date:20111019



On Oct 18, 2011, at 4:25 PM, David Roberson wrote:


Hi Horace,

Thank you for the kind welcome into vortex.  I suspect that my  
oversized attachment tunneled through the barrier; maybe using the  
same path as Rossi's device.


It must have a long de Broglie wavelength.  My guess is the mass of  
paper involved is very low.  8^)




You have written an interesting description of the old ECAT version  
and I plan to review it thoroughly as time allows.  I guess I may  
have needed a hit on the head to believe everything(or anything)  
that I read on line about ECAT operation.  As you know, I was just  
parroting what I saw in the journal.


No problem there!  Most discussion here is based on second hand   
information.




My understanding of nuclear physics is lacking as my field is  
electronics design.  Allow me a lot of slack when I suggest  
something totally whacko as sometimes I have good ideas and  
approach problems from different perspectives.


New ideas are most welcome here.  Slack is sometimes hard to come  
by!  8^)




Now, let me ask you a few questions that I suspect you can answer  
easily.  You have presented some interesting calculations  
concerning the penetration of gamma rays and x rays through lead.   
The new ECAT design has 5 cm of lead according to reports.  That is  
more than twice the original thickness of 2 cm in the earlier  
version.  Could you help me to reverse engineer the ECAT shielding  
and figure out what energy of gamma rays would be just barely  
shielded enough to be undetected?


Here is a spread of results, but for 5 cm thick lead:

again using for I0:

 EnergyActivity (in gammas per second) for 1 kW
   --
1.00 MeV   6.24x10^15
100  keV   6.24x10^16
10.0 keV   6.24x10^17

and using:

   I = I0 * exp(-mu * rho * L)

where mu  is given by:

 Energymu (cm^2/gm)
   --
1.00 MeV   0.02
100  keV   1.0
10.0 keV   80


For 1 kW of MeV gammas we have:

   I = (6.24x10^15 s^-1) * exp(-(0.02 cm^2/gm) * (11.34 gm/cm^3) *(5  
cm))


   I = 2.07x10^15 s^-1   (  was 3.7x10^15)

For 1 kW of 100 keV gammas we have:

   I = (6.24x10^16 s^-1) * exp(-(1.0 cm^2/gm) * (11.34 gm/cm^3) *(5  
cm))


   I = 1.4x10^-8 s^-1 = ~0 s^-1   (I posted 2.9x10^5  
s^-1, but this was my calc. error -
correct value was  
3.04x10^4 s^-1, still readily observable with a counter)


For 1 kW of 10 keV gammas we have:

   I = (6.24x10^16 s^-1) * exp(-(80 cm^2/gm) * (11.34 gm/cm^3) *(5 cm))

   I = ~0 s^-1  (was ~0 s^-1)

So, the answer is the 5 cm of lead vs 2.3 cm of lead essentially  
eliminates gammas in about the 100 keV range that were readily  
countable with 2.3 cm of lead.


The extra lead does nothing, however, for converting more gamma  
energy to heat.  It still does not prevent MeV order gammas from  
being readily detected, so they are still ruled out as a heat  
source.The 3.04x10^4 counts/sec of  100 keV gammas eliminated  
represent the unobservable  4.8x10^-10 J/s ~= one trillionth of a  
watt, so no added heat is obtained there, but even close up counting  
is prevented.



And, if this thickness is not adequate, is any amount of shielding  
able to stop gammas to that degree?


The extra lead does nothing for 1 MeV gammas, but a lot for 100 keV  
gammas,  but also nothing for producing more heat.  The lead  can  
however, add to the heat-after-death time significantly depending on  
configuration.   Frankly I suspect the added shielding is iron, not  
lead.  It can sustain heat-after-death much better and provide  
stability at high temperatures that lead can not.  The goal of this  
test was heat-after-death.


The mu for lead at 100 keV is 0.372.  For 1 kW of 100 keV gammas  
through 2.7 cm of iron I get:


   I = (6.24x10^16 s^-1) * exp(-(0.372 cm^2/gm) * (7.87 gm/cm^3) *(3  
cm))


   I = 4.66 s^-1

The counts still effectively disappear with iron on the inside and  
lead on the outside or vice versa.  If it is a hoax then there is of  
course no need for the lead at all.



I would suspect that if you answer no amount of lead is within  
reason, then you must think that the ECAT is a scam since the  
shielding is arbitrary.


I see no reason to go from 2.3 cm to 5 cm, since the prior counts  
were already nominal with regard to safety.




Rossi has stated that all of the energy released by the LENR  
process is in the form of photons.  Do you think that this is  
possible?


Anything is possible.  Viable prospective nuclear reactions have not  
been identified.  Anything that produces energy primarily from  
positron emission is not viable due to the large annihilation  
energy.  Also, positron annihilation energies were looked for but not  
found.



Do you know of any process that releases gammas or high energy x  
rays but not heat directly?


That is somewhat of an inconsistent condition.   If the energy output  
is in the form of high energy photons then it produces

Re: [Vo]:Is it possible Rossi has already tested his 1 MW prototype behind closed doors?

2011-10-19 Thread peter . heckert

 


- Original Nachricht 
Von: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net
An:  Vortex vortex-l@eskimo.com
Datum:   19.10.2011 03:50
Betreff: [Vo]:Is it possible Rossi has already tested his 1 MW prototype behind 
closed doors?

 I believe it has been conjectured that Rossi has not yet operated his 1 MW
 demo prototype at 100% capacity. That's what I have assumed is the case
 based on what others have said... or is that what Rossi has stated for the
 record? I'm not sure on this point. Someone please correct me if I am in
 error. The point being: If Rossi's entire 1 MW array has never been
 activated, then yes indeed there does appear in my mind to be valid
 concerns
 for the safety of curious bystanders who may wander too close to the
 prototype. If it's NOT true, and the 1MW reactor HAS already been test
 driven at least a few times (and nothing of an explosive nature
 transpired), then IMO there may be some grounds to give Rossi a teeny tiny
 little bit of slack. Nevertheless, this all being a scarcely understood
 technology, it is still prudent to classify the prototype as potentially
 dangerous, until proven otherwise. I would still personally keep my
 distance.
 
  
 
 Lately, I can't help but wonder if Rossi hasn't already tested the entire
 array at 100% capacity behind closed doors, precisely to make sure his 1 MW
 prototype will work as he hope it will on Oct 28. If I were betting the
 entire farm (which Rossi seems to be doing) on making sure my demo
 performs as advertised I would make damn sure that I have already performed
 several rehearsals. Rehearsals  dry runs would be absolutely critical in
 order to impress prospective investors in forking over obscene amounts of
 venture capital,
 
  
 
 I certainly hope Rossi has already rehearsed the whole demo at 100%
 capacity.
 
  
 
  
 
 Can anyone verify or falsify this conjecture of mine?
 

Something like this cannot been tested behind closed doors.
There must be incredible amounts of steam over Rossis facility in Bologna if he 
tested it and this was not reported.
Also there must be an output pipe, large enough and the pipe that was shown in 
previous videos was many orders of magnitude too thin.


Unfortunately the Focus people and others concentrated to make impressive 
images and music but did not watch out for the well known questions and 
technical details and did not ask Rossi about this.
So they where not well informed, before they have seen this.
I think the press is not interested to report this seriously.
As longer as this story goes on the more money they make from it. Probably they 
know already what finally comes out.
The 1 MW plant cannot work in my opinion.

Best,

Peter

Re: [Vo]:Is it possible Rossi has already tested his 1 MW prototype behind closed doors?

I think the 1 MW demo is kind of perpetuum stabile second class; cannot
work being a too complex combination of unreliable
non-controllable components.

