Re: [Vo]:CERN clocks subatomic particles traveling faster than light

[Dr Josef Karthauser]

On 23 Sep 2011, at 21:09, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

> 2011/9/23 Dr Josef Karthauser :
>> 
>> There's no other evidence for anything other than a 3+1 dimensional universe.
> 
> If this observation about neutrinos is true, then we do not have
> anymore even 3+1 dimensions, but only three dimensions. FTL falsifies
> the concept of space-time, therefore we cannot no longer consider time
> as fourth dimension.

Really? I'm not sure that it does that. At least, I doubt that that's going
to be the first thing that theoreticians give up to explain this. :)

> I would say that if we need to resort extra dimensions to save the
> relativity, then it is just bye bye relativity.

No, not at all. G/R is compatible with extra dimensions. That's the entire
premise behind compactification and how it's possible to take seriously
any notion of super-gravity. (Not that supersymmetry is looking healthy
these days).

> And it goes without saying, that if relativity fails, everything about
> string theory also fails. But quantum mechanics will prevail. I think
> that quantum mechanics should have falsified relativity in 1930's when
> Einstein find out about the entanglement. Einstein was correct IMHO,
> entanglement is really spooky action at a distance.

I don't think that we need to worry about string theory being healthy.
It's not being invoked to explain anything yet; as far as I know we're 
still solving the landscape problem, and have no experimental way of
verifying that string theory is true or not.  And, currently, there's
no other local evidence that suggests that G/R is incorrect. Quite the
opposite in fact, isn't it? The gravity probe B results have tested it
to pretty high precision.

So, it's not so much that Q/M is right, and G/R is wrong. It's more the
other way around. Even although we believe that Q/M provides a true
formalism with which to describe the fields and interactions of nature,
our best attempt to use it yields a single wave function containing all
the known particle and field interactions but containing 18 free parameters 
which need to be fine-tuned by experimental results in order for the
equations to be predictive. So, yes, Q/M is exactly the right theory and has
not been shown yet to say anything other than the truth. But, until we have
a theory that constrains the free parameters, at best we can say that we
have an effective theory, which happens to model what we observe in
experiment, without explaining why.

What we've got to remember here about neutrinos, is that we currently
don't have a very good model of them at all. At first we thought that
they were massless and more recently we've discovered that they change
flavours as they travel through space/time, the so-called 
neutrino-oscillations, and that requires us to accept that they're not massless
at all. So we've tweaked the standard model to incorporate this by adding
a flavour changing matrix into the symmetries, but we've got no theory
which predicts why the flavours change. It's just been added by hand,
introducing another 7 free parameters that also have to be fine-tuned.

I don't think anyone can put their hand on their hearts anymore and say
that they understand why the symmetries in the standard model have to
be the way that they are. That's why so much work has been put into
string theory, and super-symmetry. They're wild stabs at finding some
mathematical structure which would incorporate all the symmetries that
we find in nature, and constraining the free parameters (or at least
reducing the quantity of them!) And, let's not talk about the Higgs!
(Until that's found, then all bets are off that the standard model is
"the one true model").

So, whatever your take on extra-(spacial)dimensions are, if you believe that
quantum field theory is the entire theory, and that the standard model is
the true expression of nature encapsulated in it, then the universe is just
a single solution to a 25 parameter equation. How do you feel about those
21 extra dimensions?

And, don't get me started about dark energy and dark matter, which are
another manifestation of extra symmetries in nature that we don't understand.

:)

Are you still sure of Q/M?

To my mind, I think that we've got a confusion in the way that we think
about nature. We shouldn't be partitioning it into the quantum mechanics of
the small, and the general relativity of the big. Instead we should be
partitioning it into the parts that exhibit continuity and the parts that
exhibit discontinuity. I don't believe we'll be able to fully comprehend
what's really going on until we do.

Regards,
Joe

Re: [Vo]:CERN clocks subatomic particles traveling faster than light

[Dr Josef Karthauser]

On 23 Sep 2011, at 21:09, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

> 2011/9/23 Dr Josef Karthauser :
>> 
>> There's no other evidence for anything other than a 3+1 dimensional universe.
> 
> If this observation about neutrinos is true, then we do not have
> anymore even 3+1 dimensions, but only three dimensions. FTL falsifies
> the concept of space-time, therefore we cannot no longer consider time
> as fourth dimension.

Really? I'm not sure that it does that. At least, I doubt that that's going
to be the first thing that theoreticians give up to explain this. :)

> I would say that if we need to resort extra dimensions to save the
> relativity, then it is just bye bye relativity.

No, not at all. G/R is compatible with extra dimensions. That's the entire
premise behind compactification and how it's possible to take seriously
any notion of super-gravity. (Not that supersymmetry is looking healthy
these days).

> And it goes without saying, that if relativity fails, everything about
> string theory also fails. But quantum mechanics will prevail. I think
> that quantum mechanics should have falsified relativity in 1930's when
> Einstein find out about the entanglement. Einstein was correct IMHO,
> entanglement is really spooky action at a distance.

I don't think that we need to worry about string theory being healthy.
It's not being invoked to explain anything yet; as far as I know we're 
still solving the landscape problem, and have no experimental way of
verifying that string theory is true or not.  And, currently, there's
no other local evidence that suggests that G/R is incorrect. Quite the
opposite in fact, isn't it? The gravity probe B results have tested it
to pretty high precision.

So, it's not so much that Q/M is right, and G/R is wrong. It's more the
other way around. Even although we believe that Q/M provides a true
formalism with which to describe the fields and interactions of nature,
our best attempt to use it yields a single wave function containing all
the known particle and field interactions but containing 18 free parameters 
which need to be fine-tuned by experimental results in order for the
equations to be predictive. So, yes, Q/M is exactly the right theory and has
not been shown yet to say anything other than the truth. But, until we have
a theory that constrains the free parameters, at best we can say that we
have an effective theory, which happens to model what we observe in
experiment, without explaining why.

What we've got to remember here about neutrinos, is that we currently
don't have a very good model of them at all. At first we thought that
they were massless and more recently we've discovered that they change
flavours as they travel through space/time, the so-called 
neutrino-oscillations, and that requires us to accept that they're not massless
at all. So we've tweaked the standard model to incorporate this by adding
a flavour changing matrix into the symmetries, but we've got no theory
which predicts why the flavours change. It's just been added by hand,
introducing another 7 free parameters that also have to be fine-tuned.

I don't think anyone can put their hand on their hearts anymore and say
that they understand why the symmetries in the standard model have to
be the way that they are. That's why so much work has been put into
string theory, and super-symmetry. They're wild stabs at finding some
mathematical structure which would incorporate all the symmetries that
we find in nature, and constraining the free parameters (or at least
reducing the quantity of them!) And, let's not talk about the Higgs!
(Until that's found, then all bets are off that the standard model is
"the one true model").

So, whatever your take on extra-(spacial)dimensions are, if you believe that
quantum field theory is the entire theory, and that the standard model is
the true expression of nature encapsulated in it, then the universe is just
a single solution to a 25 parameter equation. How do you feel about those
21 extra dimensions?

