[Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays
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
Re: [Vo]:The Russian Time Machine
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]: lithium-metal polymer battery
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 wouldnt 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 overheatwhich in the past happened in some laptops. Carmakers incorporate safety features to prevent the batterys cells from overheating. Mr Bollorés 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 functionwhich takes power and makes them less convenient to use. ===
[Vo]:1MW Indipendent testing?
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
Re: [Vo]:1MW Indipendent testing?
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
Re: [Vo]:What is a UFO detector?
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
[Vo]:Confirmation of Thane C. Heins' regenerative acceleration
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]:1MW Indipendent testing?
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
Re: [Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays
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?
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]:Grimshaw paper
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]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays
Horace, thank you very much. I dont have the knowledge to calculate this. Only know the very basics. Found this via google: http://itcanbeshown.com/NERS425/Lab5/Shielding%20-%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, RD 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 is
Re: [Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays
Hi, On 13-9-2011 20:44, Horace Heffner wrote: snip calculation of lead shielding 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
Re: [Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays
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 peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: Horace, thank you very much. I dont have the knowledge to calculate this. Only know the very basics. Found this via google: http://itcanbeshown.com/**NERS425/Lab5/Shielding%20-%** 20Final%20Version.pdfhttp://itcanbeshown.com/NERS425/Lab5/Shielding%20-%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, RD 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
Re: [Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays
Am 13.09.2011 22:47, schrieb Man on Bridges: Hi, On 13-9-2011 20:44, Horace Heffner wrote: snip calculation of lead shielding 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
[Vo]:Rossi's device and input power measurement
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
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: http://itcanbeshown.com/NERS425/Lab5/Shielding%20-%20Final% 20Version.pdf 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, RD 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
Re: [Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays
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: snip calculation of lead shielding 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's device and input power measurement
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 hheff...@mtaonline.net 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's device and input power measurement
On Sep 13, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: On Sep 14, 2011 1:00 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net 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 e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays
Hi, On 14-9-2011 1:20, Horace Heffner wrote: snip calculation 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
[Vo]:logical jiu-jitsu, continuation
Andrea Rossi says: Andrea Rossi September 13th, 2011 at 3:02 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=9#comment-72184 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