I wonder that no one has organized bets re its success/failure

Peter (I had been Peter much more time than collega Heckert)

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:32 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:




 - Original Nachricht 
 Von: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net
 An:  Vortex vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Datum:   19.10.2011 03:50
 Betreff: [Vo]:Is it possible Rossi has already tested his 1 MW prototype
 behind closed doors?

  I believe it has been conjectured that Rossi has not yet operated his 1
 MW
  demo prototype at 100% capacity. That's what I have assumed is the case
  based on what others have said... or is that what Rossi has stated for
 the
  record? I'm not sure on this point. Someone please correct me if I am in
  error. The point being: If Rossi's entire 1 MW array has never been
  activated, then yes indeed there does appear in my mind to be valid
  concerns
  for the safety of curious bystanders who may wander too close to the
  prototype. If it's NOT true, and the 1MW reactor HAS already been test
  driven at least a few times (and nothing of an explosive nature
  transpired), then IMO there may be some grounds to give Rossi a teeny
 tiny
  little bit of slack. Nevertheless, this all being a scarcely understood
  technology, it is still prudent to classify the prototype as potentially
  dangerous, until proven otherwise. I would still personally keep my
  distance.
 
 
 
  Lately, I can't help but wonder if Rossi hasn't already tested the entire
  array at 100% capacity behind closed doors, precisely to make sure his 1
 MW
  prototype will work as he hope it will on Oct 28. If I were betting the
  entire farm (which Rossi seems to be doing) on making sure my demo
  performs as advertised I would make damn sure that I have already
 performed
  several rehearsals. Rehearsals  dry runs would be absolutely critical in
  order to impress prospective investors in forking over obscene amounts of
  venture capital,
 
 
 
  I certainly hope Rossi has already rehearsed the whole demo at 100%
  capacity.
 
 
 
 
 
  Can anyone verify or falsify this conjecture of mine?
 

 Something like this cannot been tested behind closed doors.
 There must be incredible amounts of steam over Rossis facility in Bologna
 if he tested it and this was not reported.
 Also there must be an output pipe, large enough and the pipe that was shown
 in previous videos was many orders of magnitude too thin.


 Unfortunately the Focus people and others concentrated to make impressive
 images and music but did not watch out for the well known questions and
 technical details and did not ask Rossi about this.
 So they where not well informed, before they have seen this.
 I think the press is not interested to report this seriously.
 As longer as this story goes on the more money they make from it. Probably
 they know already what finally comes out.
 The 1 MW plant cannot work in my opinion.

 Best,

 Peter




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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1 MW plant - is there a cooling system?



On Oct 18, 2011, at 10:50 PM, Colin Hercus wrote:


Hi Horace,

I find your posts quite interesting and you seem to have a rational  
rather than emotional approach which makes for good reading.


I just read your reply to Dave and as it seemed to make the ECat  
(and my kettle) impossible I thought I'd double check some of your  
calculations and I think you've made a mistake on the heat flow  
from the reactor:


R = (0.002 m)/(16 W/(m K)*(1.8x10^-2 m^2) = 1.78 °C/W

By my calculations:
R = 0.002/(16 * 0.018)
  = 0.002/.288
  = 0.007 °C/W



Yes you are right!  Another one of my clerical mistakes.  The above  
should be written:


R = (0.002 m)/((16 W/(m K)*(1.8x10^-2 m^2)) = 6.94x10^-3 °C/W

Producing a heat flow of 4.39 kW, or 4390 W then requires a delta T  
given as:


   delta T = (6.94x10^-3 °C/W) * (4390 W) = 30.46 °C


Using Fourier's law to check, I get

  q = (16 W/(m K))*(1.8x10^-2 m^2)*(30.47 K)/(0.002 m) = 4387 W

 which is well within tolerance.

I did not put the review up on my site.  I should correct it and put  
it there.


Thanks for the correction!   I wish my calculations were checked more  
often.







From engineeringtoolbox.com

Fourier's Law express conductive heat transfer as
q = k A dT / s (1)

where

A = heat transfer area (m2, ft2)

k = thermal conductivity of the material (W/m.K or W/m oC, Btu/(hr  
oF ft2/ft))


dT = temperature difference across the material (K or oC, oF)

s = material thickness (m, ft)


So A = 180 CM^2 = 0.018 M^2
 K =  16 W/(m K)
s = 0.002m

Then q = 16*0.018*dT/0.002
   = 144 * dT


So for 2500W we'd have a temperature difference of 2500/144 = 17 C  
which is quite reasonable.




This is all way out of my area of expertise so I could be messing  
up units somewhere.



Best Regards, Colin



Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation



On Oct 18, 2011, at 9:55 PM, David Roberson wrote:


Hello Frank,

You have an impressive understanding of the flux pinning theory.   
Can you give me an answer to my question?  It appears that energy  
can be put into the floating disk-magnet combination by pushing or  
pulling against the disk.  Where does the energy show up in the  
system?  Does the disk heat up a small amount as I push or pull on  
the disk or does the magnet get the energy?  This question may be  
related to the amount of force required to displace the disk.   
There may be important information revealed as a result of the  
energy transfer.  I eagerly await your answer.


Dave

Hi Dave,

Here is guess for you.

The magnetic pressure P = B^2/(2*mu0) is reduced in the volume  
immediately below and above the puck, except in the thin volumes near  
the puck of flux transiting the thin vortices in which lines of flux  
are pinned. The magnetic pressure immediately adjacent to the sides  
of the puck, and adjacent to the pinning locations is increased.  Any  
movement of the puck relative to a given magnet, provided the  
movement does not involve a canceling symmetry, such as rotation  
above a single magnet, or movement on a single magnet track, changes  
the local B and/or volume in which the B resides, and thus magnetic  
pressure, and thus energy of the system.  Pushing the magnet into  
place merely involves compressing the B into a higher average  
pressure, and thus consumes energy.  The energy in the B resides in  
the polarized vacuum.


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation



On Oct 18, 2011, at 9:55 PM, David Roberson wrote:


Hello Frank,

You have an impressive understanding of the flux pinning theory.   
Can you give me an answer to my question?  It appears that energy  
can be put into the floating disk-magnet combination by pushing or  
pulling against the disk.  Where does the energy show up in the  
system?  Does the disk heat up a small amount as I push or pull on  
the disk or does the magnet get the energy?  This question may be  
related to the amount of force required to displace the disk.   
There may be important information revealed as a result of the  
energy transfer.  I eagerly await your answer.


Dave

Hi Dave,

Here is guess for you.

The magnetic pressure P = B^2/(2*mu0) is reduced in the volume  
immediately below and above the puck, except in the thin volumes near  
the puck of flux transiting the thin vortices in which lines of flux  
are pinned. The magnetic pressure immediately adjacent to the sides  
of the puck, and adjacent to the pinning locations is increased.  Any  
movement of the puck relative to a given magnet, provided the  
movement does not involve a canceling symmetry, such as rotation  
above a single magnet, or movement on a single magnet track, changes  
the local B and/or volume in which the B resides, and thus magnetic  
pressure, and thus energy of the system.  Pushing the magnet into  
place merely involves compressing the B into a higher average  
pressure, and thus consumes energy.  The energy in the B resides in  
the polarized vacuum.


The pinned flux, the flux which travels through the SC, moves  
relative to the fixing magnet if the SC orientation or position  
changes. The movement of this close line flux superpositions with,  
moves relative to, compresses and/or decompresses, the magnetic flux  
which travels around the SC, resulting in energy changes in the B  
field there, thus resisting motion.


Best regards,

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

RE: [Vo]:Steam engines

2011-10-19 Thread Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.


Thanks for all the interesting links. I hope to research more types such as
Stirling engines and more small turbines.

Here in the Phoenix Arizona US area I calculated a 1 megawatt electrical
generator would yield US$200,000 per year by analyzing the state tariffs
( It'll be fun sending bills to the power company for a change. ).

