled, so far. You are right, there are
many difficulties, we did not have any financing and are working exclusively
with our money, the technology and the process we are using is new, all the
different LENR made before are totally different and we have no experience
from competitors that can be helpful, honestly: even the ones who got some
watt have technologies totally different from ours, as everybody will see
when we will disclose the theory, and no experience at all has been made
from anybody on reactors producing real amounts of energy, I mean in the
range of kWh/h. Now there is a race of guys who try to say that our work
derives from theirs, but unfortunately there is no way that there is around
something useful, so we have to open our path through an unexplored jungle
of difficulties, and the expenses become everyday higher, for unforeseen
problems. But , so far, we will be able to respect the scheduled term of
delivery for the 1 MW plant, and to anticipate our ability to put in the
market an E-Cat for everybody. I repeat that we will be able to produce heat
immediately, while for the electric power we should be ready in one year. By
the way: the E-Cats for the public will produce hot water for heating, not
steam.
This is a very, very hard period, so you all will excuse me if the answers
will become more synthetic and late.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

I have missed to put a Motto to my writing
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/08/anticipating-1mw-demo.html

It has to be:

*" Everything has to be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" (Albert
Einstein)*
*
*
*"Everything must be made as complex as possible so that the people will be
confused and believe anything" (Andrea Rossi)*

The 1 MW plant with 333 cats meowing in a chorus is
a blasphemy against the Goddess of Engineering who demands simple but
reliable tests with individual E-cats,
according to the very logic of the things and to the pragmatical common
sense.

Peter

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

[Vo]:Magnifier Concept

[Harvey Norris]

Should the polarity connection of a coil to be series resonated be of
consequence for measuring Q factor?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110913184739AAJNm54
Geometry may be a consideration here. A spiral flat shaped coil with flattened
windings having appreciable internal capacity between windings will have a
non-linear voltage difference between windings, due to a design employing
graduated greater differing amount of lengths between winds, where a
conventional multi-layered 2D coil has this effect minimised or balanced to some
degree. What this means in terms of line connected series resonances; whereby
two voltages are created opposite against themselves in timing and thus
polarity: and the acting Q factor is determined by measuring this ratio between
the internal voltage rise vs the external voltage delivered to the circuit; in
the case of spiral geometries, if the inner winds are closest to the central
mid-point of Q driven voltage rise, where the inductor meets the capacitor
delivering an opposite voltage in time; will the distribution of said resonant
voltage rise between windings of the flattened wind spiral be greater if the
middle point has less distance between winds, vs the opposite condition of
having a greater distance between winds made by connection of the outer wind to
the center of the LC series resonance vs the first consideration where the inner
wind is used? Finally to mention the great influence of time here; to be exact
we must say that the expression " internal Q voltages created against themselves
to be opposite in time on the L and C values are not quite exactly opposite in
time, since their net difference in time of opposing higher voltage cycles is
recorded as that net cancellation of differing timings recorded as the source
line driven voltage. In contrast then when the same circuit is instead
inductively driven through the actions employed as an air core resonant circuit;
then those voltage rises in time on opposite quantities become completely
simultaneous in time; thus disconnecting the former lines connected to the
source, and giving those connections a loop formation: now we find no voltage
present on those former endings. If we then open those connections again and
give it the load of a further resonant circuit with a large difference between
R(int)/ R load, a sort of magnifier action from source frequency resonance is
observed; whereby the ending circuit of three responds better when it actions
are driven through the air, then if the same circuit were directly connected to
the source voltage, for the simple reason of increased Q factors negotiated by
the ratio R(int)/R load which becomes changed between direct line connection
voltage vs the voltage attained by the middle intermediary air core secondary
showing excessive ratios of amp turns on secondary vs that of air core primary.
HDN


Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

Re: [Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays

[Man on Bridges]

Hi,

On 14-9-2011 1:20, Horace Heffner wrote:





Just a thought.

Let's suppose Rossi is using a gamma radiation source as a catalyzer.
Is it then possible to determine the source ("catalyzer") of the gamma 
source, if the following parameters are known?


1. Maximum allowed gamma radiation level which passes safety certification.
2. Maximum lead shielding thickness used around the reactor.

And as verification it would be great if someone could do a gamma 
spectrum/intensity scan close to the Rossi reactor.


Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's device and input power measurement

[Horace Heffner]

On Sep 13, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

On Sep 14, 2011 1:00 AM, "Horace Heffner"   
wrote:

[snip]
>
>
> --|<|o-|>|---G
> | |
> | o---o
> | |
> | o |
> | | | | Transformer
> | o---|>|o-|<|---G | ---O||
> | | | O||
> o---o-|---|>|o-|<|---G o--O||O---o S1 To
> I1 | | ||O Load
> | o--O||O---o S2
> | O||
> | o--O||
> I2 | |
> o-o---|<|0-|>|---G
>
> Fig. 1 - Circuit Sharing Load on Ground and Neutral.
>
>


I wonder why your email reader mangles fixed font courier text?