And, don't get me started about dark energy and dark matter, which are
another manifestation of extra symmetries in nature that we don't understand.

:)

Are you still sure of Q/M?

To my mind, I think that we've got a confusion in the way that we think
about nature. We shouldn't be partitioning it into the quantum mechanics of
the small, and the general relativity of the big. Instead we should be
partitioning it into the parts that exhibit continuity and the parts that
exhibit discontinuity. I don't believe we'll be able to fully comprehend
what's really going on until we do.

Regards,
Joe

Re: [Vo]:Steam Sparge

[Horace Heffner]

I wrote: "The nice thing about this approach for the 1 MW E-cat is  
all that is needed for cooling is a 5 gal/min pump, some big hose,   
and a lake or river."



That should have said: "The nice thing about this approach for the 1  
MW E-cat is all that is needed for cooling is a 200 gal/min pump,  
some big hose,  and a lake or river."


I don't now recall where I posted the calculation for that.

Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Steam Sparge

[Horace Heffner]

Some corrected thoughts.

For the secondary circuit only one flow meter is needed, and two  
thermometers. For the primary circuit, input and output flow meters  
should be used, and two thermometers. It is important not to assume  
the pump outputs at a constant rate against all pressures into the E- 
cat. Knowing both primary circuit flow rates, which can be very  
different, due to the water storage capacity of the E-cat, provides  
some information about what is happening inside the E-cat, and  
decouples the output flow and pressure from the input. If only one  
primary side flow meter is available it should be on the output of  
the condenser, where heat measurement is most critical.  A  
comparatively inexpensive manually read accumulating water meter  
could be used on the input side, for verification purposes and to  
manually diagnose problems like low input flow.


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Will Robots Steal Your Job?

[Harry Veeder]

- Original Message -
> From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson 
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Cc: 
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 6:29:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Will Robots Steal Your Job?
> 
> 
> Robots will never earn any income. 

Are you sure a robot could never be designed and programmed to earn an income?

Inaddition to rights and contract law, the capacity to earn an income in a free 
market economy 
is supposedly what ensures consumers get what they want. 

Now, if the universe is really characterised by natural laws and these laws are 
complete or will be completed, then 
I see no reason why in principle the process of innovation and free enterprise 
might be someday be accomplished 
by swarms of competing/cooperating robot entrepeneurs designed by people who 
aren't interested in accumulating money. 

Ironically yours,
Harry    

Re: [Vo]:Steam Sparge

[Horace Heffner]

On Sep 26, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Horace Heffner  wrote:

It is nice to see our views so closely aligned.

They are indeed.


I think running the steam and water through a condensing heat  
exchanger works very well, provided *all* the flow and temperature  
variables are recorded very frequently - more frequently than a  
bucket test would allow . . .


For practical purposes, I do not think it is a good idea to  
generate steam and water inside the machine. This erodes the pipes  
and pumps. Defkalion's method is much better. They use fluid that  
boils at a high temperatures and they leave it in liquid state. You  
can generate steam in the secondary loop.


Yes, much better and more stable.




When evaluating the device, I do not see any reason to measure the  
temperatures in the primary loop.


This depends highly on the feedback mechanism for the hot water, if  
there is one, and whether the ability to control input water  
temperature is needed.  Rossi stated the hot water would be fed back  
to E-cat.   The most stable way to do that would be to create an  
insulated reservoir, at room air pressure,  and pump water from the  
reservoir as is done now.  The reservoir would present a good  
probability of unmeasured heat loss.  The varying temperature of the  
input water creates a varying load on the condenser.  The most stable  
configuration would  be to pump cold water into the E-cat and dump  
the primary loop water, measuring its heat content first though.   A  
system of this kind, with feedback, would then have two inputs to  
measure:  (M1) cold water into the E-cat and (M2) cold water into the  
heat exchanger secondary.   The system would have two heat outputs:   
(M3) hot water out of the heat exchanger secondary, and (M4) hot  
water out of the heat exchanger primary, which could and probably  
would involve a substantial amount of power.  The measuring stations  
Mi have to measure flow and temperature.  Summing the two outputs  
would be essential if a clean curve of (nearly instantaneous) power  
out vs power in were desirable, or timely energy in vs energy out  
curves.  Measuring all four heat flows provides a means to decouple  
the primary circuit output temperature (and pressure) from the E-cat  
input temperature (and pressure).  Water storage in the E-cat itself  
need not be taken into account until the end of the run when cold  
water is used to run out the numbers for final total energy  
calculations.


It is feasible to build a calorimeter using only three measuring  
stations, and I think this approach might be especially good for the  
1 MW E-cat.   This is accomplished by eliminating the heat exchanger  
and simply merging the primary output and secondary input flows into  
a continuous sparging condenser, with a single output  into one  
measuring station M3.The nice thing about this approach for the 1  
MW E-cat is all that is needed for cooling is a 5 gal/min pump, some  
big hose,  and a lake or river.   Water to the input measuring  
station M1 could be pumped from any desired source.   The output  
water could be dumped, or air cooled and recycled to the secondary  
input, with some recycled to the E-cat input reservoir.  If a special  
coolant is used, or high pressure primary operation is desired, the  
four measuring station approach seems to me necessary to maintain  
control of the E-cat, and to avoid heat loss errors for the system as  
a whole.






As I said before, in a test to prove the thing is producing excess  
energy, I see no reason to generate steam at all. Why not just use  
hot water even if it is inefficient? Harry Veeder said that Rossi  
is devoting all of this time to steam tests. Perhaps he is but he  
can certainly spare a day to have someone do water tests. Since  
people will be in the lab taking up space and interfering with his  
work anyway, they might as well do a flowing water test.


Since the cooling solution is isolated from the catalyst it would be  
possible to use car coolant solution (antifreeze).  There are  
pressure and temperature instability problems with recycling the  
fluid, but not nearly as much as with boiling water.






The principle expense I would expect is in accurate digitally  
interfaced flow meters.  It is always good to have an independent  
method to confirm results and to provide confidence in control run  
calibrations.


Yes, this is essential.



[snip]


I think the temperature in such a bucket falls, or at least can  
fall, significantly, considering a delta T measurement is being  
made.  The more accurate the delta T the longer the test and the  
bigger the delta T, but then the more error due to heat loss unless  
the bucket is insulated. Also, there is not just one calorimetry  
constant at higher temperatures.  There is a calorimetry function  
by temperature (vs constant) due to nonlinear losses due to  
evaporation and radiation.


This is not difficult to determin

Re: [Vo]:Re: Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson to test an e-Cat module on October 6th

[Horace Heffner]

On Sep 26, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote:


On 2011-09-26 20:54, Horace Heffner wrote:


Rossi states on the Passerini blog (translated by google): "It seems
appropriate to emphasize that [...]



Quite a mixup! What is going on with NASA? Is that another mixup?