The simplest way to generate power back to the grid is just a simple
induction generator ( induction motor running faster than 1800 RPM, probably
about 1875 RPM. ) no fancy synchronizing circuitry, just spin your motor
fastly.  I tried it with a gasoline engine and the meter did indeed spin
backwards :-) .

Hoyt Stearns
Scottsdale, Arizona US


-Original Message-
From: ecat builder [mailto:ecatbuil...@gmail.com]
Here in my area, the power company must buy back any user-generated
electricity. So having 2-4kw/h generating 24/7 would be pretty
compelling. Also a good way for the electric company to quickly go
broke.

What other ideas for e-cat are you all thinking about?

- Brad

Re: [Vo]:Is it possible Rossi has already tested his 1 MW prototype behind closed doors?

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 I wonder that no one has organized bets re its success/failure

Good point.  I weighed in at 800 kW and Jones says 250.  I suppose we
need to set an average or peak claim on these numbers.

I was thinking in terms of a peak.  If Jones was speaking of an
average, we could both be right.

T

Re: [Vo]:Is it possible Rossi has already tested his 1 MW prototype behind closed doors?

However at this size, duration, continuity are essential, the demo is
organized Friday and perhaps all the special people present want to enjoy
the weekend so the demo will be stopped Friday night.
(i.e. aborted)
A minimal techno-decency means that this demo if it works, should continue
for a few days at least 3-6 or more.
in my experience, night shifts are the best for organizing important
experiments, not so much disturbance and noise...Night is a good
counsellor.Except for people who do not need counsellors.

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  I wonder that no one has organized bets re its success/failure

 Good point.  I weighed in at 800 kW and Jones says 250.  I suppose we
 need to set an average or peak claim on these numbers.

 I was thinking in terms of a peak.  If Jones was speaking of an
 average, we could both be right.

 T




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

Re: Re: [Vo]:Is it possible Rossi has already tested his 1 MW prototype behind closed doors?

2011-10-19 Thread peter . heckert

 


- Original Nachricht 
Von: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
An:  vortex-l@eskimo.com
Datum:   19.10.2011 14:40
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Is it possible Rossi has already tested his 1 MW prototype
 behind closed doors?

 On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  I wonder that no one has organized bets re its success/failure
 
 Good point.  I weighed in at 800 kW and Jones says 250.  I suppose we
 need to set an average or peak claim on these numbers.
 
Somebody has calculated, at 1MW the steam must go supersonic with this output 
tube.
Then, with 100 kW it must still go some 100 km/h.


 I was thinking in terms of a peak.  If Jones was speaking of an
 average, we could both be right.
 
 T

[Vo]:The reaction was not dying off; it was increasing, and it was deliberately quenched

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

An individual fat-Cat may run longer than 4 hours on the average run, and he
 probably expected at least 8 hours based on the original time schedule. But
 also - it was clear (to a few of us) that Rossi had most likely faced this
 exact problem before (rapid die-off) . . .


That is incorrect. There was no rapid die off. On the contrary, the power
was increasing before Rossi took steps to turn it off deliberately. Rossi
and Lewan both reported that the cell was de-gassed and the cooling rate
increased to quench the reaction. Rossi told this to Ed Storms and me. Had
Rossi had not de-gassed it, the reaction might have continued indefinitely.

The reaction was quenched at the request of observers who wanted to look
inside the reactor.

Similar gas loaded systems such as Arata's have run continuously for weeks.
Gas-loaded powder seems to be remarkably stable material, compared to things
like bulk palladium.

Horace Heffner and some other people have also mistakenly reported that the
reaction died off on its own. Lewan's report clearly states that is not what
happened.


There is no indication how long a putative quiescent period would be before
 another hot run is possible.


I have heard it usually turns on faster than this. There is no indication
that heat after death needs to die off before it is triggered again, in a
quiescent period. As far as I know, no one has reported that.  Where did
you hear that a quiescent period is needed?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is it possible Rossi has already tested his 1 MW prototype behind closed doors?



On Oct 19, 2011, at 5:39 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:


[snip]


Somebody has calculated, at 1MW the steam must go supersonic with  
this output tube.

Then, with 100 kW it must still go some 100 km/h.

[snip]

I got 803 km/hr, which is less than the speed of sound. You may want  
to check my calculations!


Using the photos here:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264361.ece

The  outside width of a standard container is 8 feet, or 2.44 meters

From the full photo of the back side:

The 8 feet = 129 pixels.

The red handle = 16 pixels = (16 px)*(2.44 m)/(129 px) = 30 cm, much  
larger than I would have thought.


In the closeup photo the handle is 94 px, giving (30 cm)/(94 px) =  
0.319 cm/px.


The cap is 40 px, or 12.8 cm OD.

The exit pipe appears to have a 22 px OD, or 7 cm OD.  Maybe the pipe  
is 6.5 cm ID, or 3.25 cm radius, giving an area pi*(3.25 cm)^2 = 33  
cm^2.


The energy put into the steam depends on the temperature to which it  
is condensed before being fed back into the E-cat.


Assume the condensed water is being fed back at 100°C.

The energy to vaporize water at 100°C is 2260 J/g.  If 1 MW is  
heating 100°C water then I estimate the flow has to be 442.5 gm/s,  
with a volumetric flow of 737.5 liters/sec.  This gives a flow  
velocity of (737500 cm^3/s)/(33 cm^3)= 223 m/s in the pipe, or 803 km/ 
hr.  This is below the speed of sound but over 6 times the  
recommended speed for the pipe size.


If I did the calculations right, then this indicates the device could  
blow up.  If there are emergency steam relief valves on the devices  
the steam could be released inside the container.


Note, if water is fed back at 50°C I get only 675 liter/sec steam flow.

Related assessments can be found here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51512.html


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Steam engines

These links are for piston steam engines. I believe small turbines, or
MicroTurbines as they are called, are a better solution. Capstone and
others are developing them.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is it possible Rossi has already tested his 1 MW prototype behind closed doors?

2011-10-19 Thread Craig Haynie

On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 23:01 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
 
 I asked Mr. Rossi whether or not he has tested several ECATS
 together in a moderate sized configuration to determine how
 well they function as a team.  He responded yes to my query.
 He further stated that he plans to activate them in groups of
 6 as he powers up the entire system.
 
 
 Well, that is a relief. I am glad he said that. I hope it is true.

It is inconceivable to me that anyone would test a device as complex as
the 1mw reactor, cold, in front of an audience. 

Jed, I know from your posts that you are an astute historian. Even the
Wright Brothers had everything in place before their public
demonstration. Wikipedia reads, Wilbur won a coin toss and made a
three-second flight attempt on December 14, 1903, stalling after takeoff
and causing minor damage to the Flyer. (Because December 13, 1903, was a
Sunday, the brothers did not make any attempts that day, even though the
weather was good.) In a message to their family, Wilbur referred to the
trial as having only partial success, stating the power is ample, and
but for a trifling error due to lack of experience with this machine and
this method of starting, the machine would undoubtedly have flown
beautifully.[52] Following repairs, the Wrights finally took to the air
on December 17, 1903, making two flights each from level ground into a
freezing headwind gusting to 27 miles per hour (43 km/h).

Craig

Re: [Vo]:The reaction was not dying off; it was increasing, and it was deliberately quenched

The answer to your question can be given only by experiment. Rossi claims
his system is absolutely different
from all the other LENRs so what happens in an Arata Cell is not valid for
the E-cat.
It is now the time Rossi should predict the duration of the
1 MW demo- and this cannot be a few hours. Not he will decide but the
mystery Customer who probably will tell his name at the end of the Demo- if
it can be considered a success.( like Lohengrin in the aria In fernen
Land)
Why so much secrecy?