I am glad the vortex archive treats it OK:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg51229.html

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's device and input power measurement

[Jouni Valkonen]

Indeed, this is possibility. Mats Lewan was somewhat ashamed when he
"forgot" to check this although he was well prepared and was somewhat
familiar with this possibility. This is although not plausible, i think,
because anyone who observed tests could have required to check this out.

Actually during June demonstration ground and neutral wire were clamped and
nothing suspicious was found, but this should not surprise anyone because
there was not any excess heat produced in the first place...

However, easiest way to fake test results is of course hidden power source.
It takes just about one liter liquid fuel and a fuel cell to fake all tests.
This should not be too difficult to hide. E.g. that wooden stand could be
hollow.

—Jouni
On Sep 14, 2011 1:00 AM, "Horace Heffner"  wrote:
> This is just for the fun of it, not serious stuff regarding Rossi.
>
> Earlier in the thread "Structure of Rossi Device" the possibility
> that ground and neutral were shorted in the Rossi controller box was
> discussed, thereby sharing return power on neutral and ground, and
> thus possibly halving the measured current to the device. This would
> be an easy mistake to make if a polarized plug were used, unless a
> GFCI protected receptacle were used. However, the ammeter would have
> to clamped on the neutral or ground wire by mistake.
>
>
> The L-type plug used would permit ground and neutral to be shorted,
> but would cause a short and breaker trip with 50% probability if
> plugged in at random. The L-type plug has three identical round
> conductors aligned in a row, with the central one being blue. It is a
> non-polarized plug. The insulation color of wires according to the
> current IEC 60446 standard is neutral-blue, line-brown, and
> protective-earth-green/yellow. However, since the plug is not
> polarized, blue and brown wires can exchange roles depending on
> orientation of the plug at plug-in time. The clamp-on ammeter Rossi
> used was correctly clamped on the brown line wire which carries the
> potential, provided the plug is oriented correctly, else it is
> clamped on the neutral.
>
> Just for fun I tried to see if I could come up with a circuit using
> just diodes and a transformer that would be line-neutral polarity
> independent which would always share return current on the neutral
> and ground. I came up with the circuit in Fig. 1. It is impervious to
> polarity of the inputs I1 and I2, and shares current between the
> neutral and ground regardless which way an L-type plug is plugged
> in. This can be done without a transformer if active components are
> used.
>
>
> --|<|o-|>|---G
> | |
> | o---o
> | |
> | o |
> | | | | Transformer
> | o---|>|o-|<|---G | ---O||
> | | | O||
> o---o-|---|>|o-|<|---G o--O||O---o S1 To
> I1 | | ||O Load
> | o--O||O---o S2
> | O||
> | o--O||
> I2 | |
> o-o---|<|0-|>|---G
>
> Fig. 1 - Circuit Sharing Load on Ground and Neutral.
>
> This still leaves the problem that the plug has to be plugged in so
> that the brown (line) wire carries neutral to make for wrong
> measurements. Also, ground fault isolation, if present, will result
> in a triggered breaker.
>
> A much more simple method to throw off power measurements is to put a
> diode and possibly an inductor in the line so as to draw primarily DC
> power from the AC line. The AC current measurement from a clamp-on
> AC meter would then be artificially very low.
>
> o---Inductor-o---|>|---o To
> o--o Load
>
> This is the kind of thing, drawing mostly unidirectional current from
> an AC source, could easily be done unintentionally. I don't think
> any of the above is actually relevant to Rossi's work. Still, I
> think it is good to think about these things when looking at new
> claims for free energy. It highlights the importance of good input
> power measurement.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays

[Horace Heffner]

On Sep 13, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Peter Heckert wrote:


Am 13.09.2011 22:47, schrieb Man on Bridges:

Hi,

On 13-9-2011 20:44, Horace Heffner wrote:



Hmmm, is there a way to start and stop a gamma radiation source,  
as it may be used only to trigger the process?



There is no other way than shielding or increasing the distance.
Rossi could inside use a shield that is moved electrically or by  
heat (bimetal).

Or he could control the distance to the gamma source.
If it is a very small point source the /local/ intensity of  
radiation could be changed by factor 10^2 or 10^3.


Peter


The above is incorrect.  A 2 cm thick lead shield will only reduce  
Co-60 gammas by 75%.


   I = I0 * exp (-0.694 * x)

So we want I/Io = 0.01 to achieve 1/100 reduction factor.

   I/I0  = exp (-0.694 * x)

   0.01  = exp (-0.694 * x)

   ln(0.01) = -0.694*x

   x = ln(0.01)/(-0.694) = 6.63

It takes 6.6 cm of lead to divide Co-60 gamma intensity by 100.  
Similarly, it takes about 10 cm of lead (on all sides) to attenuate  
CO60 gammas by a factor of 1/1000.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays

[Horace Heffner]

On Sep 13, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:


Horace,

thank you very much. I dont have the knowledge to calculate this.  
Only know the very basics.