The text you quoted ("It seems appropriate [...] in a good 24  
hours!") is from Daniele Passerini, not Rossi.


Cheers,
S.A.



Oh thanks!  Sorry about that. It should have read:

Passerini states on the Passerini blog (translated by google): "It  
seems appropriate to emphasize that these are exactly the  
experimental setting that Joseph Levi, as early as February, I  
explained that he had designed for the official tests on the E-Cat  
all'UniBO programmed, setting later validated together with  
professors from the University of Uppsala. I say this in response to  
another physicist, known throughout the LENR and with the same first  
name Josephson, which expresses, always on the mailing list of CMNS,  
regarding the competence of Levi. I speak of course, Brian Ahern."


Passerini further states (translated by google): "In October I will  
give here on the blog, the maximum coverage on the making of the test  
with Brian Josephson ... and for now I say no more. I add only that  
the expression "more then 12 hours" sets a lower limit, but not more  
than in short, this time I trust in a good 24 hours!"


I thought there was an "A.R." under that text earlier. Just getting a  
bit senile I guess.


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Will Robots Steal Your Job?

[Jouni Valkonen]

Steven, you are refering to value add tax with that "employment tax". There
is no resistance for value add tax in europe and it is commonly ca. 20%.
Many people however argue that the proportion should be increased because it
is unethical to tax incomes. Some even think that all tax revenues should be
taken from value add tax. So perhaps we have different cultture in this side
of Atlantic Ocean.

Robots add value for the economy. For sure we can tax it!

Automation increases leisure time due to productivity incresement. We should
enjoy it, not to oppose it.

I think that opposition for taxes in America is because the government of
America is so socialistic, that far too large portion of tax incomes goes
for military and government bureaucracy and thus they are not supporting the
economy. But e.g. in Denmark total tax rate is more than 50%, but it's
burden for economy is negligible because most of the money is returned to
the free markets, because they are used to boost purchasing power of those
who need economic support in order to be good consumers for capitalists.

In pure and ideal basic income economy, all tax revenues are returned to the
markets boosting purchasing power of consumers, therefore economic burden of
taxes is zero and no one has no economic reasons to oppose taxes.

—Jouni
On Sep 27, 2011 1:30 AM, "OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson" <
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jouni sez:
>
>>> This article references Martin Ford's "Lights in the Tunnel" which was
>>> discussed here.
>>
>> I have not yet read the article, but one short comment about the topic.
>>
>> That robots are stealing our jobs is not an issue, because we can tax
>> robots and give money to the poor as a basic income.
>>
>> Robots may steal our McJobs, but they will not steal our money.
>
> Say what
>
> "...tax robots???"
>
> Robots will never earn any income. They are slaves. You can't tax
> income from slaves that never earn income.
>
> It will have to be the corporations that all of these "employ" robots
> that will have to be taxed with an "employment tax". Unfortunately,
> and particularly within the United States, you can be sure American
> corporations will resist paying "employment taxes". Super conservative
> political organizations like the Tea Party organization will have
> nothing to do with it.
>
> Nevertheless, governments will have to go after corporations that have
> systematically thrown out employees in favor of "employing" robots
> that don't need to be paid and don't need expensive health insurance.
> Governments will need to institute some kind of a reasonably fair
> "employment tax" system that these corporations must pay.
>
> Unfortunately, I suspect most corporations and will vehemently resist
> any of these kinds of taxation measures. From their POV why would any
> corporation in their right mind want to be taxed in order to generate
> income for someone else that from their perspective contributes
> nothing to the value of their company.
>
> Such a perception is, of course, extremely short sighted. By not
> paying any kind of "employment taxes" these corporations will
> essentially sign our country's economic death warrant. They will end
> up eating their own young and all of us along with them. Too many
> unemployed will continue to remain unemployed, unable buy any of the
> very products and services that these corporations now produce through
> robotics and artificial intelligence. The will end up signing their
> own corporate death sentences.
>
> Hopefully, smarter heads than those running conservative organizations
> like the Tea Party movement will eventually prevail. Hopefully enough
> will see the light at the end of the tunnel. So far, however, nobody
> seems to be willing to look at these issues for what they is. As such,
> I have serious concerns.
>
> This employment/taxation issue is discussed in the book by Martin
> Ford, "Lights in the Tunnel"
>
> Regards
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson to test an e-Cat module on October 6th

[Horace Heffner]

On Sep 26, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:


Am 26.09.2011 20:58, schrieb Akira Shirakawa:

On 2011-09-26 19:51, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Right. Josephson says he has no intention of doing a test at  
present.

This was a mixup.


By his latest comments on that blog post, I see that Passerini  
acknowledges that there has been a mixup on this part. It was  
"just" an invitation that Josephson had the right to accept or  
decline. Hopefully other acclaimed scientists, skeptics included,  
have been invited as well.


What they currently need there is a high level specialist for  
thermic measurements.
Professor Bjoern Palm 

who was interviewed by NyTeknik, would be a god candidate.
And possibly another specialist for electric measurement.


Yes, preferably someone who can bring his own equipment.




As long as the reactor itself remains secret, Nuklear Physicists  
are not needed ;-)




So true, unless gamma spectra measurements should happen to be allowed.

Best regards,

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

[Vo]:Toroidal Vortices

[Terry Blanton]

http://www.wimp.com/toroidalvortices/

Mostly entertaining.  Sometimes frightening.

Steam quality not applicable.  :-)

T

Re: [Vo]:Will Robots Steal Your Job?

[Mark Goldes]

Louis Kelso foresaw the automation issue decades ago. See Second Incomes for 
All at www.aesopinstitute.org

A Capital Homestead Act has been proposed that grew directly out of his ideas 
regarding a way to deal with the problem.




From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Will Robots Steal Your Job?

Jouni sez:

>> This article references Martin Ford's "Lights in the Tunnel" which was
>> discussed here.
>
> I have not yet read the article, but one short comment about the topic.
>
> That robots are stealing our jobs is not an issue, because we can tax
> robots and give money to the poor as a basic income.
>
> Robots may steal our McJobs, but they will not steal our money.

Say what

"...tax robots???"

Robots will never earn any income. They are slaves. You can't tax
income from slaves that never earn income.

It will have to be the corporations that all of these "employ" robots
that will have to be taxed with an "employment tax". Unfortunately,
and particularly within the United States, you can be sure American
corporations will resist paying "employment taxes". Super conservative
political organizations like the Tea Party organization will have
nothing to do with it.

Nevertheless, governments will have to go after corporations that have
systematically thrown out employees in favor of "employing" robots
that don't need to be paid and don't need expensive health insurance.
Governments will need to institute some kind of a reasonably fair
"employment tax" system that these corporations must pay.

Unfortunately, I suspect most corporations and will vehemently resist
any of these kinds of taxation measures. From their POV why would any
corporation in their right mind want to be taxed in order to generate
income for someone else that from their perspective contributes
nothing to the value of their company.