Peter

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 An individual fat-Cat may run longer than 4 hours on the average run, and
 he
 probably expected at least 8 hours based on the original time schedule.
 But
 also - it was clear (to a few of us) that Rossi had most likely faced this
 exact problem before (rapid die-off) . . .


 That is incorrect. There was no rapid die off. On the contrary, the power
 was increasing before Rossi took steps to turn it off deliberately. Rossi
 and Lewan both reported that the cell was de-gassed and the cooling rate
 increased to quench the reaction. Rossi told this to Ed Storms and me. Had
 Rossi had not de-gassed it, the reaction might have continued indefinitely.

 The reaction was quenched at the request of observers who wanted to look
 inside the reactor.

 Similar gas loaded systems such as Arata's have run continuously for weeks.
 Gas-loaded powder seems to be remarkably stable material, compared to things
 like bulk palladium.

 Horace Heffner and some other people have also mistakenly reported that the
 reaction died off on its own. Lewan's report clearly states that is not what
 happened.


 There is no indication how long a putative quiescent period would be before
 another hot run is possible.


 I have heard it usually turns on faster than this. There is no indication
 that heat after death needs to die off before it is triggered again, in a
 quiescent period. As far as I know, no one has reported that.  Where did
 you hear that a quiescent period is needed?

 - Jed




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

Re: [Vo]:The reaction was not dying off; it was increasing, and it was deliberately quenched

Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

The answer to your question can be given only by experiment.


I gather the question being: Will this system run indefinitely without
input power? Indefinitely is an indefinite description, meaning I do not
know how long it might run. There is no question it would have run longer
than 4 hours.


Rossi claims his system is absolutely different
 from all the other LENRs so what happens in an Arata Cell is not valid for
 the E-cat.


The fact that Rossi makes this claim does not prove the claim is true. He
does not own this reaction in the sense that he can declare what it is or
how it works. His opinion has no more authority than, say, that of Piantelli
or Storms.

In their White Paper, Defkalion claimed that this reaction has nothing to do
with cold fusion. All of cold fusion researchers I know disagree with them.



 It is now the time Rossi should predict the duration of the
 1 MW demo- and this cannot be a few hours.


There is no indication this will be in heat-after-death mode. The
large-scale reactor that supposedly ran in a factory for months was not in
heat-after-death mode as far as I know.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi's 1MW demo supposed to output steam, or just hot water under 100 C?

OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:


 On a related topic I have also been under the impression that Rossi
 was NOT planning on producing steam as the final output product - only
 hot water below the temperature of 100 C.


That is what he said months ago. Evidently he changed his mind.

It would be rather challenging to test a hot water heater at that power
level. You need a large flow of water; much more than the water mains in an
ordinary office can deliver. You need something like a fire hydrant flow.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The reaction was not dying off; it was increasing, and it was deliberately quenched

I agree with what you say, however I cannot believe
the story of the factory heated with such an generator.
Actually it was a lot of involution in E-cats from the start till now (e.g.
O/U from a spectacular 200:1 to a modest 6;1, power form 12 to 3 kW) but so
much regress is not believable.
Peter

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 The answer to your question can be given only by experiment.


 I gather the question being: Will this system run indefinitely without
 input power? Indefinitely is an indefinite description, meaning I do not
 know how long it might run. There is no question it would have run longer
 than 4 hours.


 Rossi claims his system is absolutely different
 from all the other LENRs so what happens in an Arata Cell is not valid for
 the E-cat.


 The fact that Rossi makes this claim does not prove the claim is true. He
 does not own this reaction in the sense that he can declare what it is or
 how it works. His opinion has no more authority than, say, that of Piantelli
 or Storms.

 In their White Paper, Defkalion claimed that this reaction has nothing to
 do with cold fusion. All of cold fusion researchers I know disagree with
 them.



 It is now the time Rossi should predict the duration of the
 1 MW demo- and this cannot be a few hours.


 There is no indication this will be in heat-after-death mode. The
 large-scale reactor that supposedly ran in a factory for months was not in
 heat-after-death mode as far as I know.

 - Jed




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

Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation


Hi Horace,

That is an interesting idea you have suggested.   I was thinking along the same 
lines until I realized that the energy was never returned by reversing the 
movement.  Does compressing the B into a higher average pressure result in 
storage of the energy instead of converting it into heat?  If it is stored as I 
would assume that the energy would be returned if the movement reverses.  Do 
you see my point?  Is it possible that the movements toward and back make a 
permanent(pinning energy?)  modification to the internal structure of the disk? 
  Maybe this is related to the effect that occurs when an alternating field of 
RF is applied.  An interesting thought is that the RF field simulates the 
physical up and down movement at a much higher rate.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 4:31 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation




On Oct 18, 2011, at 9:55 PM, David Roberson wrote:


Hello Frank,
 
You have an impressive understanding of the flux pinning theory.  Can you give 
me an answer to my question?  It appears that energy can be put into the 
floating disk-magnet combination by pushing or pulling against the disk.  Where 
does the energy show up in the system?  Does the disk heat up a small amount as 
I push or pull on the disk or does the magnet get the energy?  This question 
may be related to the amount of force required to displace the disk.  There may 
be important information revealed as a result of the energy transfer.  I 
eagerly await your answer.
 
Dave




Hi Dave,


Here is guess for you.  


The magnetic pressure P = B^2/(2*mu0) is reduced in the volume immediately 
below and above the puck, except in the thin volumes near the puck of flux 
transiting the thin vortices in which lines of flux are pinned. The magnetic 
pressure immediately adjacent to the sides of the puck, and adjacent to the 
pinning locations is increased.  Any movement of the puck relative to a given 
magnet, provided the movement does not involve a canceling symmetry, such as 
rotation above a single magnet, or movement on a single magnet track, changes 
the local B and/or volume in which the B resides, and thus magnetic pressure, 
and thus energy of the system.  Pushing the magnet into place merely involves 
compressing the B into a higher average pressure, and thus consumes energy.  
The energy in the B resides in the polarized vacuum. 


Best regards,



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

Re: [Vo]:Is it possible Rossi has already tested his 1 MW prototype behind closed doors?

2011-10-19 Thread Peter Heckert


Am 19.10.2011 16:19, schrieb Horace Heffner:


On Oct 19, 2011, at 5:39 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:


[snip]


Somebody has calculated, at 1MW the steam must go supersonic with 
this output tube.

Then, with 100 kW it must still go some 100 km/h.

[snip]

I got 803 km/hr, which is less than the speed of sound. You may want 
to check my calculations!




Energy of 99.6° Steam = 2675 kJ/kg
I took this from an industrial steam table and this assumes 0° water 
temperature.

So lets assume this as best case assumption in favor for Rossi.
Mass flow of steam at 1000 kJ/s = 1000 kJ/s / (2675 kJ/kg) = 0.3738 kg/s.
Steam volume at 100° is obtained if the equivalent water volume is 
multiplied by 1700.

Steam volume is: 0.3738 l/s * 1700 = 635.5 l/s = 635500 cm^3 /s .
Steam Flow is: 635500 cm^3/s / (33cm^2) = 19258 cm/s = 192.5 m/s = 693.3 
km/h


And yes, this is less than speed of sound.

Of course this calculation can only show the order of magnitude, because 
this speed is impossible at air pressure.

But still I think this speed is too much.

He can do something about this, if he finally uses glycol and higher 
temperatures or adds some tube.
But there still is the problem that all these hot FAT Cats would heat 
the container (and the reactor cores) above 100°.


Now he is a genial inventor and I am sure he knows about these obvious 
problems and will be prepared.

So let's wait, maybe he has other surprises.


Using the photos here:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264361.ece

The  outside width of a standard container is 8 feet, or 2.44 meters

From the full photo of the back side:

The 8 feet = 129 pixels.

The red handle = 16 pixels = (16 px)*(2.44 m)/(129 px) = 30 cm, much 
larger than I would have thought.