Found this via google:


There is data about screening.


Yes.  They provide an *average* linear attenuation coefficient for  
Co60 of 0.694 cm−1, which is 0.694/cm.  I provided estimates of .707/ 
cm and 0.65/cm for the two differing types of gammas.  My estimates  
were based on numbers I pulled off a graph of attenuation by mass  
coefficients, so have some error.  Still, I am right on the range  
provided by the paper you reference.   The bottom line is that 2 cm  
lead provides practically no shielding for Co60 gammas.


Using the attenuation coefficient from your referenced article of  
0.694/cm, we have:


   I = I0 * exp(-(0.694/cm)*(2 cm)) = I0 * exp(-1.388)

   I = I0 * 0.25

This means 25 percent of Co60 gamma radiation would get through the  
Rossi lead shielding.





My idea was, it could be a very small and weak source, such as used  
in schools for physics lectures.

These are not too dangerous if shielded.


If a 2 cm thick lead shielded source has even a very modest amount of  
Co-60 then detectors nearby will detect the gammas - at all times.






If the gamma source is very small the intensity should also decrase  
by square of distance. The source could be very close to -  or  
inside the nickel powder core . Then the lead and the distance  
together could shield it close to natural baseline level.

Its just an idea. I dont know if this is possible.


This is not possible if the source produced enough radioactivity to  
have any effect.  Cosmic rays are very detectable and energetic  
enough to have an effect on LENR if a near background level of Co-60  
can have an effect.  A a background level of radiation the radiation  
would have to trigger a significant chain reaction to produce  
measurable heat.  Cosmic rays should trigger such a chain reaction too.


It is also notable that Co60 gammas have enough energy to trigger  
positron-electron pair generation.  Coincidence counters were placed  
up close to the experiment (one on each side) and detected none.





It also was an idea of me, that metal hydrides are very well  
researched. Metal hydride hydrogen storage systems are in use  
worldwide and they use specially developed alloys also such that  
use nickel as a component. These sytems are belived to be the most  
secure devices, melting or explosion or abnormal heating is not  
reported. Some of these are used with very high pressure and  
temperature.
So there are already thousands if not millions man-years of  
experience, R&D and scientific research done for metal hydride  
systems. systems. But only the LENR researchers find LENR  
reactions. Why?



Except for rare explosions, LENR researchers for the most part have  
had difficulty reliably measuring the effects, they are typically so  
small.  Metal hydride storage systems usually require heating  
systems, involve large temperature variations, and large reaction  
enthalpies.  LENR effects would not even be noticed unless very  
robust, which is highly unlikely.   Secondly, (relatively) very  
little LENR research has been done on ordinary hydrogen.  Most  
research has been done on deuterium based systems.



If  LENR reactions where easily to achieve, then this should have  
been discovered.


LENR reactions are *not* easy to achieve at this point (unless of  
course Rossi is on to something that makes it easy.)



The developers try to reduce the thermal hysteresis in the load/ 
unload cycle to get best efficiency. So they search for zero  
hysteresis.
When there is LENR energy production then we should have negative  
hysteresis and if this is possible by common chemical or physical  
methods, the countless researchers and scientists should have  
discovered this method or catalyzer.


Pretty difficult to say, not knowing what Rossi's method is, or even  
if it works as advertised.




Now, so the Rossis catalyzer must be something very unusual that  
nobody would ever try to use for a metal hydride storage system.


Agreed.




So we need something that ionizises or atomizes the hydrogen  
molecules, and something that is very unusual for hydride systems.
So I came to the idea it must be a radioactive gamma source or  
device. And it must be separated from the nickel, but can be very  
close and very small and can be inside..


There have been numerous reports of limited success with radiation  
stimulation of loaded lattices. Mostly these involved betas  
(electrons from electron microscope guns or accelerators), alphas, or  
neutrons.





Also I think, we should not only think about the energy, but also  
about frequencies and resonances. If Cobalt60 decays into Nickel60,  
then the gamma radiation spectrum should contain frequencies that  
are in tune with the resonance frequen

[Vo]:Rossi's device and input power measurement

[Horace Heffner]

This is just for the fun of it, not serious stuff regarding Rossi.

Earlier in the thread "Structure of Rossi Device" the possibility  
that ground and neutral were shorted in the Rossi controller box was  
discussed, thereby sharing return power on neutral and ground, and  
thus possibly halving the measured current to the device.  This would  
be an easy mistake to make if a polarized plug were used, unless a  
GFCI protected receptacle were used. However, the ammeter would have  
to clamped on the neutral or ground wire by mistake.