Such a perception is, of course, extremely short sighted. By not
paying any kind of "employment taxes" these corporations will
essentially sign our country's economic death warrant. They will end
up eating their own young and all of us along with them. Too many
unemployed will continue to remain unemployed, unable buy any of the
very products and services that these corporations now produce through
robotics and artificial intelligence. The will end up signing their
own corporate death sentences.

Hopefully, smarter heads than those running conservative organizations
like the Tea Party movement will eventually prevail. Hopefully enough
will see the light at the end of the tunnel. So far, however, nobody
seems to be willing to look at these issues for what they is. As such,
I have serious concerns.

This employment/taxation issue is discussed in the book by Martin
Ford, "Lights in the Tunnel"

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

Re: [Vo]:Will Robots Steal Your Job?

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Jouni sez:

>> This article references Martin Ford's "Lights in the Tunnel" which was
>> discussed here.
>
> I have not yet read the article, but one short comment about the topic.
>
> That robots are stealing our jobs is not an issue, because we can tax
> robots and give money to the poor as a basic income.
>
> Robots may steal our McJobs, but they will not steal our money.

Say what

"...tax robots???"

Robots will never earn any income. They are slaves. You can't tax
income from slaves that never earn income.

It will have to be the corporations that all of these "employ" robots
that will have to be taxed with an "employment tax". Unfortunately,
and particularly within the United States, you can be sure American
corporations will resist paying "employment taxes". Super conservative
political organizations like the Tea Party organization will have
nothing to do with it.

Nevertheless, governments will have to go after corporations that have
systematically thrown out employees in favor of "employing" robots
that don't need to be paid and don't need expensive health insurance.
Governments will need to institute some kind of a reasonably fair
"employment tax" system that these corporations must pay.

Unfortunately, I suspect most corporations and will vehemently resist
any of these kinds of taxation measures. From their POV why would any
corporation in their right mind want to be taxed in order to generate
income for someone else that from their perspective contributes
nothing to the value of their company.

Such a perception is, of course, extremely short sighted. By not
paying any kind of "employment taxes" these corporations will
essentially sign our country's economic death warrant. They will end
up eating their own young and all of us along with them. Too many
unemployed will continue to remain unemployed, unable buy any of the
very products and services that these corporations now produce through
robotics and artificial intelligence. The will end up signing their
own corporate death sentences.

Hopefully, smarter heads than those running conservative organizations
like the Tea Party movement will eventually prevail. Hopefully enough
will see the light at the end of the tunnel. So far, however, nobody
seems to be willing to look at these issues for what they is. As such,
I have serious concerns.

This employment/taxation issue is discussed in the book by Martin
Ford, "Lights in the Tunnel"

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

Re: [Vo]:Will Robots Steal Your Job?

[Jouni Valkonen]

2011/9/26 Jed Rothwell :

> This article references Martin Ford's "Lights in the Tunnel" which was
> discussed here.

I have not yet read the article, but one short comment about the topic.

That robots are stealing our jobs is not an issue, because we can tax
robots and give money to the poor as a basic income.

Robots may steal our McJobs, but they will not steal our money.

   –Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Re: Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson to test an e-Cat module on October 6th

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Peter Heckert  wrote:

> Professor Bjoern Palm
> 
> who was interviewed by NyTeknik, would be a god candidate.

A delightful typo!

T

Re: [Vo]:Steam Sparge

[Jouni Valkonen]

2011/9/26 Jed Rothwell :
> Jouni Valkonen  wrote:
>
>>
>> > Yup, stirring is the problem. You need to stir vigorously with a stick
>> > or
>> > something like a Dremel tool with a paint mixer attached. (Like a giant
>> > eggbeater.)
>> >
>>
>> That is untrue, it is not a problem. It really does not need much
>> efforts to stir 10 kg water . . .
>
> Did you do this test? I have done it, and in my experience mixing is a
> problem. You need to mix it more vigorously than the person did in this
> video.
>

Yes, I have done several titration tests in chemistry lab and indeed I
have found out that it does not take much more than few seconds when
liquid is fully mixed in Erlenmeyer flask.

I think that we have here huge semantic problem, not real problem.
When I am saying that there is a problem, I am referring an intrinsic
methodological problem for the experimental setup (Levi's steam
experiments had methodological problems). Instead if I say that there
is no problem, that means that it is possible to calculate exact
amount for stirring that is required so that we can say that water is
fully mixed let's say in 68 seconds. Calculating the amount of
stirring is elementary fluid dynamics, but stirring level is also very
easy just to calibrate, so that there is no need for boring
mathematical analysis.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Re: Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson to test an e-Cat module on October 6th

[Peter Heckert]

Am 26.09.2011 20:58, schrieb Akira Shirakawa:

On 2011-09-26 19:51, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Right. Josephson says he has no intention of doing a test at present.
This was a mixup.


By his latest comments on that blog post, I see that Passerini 
acknowledges that there has been a mixup on this part. It was "just" 
an invitation that Josephson had the right to accept or decline. 
Hopefully other acclaimed scientists, skeptics included, have been 
invited as well.


What they currently need there is a high level specialist for thermic 
measurements.
Professor Bjoern Palm 


who was interviewed by NyTeknik, would be a god candidate.
And possibly another specialist for electric measurement.

As long as the reactor itself remains secret, Nuklear Physicists are not 
needed ;-)

Re: [Vo]:Re: Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson to test an e-Cat module on October 6th

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2011-09-26 20:54, Horace Heffner wrote:


Rossi states on the Passerini blog (translated by google): "It seems
appropriate to emphasize that [...]



Quite a mixup! What is going on with NASA? Is that another mixup?


The text you quoted ("It seems appropriate [...] in a good 24 hours!") 
is from Daniele Passerini, not Rossi.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Steam Sparge

[Jed Rothwell]

Horace Heffner  wrote:

It is nice to see our views so closely aligned.
>

They are indeed.


I think running the steam and water through a condensing heat exchanger
> works very well, provided *all* the flow and temperature variables are
> recorded very frequently - more frequently than a bucket test would allow .
> . .
>

For practical purposes, I do not think it is a good idea to generate steam
and water inside the machine. This erodes the pipes and pumps. Defkalion's
method is much better. They use fluid that boils at a high temperatures and
they leave it in liquid state. You can generate steam in the secondary loop.

When evaluating the device, I do not see any reason to measure the
temperatures in the primary loop.

As I said before, in a test to prove the thing is producing excess energy, I
see no reason to generate steam at all. Why not just use hot water even if
it is inefficient? Harry Veeder said that Rossi is devoting all of this time
to steam tests. Perhaps he is but he can certainly spare a day to have
someone do water tests. Since people will be in the lab taking up space and
interfering with his work anyway, they might as well do a flowing water
test.


The principle expense I would expect is in accurate digitally interfaced
> flow meters.  It is always good to have an independent method to confirm
> results and to provide confidence in control run calibrations.
>

Yes, this is essential.




> Difficult to quantify accurately, but not difficult to judge.  The 5 kW
> steam plume clearly has a much larger diameter, much greater length, has a
> higher velocity, and does not require a black background to observe.
>

Look at videos of steam cleaners and you will see that it is very difficult
to determine how much power the device is consuming. I think a lot depends
upon the shape of the end of the hose or nozzle.