In the closeup photo the handle is 94 px, giving (30 cm)/(94 px) = 
0.319 cm/px.


The cap is 40 px, or 12.8 cm OD.

The exit pipe appears to have a 22 px OD, or 7 cm OD.  Maybe the pipe 
is 6.5 cm ID, or 3.25 cm radius, giving an area pi*(3.25 cm)^2 = 33 cm^2.


The energy put into the steam depends on the temperature to which it 
is condensed before being fed back into the E-cat.


Assume the condensed water is being fed back at 100°C.

The energy to vaporize water at 100°C is 2260 J/g.  If 1 MW is heating 
100°C water then I estimate the flow has to be 442.5 gm/s, with a 
volumetric flow of 737.5 liters/sec.  This gives a flow velocity of 
(737500 cm^3/s)/(33 cm^3)= 223 m/s in the pipe, or 803 km/hr.  This is 
below the speed of sound but over 6 times the recommended speed for 
the pipe size.


If I did the calculations right, then this indicates the device could 
blow up.  If there are emergency steam relief valves on the devices 
the steam could be released inside the container.


Note, if water is fed back at 50°C I get only 675 liter/sec steam flow.

Related assessments can be found here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51512.html


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi's 1MW demo supposed to output steam, or just hot water under 100 C?

2011-10-19 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson

From Jed:

 On a related topic I have also been under the impression
 that Rossi was NOT planning on producing steam as the final
 output product - only hot water below the temperature of 100 C.

 That is what he said months ago. Evidently he changed his mind.

 It would be rather challenging to test a hot water heater at that
 power level. You need a large flow of water; much more than the
 water mains in an ordinary office can deliver. You need something
 like a fire hydrant flow.

This does not bode well from my POV. Granted it is conceivable that
Rossi DOES have access to a fire hydrant's worth of flowing water, and
running that much water through his prototype is what he intends to do
- but I suspect not.

It is also conceivable that Rossi was originally going to do just that
- until perhaps one of his engineers sat Rossi down and ran the
numbers for him.

Engineer: It's impossible, Rossi! We don't have access to that much
water flow. Water pressure will drop to zero for the rest of the
town. ;-)
Rossi: Merda! Then steam it will be!
Engineer: But...!
Rossi: ...Trust me! The eCat encasings can take the pressure. I know
what I'm going!

Or whatever...

The above conversation is, of course, pure conjecture on my part.
Nevertheless, what seems to concern a number of individuals is the
fact that the eCat's external configuration does not appear to be
designed in a manner that would adequately confine high pressure. Any
kind of gas contained under high levels of pressure are typically held
within thick metal encased spheres or cylindrically shaped tanks
precisely because such shapes are the safest practical configurations
known to man. Nothing of the sort seems to have been incorporated into
Rossi's eCats, and to be honest that astonishes me. Rossi's eCats are
boxy - rectangular in shape. It suggests to me that Rossi had not
originally intended to run the current eCat configuration in a manner
that would produce a lot of internal steam that would subsequently be
held under pressure.

But then, perhaps that's the point: Rossi still does not intend to
maintain (or deliberately contain) high level of steam under pressure.
Perhaps Rossi intends that as the steam is generated and as the steam
invariably begins to expand it will immediately exit through the
output pipe quickly and efficiently. If so, what remains to be seen is
whether the current pluming configuration will be up to the job of
making sure no high levels of internal pressure are generated. I hope
nobody steps on a hose... or a pipe doesn't get accidently crinkled
somewhere.

In any case, choosing a boxy rectangular shape has to have introduced
the potential of generating horrible stress points. Seems to me that
if high pressure steam does get generated these boxy eCat
configurations are potential disaster waiting to happen. I hope I'm
wrong.

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

Re: [Vo]:Steam engines

I like the induction generator for safety reasons.  When the power goes off it 
revives no vars and shouts down without back feed.




I do believe that there my be a way to extract electric energy directly from 
the LENR process.  I have kept this to myself for years.



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 6:21 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Steam engines


These links are for piston steam engines. I believe small turbines, or 
MicroTurbines as they are called, are a better solution. Capstone and others 
are developing them.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The reaction was not dying off; it was increasing, and it was deliberately quenched

2011-10-19 Thread Ron Wormus


Jed
I find the heat after death nomenclature to be a bit weird. I think Rossi's self sustaining 
mode is more descriptive. Any idea where heat after death originated?

Ron

--On Wednesday, October 19, 2011 11:02 AM -0400 Jed Rothwell 
jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:



Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:


The answer to your question can be given only by experiment.




I gather the question being: Will this system run indefinitely without input 
power?
Indefinitely is an indefinite description, meaning I do not know how long it 
might run. There
is no question it would have run longer than 4 hours.
 


 Rossi claims his system is absolutely different
from all the other LENRs so what happens in an Arata Cell is not valid for the 
E-cat.




The fact that Rossi makes this claim does not prove the claim is true. He does not 
own this
reaction in the sense that he can declare what it is or how it works. His 
opinion has no more
authority than, say, that of Piantelli or Storms.


In their White Paper, Defkalion claimed that this reaction has nothing to do 
with cold fusion.
All of cold fusion researchers I know disagree with them.


 


It is now the time Rossi should predict the duration of the 
1 MW demo- and this cannot be a few hours.




There is no indication this will be in heat-after-death mode. The large-scale 
reactor that
supposedly ran in a factory for months was not in heat-after-death mode as far 
as I know.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi's 1MW demo supposed to output steam, or just hot water under 100 C?


Hello Steven,

I have seen evidence of a check valve at the output of the ECAT tested in 
October.  This would be expected if many units are to make a contribution to 
the final steam output port.  Indications are that it opens cleanly when the 
pressure within the ECAT is around 2 bars.  I am not aware of changes between 
the ECAT tested and the ones within the 1 Megawatt system.  It sounds like 
steam is the final product.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 10:45 am
Subject: [Vo]:Is Rossi's 1MW demo supposed to output steam, or just hot water 
under 100 C?


Thanks for all the interesting input pertaining to whether Rossi may
ave already tested his one MW prototype. There are a lot of
revailing opinions on that matter. I have appreciated reading them
ll. I hope others have found the thread equally educational. ;-)
On a related topic I have also been under the impression that Rossi
as NOT planning on producing steam as the final output product - only
ot water below the temperature of 100 C. I have been under the
mpression that the 1 MW prototype was to show prospective
ntrepreneurs that this prototype (at least in its current
onfiguration) could be utilized for the task of heating a large
uilding, say a factory floor. If Rossi's current goal was NEVER to
enerate steam (as the final product) then perhaps concerns about
team pressure getting out of hand might... just might be a moot
oint.
However, I may be terribly mistaken on this point, particularly if it
S presumed that lots of confined steam held under dangerous pressures
ill have to be an inevitable part of the prototype's internal
perational parameters - even if the water that eventually exits,
et's say to heat the radiators belonging to a factory floor remain
ell under 100 C.
What's the prevailing assessment on this steam issue?
Regards
teven Vincent Johnson
ww.OrionWorks.com
ww.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation

2011-10-19 Thread Harry Veeder

Is it posible the RF signal is warming the superconductor just above
the critical temperature so that it drops?

Harry

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:48 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
A new understanding of flux pinning is the most important relation in 100
years. The magnet floats on the superconductor. Apply an RF field of 10
mega hertz to a small disk and the magnet drops. That what I saw, so what
you say. Now we know how energy is released. Energy is pinned with the
atom by the same mechanism, discontinuities. Where are the discontinuities
in the atom, here there are below.
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/10710753/the-elastic-limit-of-space-and-the-quantum-condition
What can you predict knowing the observed release condition? Try the energy
levels of the hydrogen atom, the intensity of spectral emission,
the distribution of electrons in the atom, and the frequency and energy of
the photon. see below
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/1078/the-control-of-the-natural-forces
If you are so bright, where is your peer reviewed paper. Here it is below.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211006092

An understating of flux pinning and flux release has the potential
to transform the study of physics and our society. That my story
and I am sticking to it, no matter what Jones says.
Frank Znidarsic

-Original Message-
From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Oct 18, 2011 7:20 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation

All this talk of pinning is just fine, but all of this is nicely predicted
by the basic laws of electrical induction and the zero resistivity offered
by a superconductor, you would expect repulsion or attraction to occur.