The L-type plug used would permit ground and neutral to be shorted,  
but would cause a short and breaker trip with 50% probability if  
plugged in at random. The L-type plug has three identical round  
conductors aligned in a row, with the central one being blue. It is a  
non-polarized plug. The insulation color of wires according to the  
current IEC 60446 standard is neutral-blue, line-brown, and  
protective-earth-green/yellow.  However, since the plug is not  
polarized, blue and brown wires can exchange roles depending on  
orientation of the plug at plug-in time. The clamp-on ammeter Rossi  
used was correctly clamped on the brown line wire which carries the  
potential, provided the plug is oriented correctly, else it is  
clamped on the neutral.


Just for fun I tried to see if I could come up with a circuit using  
just diodes and a transformer that would be line-neutral polarity  
independent which would always share return current on the neutral  
and ground. I came up with the circuit in Fig. 1. It is impervious to  
polarity of the inputs I1 and I2, and shares current between the  
neutral and ground regardless which way an L-type plug is plugged  
in.  This can be done without a transformer if active components are  
used.



--|<|o-|>|---G
||
|o---o
||
|o   |
||   |   |  Transformer
| o---|>|o-|<|---G   |   ---O||
| |  |  O||
o---o-|---|>|o-|<|---G   o--O||O---o S1 To
I1|  |   ||OLoad
  |  o--O||O---o S2
  | O||
  |  o--O||
I2|  |
o-o---|<|0-|>|---G

Fig. 1 - Circuit Sharing Load on Ground and Neutral.

This still leaves the problem that the plug has to be plugged in so  
that the brown (line) wire carries neutral to make for wrong  
measurements.  Also, ground fault isolation, if present, will result  
in a triggered breaker.


A much more simple method to throw off power measurements is to put a  
diode and possibly an inductor in the line so as to draw primarily DC  
power from the AC line.  The AC current measurement from a clamp-on  
AC meter would then be artificially very low.


o---Inductor-o---|>|---o  To
o--o  Load

This is the kind of thing, drawing mostly unidirectional current from  
an AC source,  could easily be done unintentionally.  I don't think  
any of the above is actually relevant to Rossi's work.  Still, I  
think it is good to think about these things when looking at new  
claims for free energy.  It highlights the importance of good input  
power measurement.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays

[Peter Heckert]

Am 13.09.2011 22:47, schrieb Man on Bridges:

Hi,

On 13-9-2011 20:44, Horace Heffner wrote:



Hmmm, is there a way to start and stop a gamma radiation source, as it 
may be used only to trigger the process?



There is no other way than shielding or increasing the distance.
Rossi could inside use a shield that is moved electrically or by heat 
(bimetal).

Or he could control the distance to the gamma source.
If it is a very small point source the /local/ intensity of radiation 
could be changed by factor 10^2 or 10^3.


Peter

Re: [Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays

[Axil Axil]

So we need something that ionizises or atomizes the hydrogen molecules, and
something that is very unusual for hydride systems.


If the Rossi reaction turns out to be centered on highly excited hydrogen
atoms...


The bumpy surface of a nickel lattice will “field-ionized” the Rydberg atoms
in a highly excited hydrogen envelope that hug the surface of the
nano-particle.


This phenomenon may be visualized as arising from the interaction of the
Rydberg atom with the electric fields due to its electrostatic “image.”
Compared to a hydrogen atom in the ground state, a Rydberg atom has an
enhanced susceptibility to these fields. This is because the Rydberg
electron experiences a greatly reduced electric field from the ion core due
to their larger average separation.



Polycrystalline metal surfaces of the nickel lattice of large micro
particles will generate inhomogeneous “patch” electric fields outside its
surface.



These electrostatic fields also influence Rydberg atoms, potentially causing
both level shifts and ionization and competing with the more intrinsic image
charge effects. In general, patch fields arise from the individual
nano-grains of a polycrystalline lattice surface exposing different crystal
faces of the individual nano-crystals.



Each of these faces has a different work function due to differing surface
dipole layers.



For example, Singh-Miller and Marzari have recently calculated the work
functions of the (111), (100), and (110) surfaces of gold and found 5.15,
5.10, and 5.04 eV, respectively. These differing work functions correspond
to potential differences just outside the surface beyond the dipole layer.



Consequently, charge density must be redistributed on the surface to satisfy
the electrostatic boundary conditions, producing macroscopic electric
fields.



While patch fields were first discussed extensively in the context of
thermionic emission they are present near polycrystalline metal structures
of any type, including electrodes and electrostatic shields.



A bumpy nickel lattice surface provides Rydberg atoms with the same spill
over ionization function that palladium does for ground state H2 atoms and
it keeps the ionization localized on the surface of the nickel lattice.




If you are interested in this subject read this paper for more theoretical
background:


*http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.1533v3.pdf*



To amplify the production of Rydberg atoms, I would use potassium or lithium
catalysts as a dopant in the hydrogen envelope.