> I think the temperature in such a bucket falls, or at least can fall,
> significantly, considering a delta T measurement is being made.  The more
> accurate the delta T the longer the test and the bigger the delta T, but
> then the more error due to heat loss unless the bucket is insulated. Also,
> there is not just one calorimetry constant at higher temperatures.  There is
> a calorimetry function by temperature (vs constant) due to nonlinear losses
> due to evaporation and radiation.
>

This is not difficult to determine. Mizuno and others do it the easy way.
You fill the container with hot water at the peak temperature of the
experiment. You leave the stirrer running and the data recorder collecting
temperatures. Let it cool for an hour or two, until it is close to room
temperature again, and you will see how much heat it loses at every
temperature along the way. there is probably a complex set of variables
controlling the exact rate at each temperature, depending upon stirring and
other factors, but you can simply measure it and then plug in the values for
each temperature ~5° apart.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson to test an e-Cat module on October 6th

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2011-09-26 19:51, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Right. Josephson says he has no intention of doing a test at present.
This was a mixup.


By his latest comments on that blog post, I see that Passerini 
acknowledges that there has been a mixup on this part. It was "just" an 
invitation that Josephson had the right to accept or decline. Hopefully 
other acclaimed scientists, skeptics included, have been invited as well.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson to test an e-Cat module on October 6th

[Horace Heffner]

On Sep 26, 2011, at 10:02 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote:


On 2011-09-26 19:51, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Right. Josephson says he has no intention of doing a test at present.
This was a mixup.


The odd thing (or maybe not?) is that Andrea Rossi didn't catch  
this inaccuracy. As I've written in my opening post, Passerini  
reportedly consulted with him before writing his latest blogpost.


Cheers,
S.A.



I think it is odd that Rossi would give permission to publish a  
misattributed and private communication between two other parties.  
Odd Passerini would ask Rossi for permission.


Rossi states on the Passerini blog (translated by google): "It seems  
appropriate to emphasize that these are exactly the experimental  
setting that Joseph Levi, as early as February, I explained that he  
had designed for the official tests on the E-Cat all'UniBO  
programmed, setting later validated together with professors from the  
University of Uppsala. I say this in response to another physicist,  
known throughout the LENR and with the same first name Josephson,  
which expresses, always on the mailing list of CMNS, regarding the  
competence of Levi. I speak of course, Brian Ahern."


Rossi further states (translated by google): "In October I will give  
here on the blog, the maximum coverage on the making of the test with  
Brian Josephson ... and for now I say no more. I add only that the  
expression "more then 12 hours" sets a lower limit, but not more than  
in short, this time I trust in a good 24 hours!"


Quite a mixup!  What is going on with NASA?  Is that another mixup?

Best regards,

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

[Vo]:Will Robots Steal Your Job?

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

http://www.slate.com/id/2304442/

This article references Martin Ford's "Lights in the Tunnel" which was
discussed here.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Steam Sparge

[Horace Heffner]

It is nice to see our views so closely aligned.  My comments are  
mainly additive.



On Sep 26, 2011, at 6:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Horace Heffner  wrote:

First, let me say, despite the casual, inaccurate, and one data  
point nature of the method shown, it is far better than any  
calorimetry applied in Rossi public demos.


I agree it is better for steam. It is the only reasonable way to  
measure a mixture of steam and hot water.


.
I think running the steam and water through a condensing heat  
exchanger works very well, provided *all* the flow and temperature  
variables are recorded very frequently - more frequently than a  
bucket test would allow, in any practical sense.  The principle  
expense I would expect is in accurate digitally interfaced flow  
meters.  It is always good to have an independent method to confirm  
results and to provide confidence in control run calibrations.   The  
new Rossi device appears to be intrinsically dynamic - never reaching  
true equilibrium.   It may also have feedback instabilities. Frequent  
data points are thus necessary, or a an accurate means provided to  
smooth and integrate energy measurements.



I suggested that they combine this method with other methods  
because this only produces one data point per test. It only works  
when power is stable. So you need another method to be sure that it  
is stable.


The bucket  test might be a useful common sense backup check.  This  
could only be accurate if the device could reach equilibrium, which  
the new device can not, as evidenced by the time varying duty cycle.   
Also, Rossi apparently operates the device, by varying power input,   
on occasion.






The steam hose appears larger than Rossi's.

Maybe, but it is difficult to judge how much steam is coming out  
just by appearance.

.
Difficult to quantify accurately, but not difficult to judge.  The 5  
kW steam plume clearly has a much larger diameter, much greater  
length, has a higher velocity, and does not require a black  
background to observe.






The second temperature measurement was all over the place, due to  
the inadequate stirring method.  The reading varied from 29.9°C to  
31.1°C.


Yup, stirring is the problem. You need to stir vigorously with a  
stick or something like a Dremel tool with a paint mixer attached.  
(Like a giant eggbeater.)

.

Yes, and people often do not appreciate how a small error in  
temperature measurement results in a much much larger errors in delta  
T measurements.  The small error above indicates a possible 25% error  
in the delta T measurement, and thus energy estimate.


When doing boil off calorimetry I made a small stirring device,  
designed for 1 liter or less containers, that surprised me.  I  
attached a thin solid glass rod to a tiny cheap 1.5 V DC motor  
included in a kit for use with a small solar cell.  It operated well  
on much less than 1.5 V.  The glass rod was attached directly to the  
armature using a thin rubber tubing.  The rod was amazingly effective  
at stirring, took up very little room in an already cramped cell   
(the motor was suspended above the cell), and could be driven with  
less than 1 W of power.  I used a variable voltage DC power supply.  
This could easily be scaled up.  One neat thing about it was the rod  
could be located on an angle and achieve vertical stirring as well as  
cylindrical stirring.  The stuff in the cell helped by creating eddy  
currents.







No estimate of heat loss through the bucket was made.  This means  
more heat was produced than measured. It would obviously be better  
to insulate the bucket.


I doubt that is a problem. It is easy to find out whether it is a  
problem or not. You leave the thermometer in the bucket for 5  
minutes, keep stirring, and see how much the temperature falls  
every minute. I have often done this. With a bucket of this size  
and water at that temperature I do not think the temperature will  
fall significantly in a minute or two.

.
I think the temperature in such a bucket falls, or at least can fall,  
significantly, considering a delta T measurement is being made.  The  
more accurate the delta T the longer the test and the bigger the  
delta T, but then the more error due to heat loss unless the bucket  
is insulated. Also, there is not just one calorimetry constant at  
higher temperatures.  There is a calorimetry function by temperature  
(vs constant) due to nonlinear losses due to evaporation and  
radiation.  The thermal decline curve has to be measured across the  
full range of temperatures that are to be observed.  I know from  
experience that this thermal decline curve problem is greatly reduced  
by good insulation and a reduction of the surface area exposed to  
evaporation. Also,  the thermal decline is affected by room  
temperature, so that adds yet another variable to monitor. It is  
interesting that in some tests the participants wore winter clothing,  
implying the environm

Re: [Vo]:Re: Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson to test an e-Cat module on October 6th

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2011-09-26 19:51, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Right. Josephson says he has no intention of doing a test at present.
This was a mixup.