No it is not. This flux pinning thing is a big deal. The same mechanism
accounts for the pinning of flux in a superconductor accounts for the energy
levels of the atom.
A solution that includes both provides for a classical foundation for
quantum physics.
Flux is pinned in the nucleus too. An understanding of the
release mechanism provides for a new understanding of the cold fusion
reaction.
Flux is pinned at discontinuities. It is shook free by a vibration at a
dimensional frequency of 1,094,000 meters/second. Thats it.
I did the experiment with the superconductor, Horace now has it.

Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:Steam engines

2011-10-19 Thread Robert Lynn

-Micro-turbines (capstone et al) have low efficiency compressor and turbines
and under 100kW probably won't work at all until the temperatures are
600°C, and then only with very low efficiency (15%).  MW scale might get
up to  20%.
-Micro steam turbines are very inefficient, (steam's high specific heat
requires multi-stage due to blade speed limits) and with small sizes are far
more prone to water erosion damage.  They also require huge condensers
(radiators) unless running total loss with water.
-Reciprocating steam engines are at best 20% efficient, and then only for
very intricate and large triple expansion engines, same large condenser
problem.
-Organic rankine is also very inefficient, but by picking a fluid with lower
heat of vaporisaion and greater molecular mass (lower specific heat) can get
away with single stage.  May be best of a bad lot, but again need large
condensers.
-Stirling cycle is incredibly expensive ($3000/kW @1kW, $500/kW @30kW) and
heavy (10-20kg/kW) due to high prescision + no lubrication.  Low piston
speeds mean big expensive generators.  Also big radiators required.


On 19 October 2011 15:21, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 These links are for piston steam engines. I believe small turbines, or
 MicroTurbines as they are called, are a better solution. Capstone and
 others are developing them.

 - Jed

RE: [Vo]:quantum levitation

2011-10-19 Thread Higgins Bob-CBH003

Note that superconductors have zero resistance only for DC.  At all frequencies 
above DC, the resistance is finite and there is penetration.  Consider also 
that true DC extends from time -infinity to +infinity as a constant.  Moving 
the superconductor in a magnetic field does create resistance because the 
supercurrents are not DC.

Bob Higgins

-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 12:27 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation

Is it posible the RF signal is warming the superconductor just above
the critical temperature so that it drops?


Harry

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:48 PM,  fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
 A new understanding of flux pinning is the most important relation in 100
 years.  The magnet floats on the superconductor.  Apply an RF field of 10
 mega hertz to a small disk and the magnet drops.  That what I saw,  so what
 you say.  Now we know how energy is released.  Energy is pinned with the
 atom by the same mechanism, discontinuities.  Where are the discontinuities
 in the atom, here there are below.
 http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/10710753/the-elastic-limit-of-space-and-the-quantum-condition
 What can you predict knowing the observed release condition?  Try the energy
 levels of the hydrogen atom, the intensity of spectral emission,
 the distribution of electrons in the atom, and the frequency and energy of
 the photon.  see below
 http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/1078/the-control-of-the-natural-forces
 If you are so bright, where is your peer reviewed paper.  Here it is below.
 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211006092

 An understating of flux pinning and flux release has the potential
 to transform the study of physics and our society.  That my story
 and I am sticking to it,  no matter what Jones says.
 Frank Znidarsic


 -Original Message-
 From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, Oct 18, 2011 7:20 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation


 All this talk of pinning is just fine, but all of this is nicely predicted
 by the basic laws of electrical induction and the zero resistivity offered
 by a superconductor, you would expect repulsion or attraction to occur.

 No it is not.  This flux pinning thing is a big deal.  The same mechanism
 accounts for the pinning of flux in a superconductor accounts for the energy
 levels of the atom.
 A solution that includes both provides for a classical foundation for
 quantum physics.
 Flux is pinned in the nucleus too.  An understanding of the
 release mechanism provides for a new understanding of the cold fusion
 reaction.
 Flux is pinned at discontinuities.  It is shook free by a vibration at a
 dimensional frequency of 1,094,000 meters/second.  Thats it.
 I did the experiment with the superconductor,  Horace now has it.


 Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi's 1MW demo supposed to output steam, or just hot water under 100 C?

2011-10-19 Thread Robert Lynn

Actually pretty easy, just parallel together 3-4 truck radiators or 10 car
radiators (quite cheap) with standard cooling fans on them and pump water
around with an open header tank.

Or spray hot water in air stream from a fan and collect it in a catch tank
for re-use (as thermal power stations do), with smaller quantity of make-up
water (basically equivalent to steam system)

Either option should only cost a few $1000's to put together.  And would
alleviate issues with pressure vessel code-compliance.  I'd be a lot happier
with the safety of such a setup with all of the reactors fully submerged and
at lower pressures.  Though of course it is unlikely Rossi would do
something so sensible.

On 19 October 2011 16:04, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:


 On a related topic I have also been under the impression that Rossi
 was NOT planning on producing steam as the final output product - only
 hot water below the temperature of 100 C.


 That is what he said months ago. Evidently he changed his mind.

 It would be rather challenging to test a hot water heater at that power
 level. You need a large flow of water; much more than the water mains in an
 ordinary office can deliver. You need something like a fire hydrant flow.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi's 1MW demo supposed to output steam, or just hot water under 100 C?

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:51 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:

 This does not bode well from my POV. Granted it is conceivable that
 Rossi DOES have access to a fire hydrant's worth of flowing water, and
 running that much water through his prototype is what he intends to do
 - but I suspect not.

Either I dreamed it or someone recently cross posted from Rossi's blog
that he planned to use Therm oil, or something of the sort, instead
of water in the primary.

I probably make it up in my own mind.  I'm sure he did not say Therminol.

T

Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi's 1MW demo supposed to output steam, or just hot water under 100 C?


Robert Lynn wrote:

Actually pretty easy, just parallel together 3-4 truck radiators or 10 
car radiators (quite cheap) with standard cooling fans on them and 
pump water around with an open header tank.


Wow. You are right. A large truck produces 425 hp, which is 316 kW. It 
takes a lot more than that in thermal power. I did not realize trucks 
are so powerful. I do not know efficient truck radiators are but that 
sounds like it would work.


The water in the tank would end up getting very hot. That can be 
accounted for.


The calorimetry is not as challenging as I though. I have no experience 
measuring such large amounts of heat, and no idea how it is done, but 
I'm sure there are many experts who know.


- Jed

[Vo]:Forbes: Mark Gibbs of Forbes follows up with a new Rossi article

2011-10-19 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson

Again, mostly harmless. Even a little amusing. ;-)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/19/end-of-world-nigh-cf-demo-could-be-postponed/

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

Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi's 1MW demo supposed to output steam, or just hot water under 100 C?

Dennis Cravens pointed out to me that you do not need a fire hydrant 
water main to do this test with water only, instead of steam. You can 
use a heavy-duty pump and pump the water from a swimming pool, through 
the device,  and back to the swimming pool.


That is another clever idea which never occurred to me. I have not 
thought much about how to do this, because it is far from anything I've 
ever done or witnessed.


I guess you would do this as flow calorimetry where the inlet 
temperature keeps rising. It is not generally a good idea let the inlet 
temperature fluctuate, but in this case I guess you have to live with that.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi's 1MW demo supposed to output steam, or just hot water under 100 C?