Rossi has put together many different mechanisms that all work together to
amplify the cold fusion process. The secret catalyst is only one of his
tricks. It will not function on its own hook unless optimally combined with
all the other mechanisms; the nano surface of the micro particle catalyst
surface preparation being just one.


By the way, Rossi has said many times that no radioactive materials are used
in his reactor.


Best regards,

Axil



On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Peter Heckert wrote:

> Horace,
>
> thank you very much. I dont have the knowledge to calculate this. Only know
> the very basics.
> Found this via google:
>  20Final%20Version.pdf
> >
> There is data about screening.
>
> My idea was, it could be a very small and weak source, such as used in
> schools for physics lectures.
> These are not too dangerous if shielded.
>
> If the gamma source is very small the intensity should also decrase by
> square of distance. The source could be very close to -  or inside the
> nickel powder core . Then the lead and the distance together could shield it
> close to natural baseline level.
> Its just an idea. I dont know if this is possible.
>
> It also was an idea of me, that metal hydrides are very well researched.
> Metal hydride hydrogen storage systems are in use worldwide and they use
> specially developed alloys also such that use nickel as a component. These
> sytems are belived to be the most secure devices, melting or explosion or
> abnormal heating is not reported. Some of these are used with very high
> pressure and temperature.
> So there are already thousands if not millions man-years of experience, R&D
> and scientific research done for metal hydride systems. systems. But only
> the LENR researchers find LENR reactions. Why?
> If  LENR reactions where easily to achieve, then this should have been
> discovered. The developers try to reduce the thermal hysteresis in the
> load/unload cycle to get best efficiency. So they search for zero
> hysteresis.
> When there is LENR energy production then we should have negative
> hysteresis and if this is possible by common chemical or physical methods,
> the countless researchers and scientists should have discovered this method
> or catalyzer.
>
> Now, so the Rossis catalyzer must be something very unusual that nobody
> would ever t

Re: [Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays

[Man on Bridges]

Hi,

On 13-9-2011 20:44, Horace Heffner wrote:



Hmmm, is there a way to start and stop a gamma radiation source, as it 
may be used only to trigger the process?


Why I'm asking, well I remembered an older message earlier this year 
from Jed.


Sorry, for the long text which I dug up from my personal mail-archive, 
unfortunately it seems not to available in the vortex-mail-archive.


Kind regards,

MoB

On 16-2-2011 20:48, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Here is a revised version of the message I sent the other day.

Villa reported no gamma emissions or other radiation significantly 
above background from the Rossi device. Celani, however, said that he 
did detect something. Here are the details he related to me at ICCF16, 
from my notes, with corrections and additions by Celani.


Celani attended the demonstration on Jan. 14. The device did not work 
at first. He and others were waiting impatiently in a room next to the 
room with the device. He estimates that he was around 6 m from the 
device. He had two battery-powered detectors:


1. A sodium iodide gamma detector (NaI), set for 1 s acquisition time.

2. A Geiger counter (model GEM Radalert II, Perspective Scientific), 
which was set to 10 s acquisition time.


Both were turned on as he waited. The sodium iodide detector was in 
count mode rather than spectrum mode; that is, it just tells the 
number of counts per second.


Both showed what Celani considers normal background for Italy at that 
elevation.


As he was waiting, suddenly, during a 1-second interval both detectors 
were saturated. That is to say, they both registered counts off the 
scale. The following seconds the NaI detector returned to nomal. The 
Geiger counter had to be switched off to "delete overrange," which was 
>7.5 microsievert/hour, and later switched on again.


About 1 to 2 minutes after this event, Rossi emerged from the other 
room and said the machine just turned on and the demonstration was 
underway.


Celani commented that the only conventional source of gamma rays far 
from a nuclear reactor would be a rare event: a cosmic ray impact on 
the atmosphere producing proton storm shower of particles. He and I 
agreed it is extremely unlikely this happened coincidentally the same 
moment the reactor started . . . Although, come to think of it, 
perhaps the causality is reversed, and the cosmic ray triggered the 
Rossi device.


Another scientist said perhaps both detectors malfunctioned because of 
an electromagnetic source in the building or some other prosaic 
source. Celani considers this unrealistic because he also had in 
operation battery-operated radio frequency detectors: an ELF 
(Extremely Low Frequency) and RF (COM environmental microwave 
monitor), both made by Perspective Scientific. No radio frequency 
anomalies were detected. I remarked that it is also unrealistic 
because the two gamma detectors are battery powered and they work on 
different principles. The scientist pointed to neutron detectors in an 
early cold fusion experiment that malfunctioned at a certain time of 
day every day because some equipment in the laboratory building was 
turned on every day. That sort of thing can happen with neutron 
detectors, which are finicky, but this Geiger counter is used for 
safety monitoring. Such devices have to be rugged and reliable or they 
will not keep you safe, so I doubt it is easy to fool one of them.


Celani expresses some reservations about the reality of the Rossi 
device. Given his detector results I think it would be more 
appropriate for him to question the safety of it.