The odd thing (or maybe not?) is that Andrea Rossi didn't catch this 
inaccuracy. As I've written in my opening post, Passerini reportedly 
consulted with him before writing his latest blogpost.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Steam Sparge

[Jed Rothwell]

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:


> > Yup, stirring is the problem. You need to stir vigorously with a stick or
> > something like a Dremel tool with a paint mixer attached. (Like a giant
> > eggbeater.)
> >
>
> That is untrue, it is not a problem. It really does not need much
> efforts to stir 10 kg water . . .


Did you do this test? I have done it, and in my experience mixing is a
problem. You need to mix it more vigorously than the person did in this
video.


Even if this is a problem, steam sparge test can also be done with 2 kg
> cool water that is easier to stir.


I do not think that would be enough volume of water to condense all the
steam. The steam escape from the water.



> Even better if they have freezer available, then sparging test can be done
> with 1-2 kg -18°C ice.


That would involve a phase change, which complicates matters.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson to test an e-Cat module on October 6th

[Jed Rothwell]

Right. Josephson says he has no intention of doing a test at present. This
was a mixup.



> The text quoted by Passerini was from a letter from Levi inviting
> Brian Josephson to participate and not Brian Josephson's own words.
>

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson to test an e-Cat module on October 6th

[Mattia Rizzi]

The text quoted by Passerini was from a letter from Levi inviting  Brian 
Josephson to participate and not Brian Josephson's own words.


If was Levi, then "This is NOT an official test of the University of Bologna 
because  the contract is not active yet." make sense.



-Messaggio originale- 
From: Horace Heffner

Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 6:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson to test an e-Cat module on 
October 6th


The text quoted by Passerini was from a letter from Levi inviting
Brian Josephson to participate and not Brian Josephson's own words.

Best regards,

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



On Sep 25, 2011, at 2:32 PM, Akira Shirakawa wrote:


Hello group,

This got just posted on Daniele Passerini's blog: http://goo.gl/v2uqo

(Long URL: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/09/test-e-cat-col-nobel- 
brian-josephson-il.html )


It looks like Brian Josephson will test an e-Cat module quite soon.  He 
announced this on the CMNS list:


On October 6 we will have the opportunity to make a long (more  then 12 
hours) test of one of the modules of the Rossi 1 MW  generator. The 
module will be opened to us and we will have the  opportunity to verify 
volumes and weights of the internal components.
Heat measurements will be done condensing all the steam produced  in 
heat exchanger and a secondary circuit where no water will be  vaporized.
This is NOT an official test of the University of Bologna because  the 
contract is not active yet.

Brian Josephson


Andrea Rossi, who gave permission to Passerini to post the  announcement 
on his blog, added this as a clarification:


The measurement of energy will not therefore be made on the steam,  to 
avoid all the issues concerning  the quality of the steam, but  the 
measurements of energy will be made on the delta T of the  water of the 
secondary circuit heated by the steam! This way, the  amount of energy 
produced will be calculated  in an undisputable  way. The steam runs in a 
primary circuit, which is a closed loop,  where  the steam is condensed 
after exchanging  heat with the  water of the secondary circuit, which 
will  never evaporate.  Therefore, the energy is calculated on the base 
of the delta T of  the heated water and its flow rate, indipendently from 
the  temperature of the steam, that does not enter in the energy 
calculation parameters.


Andrea Rossi


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson to test an e-Cat module on October 6th

[Horace Heffner]

The text quoted by Passerini was from a letter from Levi inviting  
Brian Josephson to participate and not Brian Josephson's own words.


Best regards,

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



On Sep 25, 2011, at 2:32 PM, Akira Shirakawa wrote:


Hello group,

This got just posted on Daniele Passerini's blog: http://goo.gl/v2uqo

(Long URL: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/09/test-e-cat-col-nobel- 
brian-josephson-il.html )


It looks like Brian Josephson will test an e-Cat module quite soon.  
He announced this on the CMNS list:


On October 6 we will have the opportunity to make a long (more  
then 12 hours) test of one of the modules of the Rossi 1 MW  
generator. The module will be opened to us and we will have the  
opportunity to verify volumes and weights of the internal components.
Heat measurements will be done condensing all the steam produced  
in  heat exchanger and a secondary circuit where no water will be  
vaporized.
This is NOT an official test of the University of Bologna because  
the contract is not active yet.

Brian Josephson


Andrea Rossi, who gave permission to Passerini to post the  
announcement on his blog, added this as a clarification:


The measurement of energy will not therefore be made on the steam,  
to avoid all the issues concerning  the quality of the steam, but  
the measurements of energy will be made on the delta T of the  
water of the secondary circuit heated by the steam! This way, the  
amount of energy produced will be calculated  in an undisputable  
way. The steam runs in a primary circuit, which is a closed loop,  
where  the steam is condensed after exchanging  heat with the  
water of the secondary circuit, which will  never evaporate.  
Therefore, the energy is calculated on the base of the delta T of  
the heated water and its flow rate, indipendently from the  
temperature of the steam, that does not enter in the energy  
calculation parameters.


Andrea Rossi


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Steam Sparge

[Jouni Valkonen]

2011/9/26 Jed Rothwell :
> I suggested that they combine this method
> with other methods because this only produces one data point per test. It
> only works when power is stable. So you need another method to be sure that
> it is stable.
>

We need to hope that Brian Josephson will do also the steam sparging
test to check the calibration of his heat exchanger.

>> The steam hose appears larger than Rossi's.
>
> Maybe, but it is difficult to judge how much steam is coming out just by
> appearance.
>

But all the other evidence point out that in Krivit's test was
producing 900W ± 200W total heat. Unlike what Krivit is arguing that
we cannot know the total output within one order of magnitude, I would
say that Krivit is just wrong with that and my estimation for  ±200W
margin of error is reasonable. It is certainly not  ±450W.

The water inflow rate was measured to be 1-4 kg/h because the rate of
the pump was lower than in Lewan's experiment. Also although the
reduced inflow rate, steam pressure was significantly lower than in
Lewan's test, therefore we can say that there was probably less than 1
kW for total heat. And amount of steam just confirms the result,
although it is not the calculated fact.

There is no point of being blind but accept the facts. I am sure that
Rossi has really good reason for the non active E-Cat. My recent guess
is that he was already building and testing the September E-Cat,
therefore he did not bother to present real demonstration with old
model.