I wrote:


 I guess you would do this as flow calorimetry where the inlet temperature
 keeps rising. It is not generally a good idea let the inlet temperature
 fluctuate, but in this case I guess you have to live with that.


I should point out that Dennis has in mind using the temperature of the
water in the swimming pool, rather than the flow Delta T.

That seems tricky to me because the test will run for many hours and it is
difficult to establish how much heat is lost from the swimming pool. You
have to do a calibration with the giant heater.

You could do both methods. You should.

To do flow calorimetry, I suppose you would have to trust the manufacturer's
faceplate rating for the large pump. That must be an approximate number. I
have seen large gasoline-powered pumps used to drain houses after floods.
They are impressive. I doubt that the rating is precise.

- Jed

[Vo]:Henk Houkes analysis of the effect of the steam pipe on the outlet thermocouple

Henk Houkes sent me a brief analysis and spreadsheet with a first order 
calculation of the effects of the steam pipe on the outlet thermocouple 
in Rossi's October 6 test. He estimates that the steam pipe contributes 
0.1°C to the temperature registered by the thermocouple. He explains:


The heat has to travel axially some 12 mm through a thin threaded pipe, 
while radially that heat is effectively sucked away by the output water, 
flowing less than 2 mm below it.


This is a large  elaborate spreadsheet, with photographs and schematics 
in it, so it is too big to upload here. Perhaps I should upload it to 
LENR-CANR.org.


By the way, to see the photographs and schematics you have to click on 
the tabs at the bottom labeled: calc, model, picture, pipe dimensions


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi's 1MW demo supposed to output steam, or just hot water under 100 C?


The power requirements for a large truck are enormous.   Maybe Rossi's 1 
Megawatt steam generator is not as powerful as we are thinking as it would 
barely be capable of powering one of those trucks at full capacity(316 KW x 3). 
 I see that the latest 1 Megawatt BIG CAT will need a slight size reduction 
to become a successful replacement for that truck engine.  We have a long way 
to go.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 1:35 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi's 1MW demo supposed to output steam, or just hot 
water under 100 C?


Robert Lynn wrote:
 Actually pretty easy, just parallel together 3-4 truck radiators or 10 
 car radiators (quite cheap) with standard cooling fans on them and 
 pump water around with an open header tank.
Wow. You are right. A large truck produces 425 hp, which is 316 kW. It 
akes a lot more than that in thermal power. I did not realize trucks 
re so powerful. I do not know efficient truck radiators are but that 
ounds like it would work.
The water in the tank would end up getting very hot. That can be 
ccounted for.
The calorimetry is not as challenging as I though. I have no experience 
easuring such large amounts of heat, and no idea how it is done, but 
'm sure there are many experts who know.
- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Steam engines

Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

-Micro-turbines (capstone et al) have low efficiency compressor and turbines
 and under 100kW probably won't work at all until the temperatures are
 600°C, and then only with very low efficiency (15%).


I have heard that a Rossi reactor can go to 600°C. It works well at that
temperature. Most cold fusion reactions work better at higher temperatures.
Proton conductor-types do not work at all at lower temperatures. They do not
conduct protons (load).

Anyway, efficiency does not matter much with cold fusion because the heat
costs nothing. The only reason you need a modicum of efficiency is to keep
the waste heat down to a reasonable level. You would not want a 30 kW home
generator that produces 300 kW of waste heat. It would make the air around
the house too hot. If it was compact, it would be dangerously hot, and might
burn someone or start a fire, and if it was not compact it would take up a
lot of space.



 -Micro steam turbines are very inefficient, (steam's high specific heat
 requires multi-stage due to blade speed limits) and with small sizes are far
 more prone to water erosion damage.


As I said, efficiency does not matter, but longevity and the lifetime cost
of the equipment does matter. See chapter 14 of my book.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Forbes: Mark Gibbs of Forbes follows up with a new Rossi article

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
 Again, mostly harmless.

How many strikes does one get in this ball game?

T

Re: [Vo]:Forbes: Mark Gibbs of Forbes follows up with a new Rossi article

2011-10-19 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson

Terry sez:

 Again, mostly harmless.

 How many strikes does one get in this ball game?

I'll get back to you AFTER tomorrow. ;-)

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

Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation

I don't know.  I was looking for anomalous energy and did not follow through on 
the loss of the circulating currrent.  That sort of happened.  I detected no 
anomalous energy or gravitational anomaly.

-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 8:27 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation

Is it posible the RF signal is warming the superconductor just above
the critical temperature so that it drops?

Harry

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:48 PM,  fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
 A new understanding of flux pinning is the most important relation in 100
 years.  The magnet floats on the superconductor.  Apply an RF field of 10
 mega hertz to a small disk and the magnet drops.  That what I saw,  so what
 you say.  Now we know how energy is released.  Energy is pinned with the
 atom by the same mechanism, discontinuities.  Where are the discontinuities
 in the atom, here there are below.
 http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/10710753/the-elastic-limit-of-space-and-the-quantum-condition
 What can you predict knowing the observed release condition?  Try the energy
 levels of the hydrogen atom, the intensity of spectral emission,
 the distribution of electrons in the atom, and the frequency and energy of
 the photon.  see below
 http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/1078/the-control-of-the-natural-forces
 If you are so bright, where is your peer reviewed paper.  Here it is below.
 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211006092

 An understating of flux pinning and flux release has the potential
 to transform the study of physics and our society.  That my story
 and I am sticking to it,  no matter what Jones says.
 Frank Znidarsic

 -Original Message-
 From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, Oct 18, 2011 7:20 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation

 All this talk of pinning is just fine, but all of this is nicely predicted
 by the basic laws of electrical induction and the zero resistivity offered
 by a superconductor, you would expect repulsion or attraction to occur.

 No it is not.  This flux pinning thing is a big deal.  The same mechanism
 accounts for the pinning of flux in a superconductor accounts for the energy
 levels of the atom.
 A solution that includes both provides for a classical foundation for
 quantum physics.
 Flux is pinned in the nucleus too.  An understanding of the
 release mechanism provides for a new understanding of the cold fusion
 reaction.
 Flux is pinned at discontinuities.  It is shook free by a vibration at a
 dimensional frequency of 1,094,000 meters/second.  Thats it.
 I did the experiment with the superconductor,  Horace now has it.

 Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation

thanks for the info

-Original Message-
From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 8:48 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:quantum levitation

Note that superconductors have zero resistance only for DC.  At all frequencies 
above DC, the resistance is finite and there is penetration.  Consider also 
that 
true DC extends from time -infinity to +infinity as a constant.  Moving the 
superconductor in a magnetic field does create resistance because the 
supercurrents are not DC.

Bob Higgins

-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 12:27 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation

Is it posible the RF signal is warming the superconductor just above
the critical temperature so that it drops?

Harry

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:48 PM,  fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
 A new understanding of flux pinning is the most important relation in 100
 years.  The magnet floats on the superconductor.  Apply an RF field of 10
 mega hertz to a small disk and the magnet drops.  That what I saw,  so what
 you say.  Now we know how energy is released.  Energy is pinned with the
 atom by the same mechanism, discontinuities.  Where are the discontinuities
 in the atom, here there are below.
 http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/10710753/the-elastic-limit-of-space-and-the-quantum-condition
 What can you predict knowing the observed release condition?  Try the energy
 levels of the hydrogen atom, the intensity of spectral emission,
 the distribution of electrons in the atom, and the frequency and energy of
 the photon.  see below
 http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/1078/the-control-of-the-natural-forces
 If you are so bright, where is your peer reviewed paper.  Here it is below.
 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211006092

 An understating of flux pinning and flux release has the potential
 to transform the study of physics and our society.  That my story
 and I am sticking to it,  no matter what Jones says.
 Frank Znidarsic

 -Original Message-
 From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, Oct 18, 2011 7:20 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation

 All this talk of pinning is just fine, but all of this is nicely predicted
 by the basic laws of electrical induction and the zero resistivity offered
 by a superconductor, you would expect repulsion or attraction to occur.