When Celani went in to see the experiment in action, he brought out 
the sodium iodide detector and prepared to change it to spectrum mode, 
which would give him more information about the ongoing reaction. 
Rossi objected vociferously, saying the spectrum would give Celani (or 
anyone else who see it), all they need to know to replicate the 
machine and steal Ross's intellectual property.


Celani later groused that there is no point to inviting scientists to 
a demo if you have no intentions of letter them use their own 
instruments. (Note, however, that Levi et al. did use their own 
instruments.)



Jacques Dufour also attended the demonstration. He does not speak much 
Italian, so he could not follow the discussion. He made some 
observations, including one that I consider important, namely that the 
outlet pipe was far too hot to touch. That means the temperature of it 
was over 70°C. That, in turn, proves there was considerable excess 
heat. McKubre and others have said the outlet temperature sensor was 
too close to the body of the device. Others have questioned whether 
the steam was really dry or not. If the question is whether the 
machine really produced heat or not, these factors can be ignored. All 
you need to know is the temperature of the tap water going in (15°C), 
the flow rate and the power input (400 W). At that power level the 
outlet pipe would be ~30°C. Celani poi

Re: [Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays

[Peter Heckert]

Horace,

thank you very much. I dont have the knowledge to calculate this. Only 
know the very basics.

Found this via google:

There is data about screening.

My idea was, it could be a very small and weak source, such as used in 
schools for physics lectures.

These are not too dangerous if shielded.

If the gamma source is very small the intensity should also decrase by 
square of distance. The source could be very close to -  or inside the 
nickel powder core . Then the lead and the distance together could 
shield it close to natural baseline level.

Its just an idea. I dont know if this is possible.

It also was an idea of me, that metal hydrides are very well researched. 
Metal hydride hydrogen storage systems are in use worldwide and they use 
specially developed alloys also such that use nickel as a component. 
These sytems are belived to be the most secure devices, melting or 
explosion or abnormal heating is not reported. Some of these are used 
with very high pressure and temperature.
So there are already thousands if not millions man-years of experience, 
R&D and scientific research done for metal hydride systems. systems. But 
only the LENR researchers find LENR reactions. Why?
If  LENR reactions where easily to achieve, then this should have been 
discovered. The developers try to reduce the thermal hysteresis in the 
load/unload cycle to get best efficiency. So they search for zero 
hysteresis.
When there is LENR energy production then we should have negative 
hysteresis and if this is possible by common chemical or physical 
methods, the countless researchers and scientists should have discovered 
this method or catalyzer.


Now, so the Rossis catalyzer must be something very unusual that nobody 
would ever try to use for a metal hydride storage system.


So we need something that ionizises or atomizes the hydrogen molecules, 
and something that is very unusual for hydride systems.
So I came to the idea it must be a radioactive gamma source or device. 
And it must be separated from the nickel, but can be very close and very 
small and can be inside..


Also I think, we should not only think about the energy, but also about 
frequencies and resonances. If Cobalt60 decays into Nickel60, then the 
gamma radiation spectrum should contain frequencies that are in tune 
with the resonance frequencies of the nickel nucleus or the inner 
electron shells of the nickel atom.


That was my idea and how I came to it.

Best,

Peter

Am 13.09.2011 20:44, schrieb Horace Heffner:


On Sep 13, 2011, at 3:10 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:


Hi,

Could it be that Rossi uses a Cobalt60 gamma source as catalyzer?
Cobalt 60 decays to Nickel60 and emits gamma rays. The gamma spectrum 
could be just the right spectrum and energy to excite the Nickel 
nucleus.
Maybe it is mainly the Cobalt60 that needs screening and not the 
reactor? This would explain the thickness of the lead screening.
Focardi has calculated the lead screening. So he must know about the 
gamma rays and probably knows about the catalyzer.
Once he said "I dont know and dont want to know"... Now I would 
believe he doesnt know, but I can hardly believe he doesnt want to 
know ;-)


Peter



It is notable that if a gamma plus high energy beta source were used 
for stimulation it could be kept in a container that isolated it from 
the nickel, and thus it would not be seen in post experiment analysis 
of the fuel.  There are numerous reports of the effectiveness of 
radiation stimulation of LENR. The problem is that shielding merely 
attenuates gammas.  Some always gets through. This could be detected 
externally.


Almost all (99.88%) C60 decay is 0.32 MeV beta followed by 1.12 MeV 
gamma, followed by 1.33 MeV gamma.  About 0.12% is 1.48 MeV beta 
followed by 1.3325 MeV gamma.


I think the lead shielding was stated by Rossi to be 2 cm thick, but 
don't have a reference handy.