>> The second temperature measurement was all over the place, due to the
>> inadequate stirring method.  The reading varied from 29.9°C to 31.1°C.
>
> Yup, stirring is the problem. You need to stir vigorously with a stick or
> something like a Dremel tool with a paint mixer attached. (Like a giant
> eggbeater.)
>

That is untrue, it is not a problem. It really does not need much
efforts to stir 10 kg water, but of course we can over do it. Even if
this is a problem, steam sparge test can also be done with 2 kg cool
water that is easier to stir. Even better if they have freezer
available, then sparging test can be done with 1-2 kg -18°C ice. There
is just no practical limit how much datapoint accuracy we can get for
steam sparging test if we consider all the necessary variables. Of
course if we fail with stirring and do careless measurements, then
things are different. But these are not the methodological problems
but are more like a user depended problems.

   –Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Steam Sparge

[Jed Rothwell]

Horace Heffner  wrote:


> First, let me say, despite the casual, inaccurate, and one data point
> nature of the method shown, it is far better than any calorimetry applied in
> Rossi public demos.


I agree it is better for steam. It is the only reasonable way to measure a
mixture of steam and hot water. I suggested that they combine this method
with other methods because this only produces one data point per test. It
only works when power is stable. So you need another method to be sure that
it is stable.


The steam hose appears larger than Rossi's.
>

Maybe, but it is difficult to judge how much steam is coming out just by
appearance.


The second temperature measurement was all over the place, due to the
> inadequate stirring method.  The reading varied from 29.9°C to 31.1°C.


Yup, stirring is the problem. You need to stir vigorously with a stick or
something like a Dremel tool with a paint mixer attached. (Like a giant
eggbeater.)



> No estimate of heat loss through the bucket was made.  This means more heat
> was produced than measured. It would obviously be better to insulate the
> bucket.
>

I doubt that is a problem. It is easy to find out whether it is a problem or
not. You leave the thermometer in the bucket for 5 minutes, keep stirring,
and see how much the temperature falls every minute. I have often done
this. With a bucket of this size and water at that temperature I do not
think the temperature will fall significantly in a minute or two.



> The scale readings were very blurry in the video, but still not consistent
> with the text proportionally. It appears at 0.33 in the Mario video (see
> Mario0_33bucket.jpg in separate email) that the tare was adjusted for
> (zeroed out on the scale), and the major divisions are 2kg, and the next
> lower level division are 1 kg, since it is stated 10 kg of water was
> initially in the bucket.
>

I do not know if the weight scale was zeroed. I recommend a digital weight
scale for this kind of thing.

Note that this technique captures all enthalpy including the kinetic energy
of the moving steam.

- Jed

Re: Re: [Vo]:Rossi steam calorimetry

[Jed Rothwell]

Ah, I see that Terry has already posted a link to this book. Great minds
think alike.

- Jed

Re: Re: [Vo]:Rossi steam calorimetry

[Jed Rothwell]

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:


> This increases the digestibility of of food by a lot. This is because the
> energetic cost of digestion will be reduced greatly, because we can come
> along with smaller gut and shorter chewing time, but also we can get much
> more energy from the food because we will get much higher digestion rates.
> It is not that humans are adapted for cooked food, but even a cat prefers
> her mouse rather cooked than raw, because it is more easy to digest.
>

See the book "Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0028P9BE6

This has an in-depth discussion of the effects of fire and cooking on human
evolution. The author claims that humans are adopted for cooked food. We
could not survive without it.

- Jed

Re: Re: [Vo]:Rossi steam calorimetry

[Jouni Valkonen]

2011/9/26  :
>
> Von:     Terry Blanton 
>
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Jouni Valkonen 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > But on the other
>> > hand, how many really knows why do we even cook food instead of eating
>> raw
>> > food? Tastes better?
>>
>> Evolutionary, My dear Watson.  Cooking food kills parasites and
>> bacteria, a survival trait.
>>
> Not only that. Cooking cracks those cell membranes that the human digestion 
> system cannot crack.
> It makes food digestible that otherwise is not digestible.
>

This is more close to the correct answer. Cooking also denatures
proteins and especially it gelatinizates the starch, I quote
wikipaedia:

«Starch becomes soluble in water when heated. The granules swell and
burst, the semi-crystalline structure is lost and the smaller amylose
molecules start leaching out of the granule, forming a network that
holds water and increasing the mixture's viscosity. This process is
called starch gelatinization. During cooking the starch becomes a
paste and increases further in viscosity. During cooling or prolonged
storage of the paste, the semi-crystalline structure partially
recovers and the starch paste thickens, expelling water. This is
mainly caused by the retrogradation of the amylose. This process is
responsible for the hardening of bread or staling, and for the water
layer on top of a starch gel (syneresis).»
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starch

This increases the digestibility of of food by a lot. This is because
the energetic cost of digestion will be reduced greatly, because we
can come along with smaller gut and shorter chewing time, but also we
can get much more energy from the food because we will get much higher
digestion rates. It is not that humans are adapted for cooked food,
but even a cat prefers her mouse rather cooked than raw, because it is
more easy to digest.

This is also why it is impossible to get fat by eating raw and
unprocessed food, because the usable energy content of raw food is so
low. As humans have been cooked food some few million years, they have
become depended on cooked and processed food.

Of course there is very tiny tiny gain that it kills some of the
potential pathogens, but cooking process introduces quite a lot of
poisonous and carcinogenous compounds, so we cannot be that sure are
the pathogens more or less harmful than the poisonous compounds
introduced by cooking. But what is important, both of them are
irrelevant compared to easy digestibility of cooked food.

–Jouni

Re: Re: [Vo]:Rossi steam calorimetry

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:20 AM,   wrote:

> Cooking cracks those cell membranes that the human digestion system cannot 
> crack.
> It makes food digestible that otherwise is not digestible.

It also transforms poisons in some vegetables an tubers expanding what
may be considered food.

Any behavior which supports survival leads to an evolutionary
advantage.  Cooking food then caused a change in the species such as
dental and other alimentary changes.

I read this book a couple of years ago after trying to understand how
Andrew Zimmern survives his bizarre foods!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465013627

T

Re: [Vo]:Rossi steam calorimetry

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Jouni Valkonen  wrote:
> 2011/9/26 Terry Blanton :
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Jouni Valkonen  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But on the other
>>> hand, how many really knows why do we even cook food instead of eating raw
>>> food? Tastes better?
>>
>> Evolutionary, My dear Watson.  Cooking food kills parasites and
>> bacteria, a survival trait.
>
> Sorry, wrong answer.^^

Prove it.

T
>
>

Aw: Re: [Vo]:Rossi steam calorimetry

[peter . heckert]

 


- Original Nachricht 
Von: Terry Blanton 
An:  vortex-l@eskimo.com
Datum:   26.09.2011 14:56
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Rossi steam calorimetry

> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Jouni Valkonen 
> wrote:
> 
> > But on the other
> > hand, how many really knows why do we even cook food instead of eating
> raw
> > food? Tastes better?
> 
> Evolutionary, My dear Watson.  Cooking food kills parasites and
> bacteria, a survival trait.
> 
Not only that. Cooking cracks those cell membranes that the human digestion 
system cannot crack.
It makes food digestible that otherwise is not digestible.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi steam calorimetry

[Jouni Valkonen]

2011/9/26 Terry Blanton :
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Jouni Valkonen  
> wrote:
>
>> But on the other
>> hand, how many really knows why do we even cook food instead of eating raw
>> food? Tastes better?
>
> Evolutionary, My dear Watson.  Cooking food kills parasites and
> bacteria, a survival trait.