Very roughly, the mass attenuation coefficient in lead for 1.12 MeV 
gammas is about 0.062 cm^2/gm and for 1.33 gammas about 0.057 
cm^2/gm.  The linear attenuation coefficient mu for 1.12 MeV gammas is 
(0.062 cm^2/gm) * (11.4 gm/cm^3) = 0.707/cm, and for 1.33 MeV gammas 
is (0.057 cm^2/gm) * (11.4 gm/cm^3) = 0.65/cm.


The gamma attenuation, from internal intensity I0 to external 
intensity I at distance x is given by:


   I = I0 * exp(-mu * x)

so for 1.12 MeV gammas we have:

   I = I0 * exp(-(0.707/cm)*(2 cm)) = I0 * exp(-1.414)

   I = I0 * 0.243

for 1.33 MeV gammas we have:

   I = I0 * exp(-(0.065/cm)*(2 cm)) = I0 * exp(-1.3)

   I = I0 * 0.88

There is in effect (assuming no calc. errors on my part), with regards 
to either safety or detection, no practical attenuation offered for 
cobalt 60  gammas by 2 cm of lead.


However, cobalt 60 is not the only possibility given the radioactive 
source is (and must be to avoid post experiment detection) physically 
isolated from the nickel.  There 

Re: [Vo]:Grimshaw paper

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 12:21 PM 9/9/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Grimshaw, T., Evidence-Based
Public Policy toward Cold Fusion: Rational Choices for a Potential
Alternative Energy Source. 2008, The University of Texas at
Austin.

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

A good read ... but doubt that any MPA thesis gets read by other than the
reviewers, classmates, friends and family.

Re: [Vo]:1MW Indipendent testing?

[Peter Heckert]

Am 13.09.2011 20:32, schrieb Peter Gluck:

TESTING is a problem of definition, like sex- a la Bill Clinton.
Testing is always "testing for what"
Is it really about a perfect experment done with hundreds of E-cats 
combined;, energy out, energy in radiations out and so on..,.?

Without doubt tests for radiation and security must be made first.
His answer could also mean "Yes, I can tell" (but will not tell ;-)

Re: [Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays

[Horace Heffner]

On Sep 13, 2011, at 3:10 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:


Hi,

Could it be that Rossi uses a Cobalt60 gamma source as catalyzer?
Cobalt 60 decays to Nickel60 and emits gamma rays. The gamma  
spectrum could be just the right spectrum and energy to excite the  
Nickel nucleus.
Maybe it is mainly the Cobalt60 that needs screening and not the  
reactor? This would explain the thickness of the lead screening.
Focardi has calculated the lead screening. So he must know about  
the gamma rays and probably knows about the catalyzer.
Once he said "I dont know and dont want to know"... Now I would  
believe he doesnt know, but I can hardly believe he doesnt want to  
know ;-)


Peter



It is notable that if a gamma plus high energy beta source were used  
for stimulation it could be kept in a container that isolated it from  
the nickel, and thus it would not be seen in post experiment analysis  
of the fuel.  There are numerous reports of the effectiveness of  
radiation stimulation of LENR. The problem is that shielding merely  
attenuates gammas.  Some always gets through. This could be detected  
externally.


Almost all (99.88%) C60 decay is 0.32 MeV beta followed by 1.12 MeV  
gamma, followed by 1.33 MeV gamma.  About 0.12% is 1.48 MeV beta  
followed by 1.3325 MeV gamma.


I think the lead shielding was stated by Rossi to be 2 cm thick, but  
don't have a reference handy.


Very roughly, the mass attenuation coefficient in lead for 1.12 MeV  
gammas is about 0.062 cm^2/gm and for 1.33 gammas about 0.057 cm^2/ 
gm.  The linear attenuation coefficient mu for 1.12 MeV gammas is  
(0.062 cm^2/gm) * (11.4 gm/cm^3) = 0.707/cm, and for 1.33 MeV gammas  
is (0.057 cm^2/gm) * (11.4 gm/cm^3) = 0.65/cm.


The gamma attenuation, from internal intensity I0 to external  
intensity I at distance x is given by:


   I = I0 * exp(-mu * x)

so for 1.12 MeV gammas we have:

   I = I0 * exp(-(0.707/cm)*(2 cm)) = I0 * exp(-1.414)

   I = I0 * 0.243

for 1.33 MeV gammas we have:

   I = I0 * exp(-(0.065/cm)*(2 cm)) = I0 * exp(-1.3)

   I = I0 * 0.88

There is in effect (assuming no calc. errors on my part), with  
regards to either safety or detection, no practical attenuation  
offered for cobalt 60  gammas by 2 cm of lead.


However, cobalt 60 is not the only possibility given the radioactive  
source is (and must be to avoid post experiment detection) physically  
isolated from the nickel.  There is no requirement for it to decay  
into Ni, or Cu, or Zn, which were found in the used fuel.  Thus, it  
is possible to choose an alpha or beta source which does not produce  
large gamma signatures through 2 cm of lead.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:1MW Indipendent testing?

[Peter Gluck]

TESTING is a problem of definition, like sex- a la Bill Clinton.
Testing is always "testing for what"
Is it really about a perfect experment done with hundreds of E-cats
combined;, energy out, energy in radiations out and so on..,.?
Peter

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 8:06 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> From Michele:
>
> > From JONP.
> >
> > Andrea Rossi
> > September 13th, 2011 at 6:19 AM
> > Dear Malcom Lear:
> > Yes,
> > Warm Regards,
> > A.R.
> >
> > Malcolm Lear
> > September 13th, 2011 at 5:48 AM
> > Hi Andrea,
> > Could you tell us if independent testing of the 1Mw plant is already
> > in progress.
> > Ciao
> > Malcolm
>
> Does anyone know where this independent testing is alleged to be
> occurring at, or is it still an industrial secret?
>
> Regards
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>


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

[Vo]:Confirmation of Thane C. Heins' regenerative acceleration

[Harry Veeder]

Thane C 
Heins Replication, Confirming the Negative Lenz Effect 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzxc3Ai4T3A

follow-up videos here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/overunityguide
 
Harry

Re: [Vo]:What is a UFO detector?

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Daniel,

> Well, given that this is an offtopic subject, when will be you next session
> with Witch Doctor? Can we suggest questions for you?

One can always "suggest" questions, to paraphrase an answer made
famous in the film "Ice Station Zebra." ;-) . Depending on the
circumstances I may consider them. I have plenty of other priorities
however.

I also have no idea when I'll get another crack at the Witch Doctor.

Could be a long time.

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

Re: [Vo]:1MW Indipendent testing?

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Michele:

> From JONP.
>
> Andrea Rossi
> September 13th, 2011 at 6:19 AM
> Dear Malcom Lear:
> Yes,
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
>
> Malcolm Lear
> September 13th, 2011 at 5:48 AM
> Hi Andrea,
> Could you tell us if independent testing of the 1Mw plant is already
> in progress.
> Ciao
> Malcolm

Does anyone know where this independent testing is alleged to be
occurring at, or is it still an industrial secret?

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

[Vo]:1MW Indipendent testing?

[Michele Comitini]

>From JONP.


Andrea Rossi
September 13th, 2011 at 6:19 AM
Dear Malcom Lear:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Malcolm Lear
September 13th, 2011 at 5:48 AM
Hi Andrea,
Could you tell us if independent testing of the 1Mw plant is already
in progress.
Ciao
Malcolm


mic

[Vo]: lithium-metal polymer battery

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

Just an FYI... this from a Paris newspaper, 9/10.
-Mark

===
FIFTEEN years ago Vincent Bolloré, a French industrialist, decided to get
into the business of electricity storage. He started a project to produce
rechargeable batteries in two small rooms of his family mansion in Brittany.
“I asked him, ‘what are you doing?’ and I told him to stop, that it wouldn’t
go anywhere,” says Alain Minc, a business consultant in Paris who has
advised Mr Bolloré for many years. Fortunately, he says, Mr Bolloré
continued.

[deleted]

The real aim for Mr Bolloré, however, is to showcase his battery technology.
His group has developed a type of rechargeable cell, called a lithium-metal
polymer (LMP) battery. This is different from the lithium-ion batteries used
by most of the car industry. Mr Bolloré believes fervently that his
batteries are superior, mainly because they are safer. Lithium-ion batteries
can explode if they overheat—which in the past happened in some laptops.
Carmakers incorporate safety features to prevent the battery’s cells from
overheating.

Mr Bolloré’s LMP batteries are said to be more stable when being charged and
discharged, which is when batteries come under most strain. Just two
European carmakers have seen the batteries, which are made only by the
Bolloré Group. One car-industry executive says that though the LMP
technology is attractive from a safety point of view, the batteries have to
be heated up to function—which takes power and makes them less convenient to
use.
===

Re: [Vo]:The Russian Time Machine

[Man on Bridges]

Hi,

On 13-9-2011 2:13, Terry Blanton wrote:

There are also rumors of an electromagnetic field that the U.S. military
allegedly used (based on Einstein’s design) to create an invisible
ship.


Sounds a bit like the movie  "The final countdown", which was released 
in 1980.

ref. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080736/

Kind regards,

MoB

[Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays

[peter . heckert]

Hi,

Could it be that Rossi uses a Cobalt60 gamma source as catalyzer? 
Cobalt 60 decays to Nickel60 and emits gamma rays. The gamma spectrum could be 
just the right spectrum and energy to excite the Nickel nucleus.
Maybe it is mainly the Cobalt60 that needs screening and not the reactor? This 
would explain the thickness of the lead screening.
Focardi has calculated the lead screening. So he must know about the gamma rays 
and probably knows about the catalyzer.
Once he said "I dont know and dont want to know"... Now I would believe he 
doesnt know, but I can hardly believe he doesnt want to know ;-)

Peter