Sorry, wrong answer.^^

Re: [Vo]:Rossi steam calorimetry

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Jouni Valkonen  wrote:

> But on the other
> hand, how many really knows why do we even cook food instead of eating raw
> food? Tastes better?

Evolutionary, My dear Watson.  Cooking food kills parasites and
bacteria, a survival trait.

T

Aw: Aw: Re: [Vo]:Rossi steam calorimetry

[peter . heckert]

 


- Original Nachricht 
Von: peter.heck...@arcor.de
An:  vortex-l@eskimo.com
Datum:   26.09.2011 11:06
Betreff: Aw: Re: [Vo]:Rossi steam calorimetry

> For example they could give a upside down shape of an "U" to the hose and
> make it from transparent silicone.
> Put this arrangement in a surrounding (Plexi) glass tube and it is thermal
> isolated.
> This way water overflow should be impossible or it happens it would be
> visible.
> 
> I do not understand the system: They have constant water flow and the energy
> to be measured is unknown.
> So if the flow is constant then either all water will be vapourized and the
> reactor will run dry or if not all is vapourized there will be water
> overflow after some time.
> How can they do reliable and quick R&D if they use such an obviously
 unstable unconfirmed method of measurement?

Not to forget, that this method is time-consuming.
If we have 16 working hours in 10 days, how many e-cats can they test?

> Believe me, I have experience. Omitting necessary steps give you an early
> advantage in time but finally you will loose.
> This like a marathon runner that is running too fast to early.
> I know this from own experience ;-) 
> 
Piantelli has announced to come up with his system and theory at end of october 
so far I know.
If he uses well documented properly prepared transparent and trustable methods, 
then Rossi will loose hands down.

Peter

Aw: Re: [Vo]:Rossi steam calorimetry

[peter . heckert]

 


- Original Nachricht 
Von: Jouni Valkonen 
An:  vortex-l@eskimo.com
Datum:   26.09.2011 10:38
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Rossi steam calorimetry

> Peter, that is just utterly untrue! In scientific steam experiments all
> that
> is required to measure is the steam pressure, because steam pressure
> correlates with the total enthalpy. Then it is needed only to calibrate
> this
> correlation e.g. with steam sparging tests. Clean, fast, unlimited,
> accurate
> and extremely simple science.

That is what I mean. Steam sparging calibration has not been done, or if then 
it is not documented.
Why? If the system is calibrated, they should get better results, because 
losses can be compensated.
There are even cases, where no calibration is possible and necessary. However 
in these cases poured water must be prevented.
Or the water poured must be measured.
For example they could give a upside down shape of an "U" to the hose and make 
it from transparent silicone.
Put this arrangement in a surrounding (Plexi) glass tube and it is thermal 
isolated.
This way water overflow should be impossible or it happens it would be visible.

I do not understand the system: They have constant water flow and the energy to 
be measured is unknown.
So if the flow is constant then either all water will be vapourized and the 
reactor will run dry or if not all is vapourized there will be water overflow 
after some time.
How can they do reliable and quick R&D if they use such an obviously unsecure 
unconfirmed method of measurement?

> 
> I just do not understand why this is so hard concept for people to
> understand.

I understand this very well. This is not too complicated, it requires basic 
knowledge, thinking and experince, but at this low pressure and flow rate this 
is not rocket science.


 Have they ever not seen a boiling water pot that is enclosed by
> lid? (Result is faster cooking!)
> 
> I think that steam related science is too daily and thus people are
> ignoring
> it, because they cannot understand that something that is so obvious and
> daily as cooking food, is also a part of _hard_ science. But on the other
> hand, how many really knows why do we even cook food instead of eating raw
> food? Tastes better?
> 
>?Jouni
> On Sep 26, 2011 8:42 AM, "Peter Heckert"  wrote:
> > Am 26.09.2011 05:20, schrieb Harry Veeder:
> >> From: Jed Rothwell
> >>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> >>> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 9:13:05 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi steam calorimetry
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I do not understand why they intend to use a heat exchanger. Why not
> simply run water through the thing, the way they did in the 18-hour test in
> February? It may be less efficient but that makes no difference.
> >>>
> >> Rossi is devoting all his time, money and energy to the development of a
> commercially viable technology. I get the impression he decided some time
> ago that the quickest, safest and most reliable way he can achieve his goal
> is through the generation of steam. Therefore he currently believes
> (rightly
> or wrongly) that any form of experimentation that does not involve the
> generation steam is a detour he cannot afford to take.
> > He cannot get scientific evidency by steam measurement if the
> > measurement arrangement is not previously calibrated by a known heat
> > source. There are too much chances of error doing the steam method on a
> > unknown system.
> >
> > Of course you are always faster if you neglect the rules and leave some
> > necessary steps out.
> >

Believe me, I have experience. Omitting necessary steps give you an early 
advantage in time but finally you will loose.
This like a marathon runner that is running too fast to early.
I know this from own experience ;-) 

Best,

Peter


 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi steam calorimetry

[Jouni Valkonen]

Peter, that is just utterly untrue! In scientific steam experiments all that
is required to measure is the steam pressure, because steam pressure
correlates with the total enthalpy. Then it is needed only to calibrate this
correlation e.g. with steam sparging tests. Clean, fast, unlimited, accurate
and extremely simple science.

I just do not understand why this is so hard concept for people to
understand. Have they ever not seen a boiling water pot that is enclosed by
lid? (Result is faster cooking!)

I think that steam related science is too daily and thus people are ignoring
it, because they cannot understand that something that is so obvious and
daily as cooking food, is also a part of _hard_ science. But on the other
hand, how many really knows why do we even cook food instead of eating raw
food? Tastes better?

   —Jouni
On Sep 26, 2011 8:42 AM, "Peter Heckert"  wrote:
> Am 26.09.2011 05:20, schrieb Harry Veeder:
>> From: Jed Rothwell
>>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 9:13:05 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi steam calorimetry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I do not understand why they intend to use a heat exchanger. Why not
simply run water through the thing, the way they did in the 18-hour test in
February? It may be less efficient but that makes no difference.
>>>
>> Rossi is devoting all his time, money and energy to the development of a
commercially viable technology. I get the impression he decided some time
ago that the quickest, safest and most reliable way he can achieve his goal
is through the generation of steam. Therefore he currently believes (rightly
or wrongly) that any form of experimentation that does not involve the
generation steam is a detour he cannot afford to take.
> He cannot get scientific evidency by steam measurement if the
> measurement arrangement is not previously calibrated by a known heat
> source. There are too much chances of error doing the steam method on a
> unknown system.
>
> Of course you are always faster if you neglect the rules and leave some
> necessary steps out.
>