 No it is not.  This flux pinning thing is a big deal.  The same mechanism
 accounts for the pinning of flux in a superconductor accounts for the energy
 levels of the atom.
 A solution that includes both provides for a classical foundation for
 quantum physics.
 Flux is pinned in the nucleus too.  An understanding of the
 release mechanism provides for a new understanding of the cold fusion
 reaction.
 Flux is pinned at discontinuities.  It is shook free by a vibration at a
 dimensional frequency of 1,094,000 meters/second.  Thats it.
 I did the experiment with the superconductor,  Horace now has it.

 Frank Znidarsic

[Vo]:S-C transience in a strong magnetic field.

Previous Message:Is it posible the RF signal is warming the superconductor just
abovethe critical temperature so that it drops?

Actually, a strong-enough magnetic field can also overcome the superconducting
condition. The super conductivity returns as soon as the field is weakened or
removed.I know how to get around this if anyone would like to work with me on a
simple experiment.Scott

Harry

An understating of flux pinning and flux release has the potential
to transform the study of physics and our society. That my story
and I am sticking to it, no matter what Jones says.
Frank Znidarsic

-Original Message-
From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Oct 18, 2011 7:20 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation

Frank Znidarsic

[Vo]:S-C currents not DC?

How are S-C currents not DC?

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation
From: fznidar...@aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:19:59 -0400

thanks for the info

-Original Message-

From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com

To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 8:48 am

Subject: RE: [Vo]:quantum levitation

Note that superconductors have zero resistance only for DC.  At all frequencies 
above DC, the resistance is finite and there is penetration.  Consider also 
that 
true DC extends from time -infinity to +infinity as a constant.  Moving the 
superconductor in a magnetic field does create resistance because the 
supercurrents are not DC.

Bob Higgins

-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 12:27 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation

Is it posible the RF signal is warming the superconductor just above
the critical temperature so that it drops?

Harry

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:48 PM,  fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
 A new understanding of flux pinning is the most important relation in 100
 years.  The magnet floats on the superconductor.  Apply an RF field of 10
 mega hertz to a small disk and the magnet drops.  That what I saw,  so what
 you say.  Now we know how energy is released.  Energy is pinned with the
 atom by the same mechanism, discontinuities.  Where are the discontinuities
 in the atom, here there are below.
 http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/10710753/the-elastic-limit-of-space-and-the-quantum-condition
 What can you predict knowing the observed release condition?  Try the energy
 levels of the hydrogen atom, the intensity of spectral emission,
 the distribution of electrons in the atom, and the frequency and energy of
 the photon.  see below
 http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/1078/the-control-of-the-natural-forces
 If you are so bright, where is your peer reviewed paper.  Here it is below.
 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211006092

 An understating of flux pinning and flux release has the potential
 to transform the study of physics and our society.  That my story
 and I am sticking to it,  no matter what Jones says.
 Frank Znidarsic

 -Original Message-
 From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, Oct 18, 2011 7:20 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation

 All this talk of pinning is just fine, but all of this is nicely predicted
 by the basic laws of electrical induction and the zero resistivity offered
 by a superconductor, you would expect repulsion or attraction to occur.

 No it is not.  This flux pinning thing is a big deal.  The same mechanism
 accounts for the pinning of flux in a superconductor accounts for the energy
 levels of the atom.
 A solution that includes both provides for a classical foundation for
 quantum physics.
 Flux is pinned in the nucleus too.  An understanding of the
 release mechanism provides for a new understanding of the cold fusion
 reaction.
 Flux is pinned at discontinuities.  It is shook free by a vibration at a
 dimensional frequency of 1,094,000 meters/second.  Thats it.
 I did the experiment with the superconductor,  Horace now has it.

 Frank Znidarsic

[Vo]:Rossi-related spreadsheets and graphs uploaded to LENR-CANR.org

I have uploaded some stuff informally without changing the file names much
and without adding them to the index system. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/

I do not recall who authored this one:

http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Sept%207%20Rossi%20test%20graph.png

Horace: Please send me the latest version of your analysis, if you would
like me to upload it here. Also the separate images of the graphs would be
handy.

The spreadsheet I mentioned earlier by Houkes is here:

http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx

Summary (which is not in the spreadsheet):

The temperatures recorded by the Termometro datalogger TM-947 accurately
reflect the temperature of the cold water coming out of the heat exchanger.
Heat from the inlet steam pipe probably did not cause more than 0.1°C
difference. That is because the heat has to travel axially some 12 mm
through a thin threaded pipe, while radially that heat is effectively sucked
away by the output water, flowing less than 2 mm below it.



Rossi does not deserve all this talent.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation


I have also tried to stimulate nickel and palladium wires in a nitrogen bath 
with RF energy.  The cryogenics were intended to extend the domain of the 
superconductivity.  The RF was tuned from 60 to 1000 mega hertz.  No anomalous 
energy was produced.  go to page six of the link below and the video will run 
on IE.  I have, however, learned from my mistakes and believe that I can now do 
it.  I now have some people helping me.  The best outcome for me is if Rossi 
clearly produces thermal energy.  That will open more doors.  


http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapterb.html#Pg6




Frank



-Original Message-
From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 12:20 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation


thanks for the info



-Original Message-
From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 8:48 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:quantum levitation


Note that superconductors have zero resistance only for DC.  At all frequencies 
above DC, the resistance is finite and there is penetration.  Consider also 
that 
true DC extends from time -infinity to +infinity as a constant.  Moving the 
superconductor in a magnetic field does create resistance because the 
supercurrents are not DC.

Bob Higgins

-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 12:27 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation

Is it posible the RF signal is warming the superconductor just above
the critical temperature so that it drops?


Harry

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:48 PM,  fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
 A new understanding of flux pinning is the most important relation in 100
 years.  The magnet floats on the superconductor.  Apply an RF field of 10
 mega hertz to a small disk and the magnet drops.  That what I saw,  so what
 you say.  Now we know how energy is released.  Energy is pinned with the
 atom by the same mechanism, discontinuities.  Where are the discontinuities
 in the atom, here there are below.
 http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/10710753/the-elastic-limit-of-space-and-the-quantum-condition
 What can you predict knowing the observed release condition?  Try the energy
 levels of the hydrogen atom, the intensity of spectral emission,
 the distribution of electrons in the atom, and the frequency and energy of
 the photon.  see below
 http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/1078/the-control-of-the-natural-forces
 If you are so bright, where is your peer reviewed paper.  Here it is below.
 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211006092

 An understating of flux pinning and flux release has the potential
 to transform the study of physics and our society.  That my story
 and I am sticking to it,  no matter what Jones says.
 Frank Znidarsic


 -Original Message-
 From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, Oct 18, 2011 7:20 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation


 All this talk of pinning is just fine, but all of this is nicely predicted
 by the basic laws of electrical induction and the zero resistivity offered
 by a superconductor, you would expect repulsion or attraction to occur.

 No it is not.  This flux pinning thing is a big deal.  The same mechanism
 accounts for the pinning of flux in a superconductor accounts for the energy
 levels of the atom.
 A solution that includes both provides for a classical foundation for
 quantum physics.
 Flux is pinned in the nucleus too.  An understanding of the
 release mechanism provides for a new understanding of the cold fusion
 reaction.
 Flux is pinned at discontinuities.  It is shook free by a vibration at a
 dimensional frequency of 1,094,000 meters/second.  Thats it.
 I did the experiment with the superconductor,  Horace now has it.


 Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi's 1MW demo supposed to output steam, or just hot water under 100 C?

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

I already posted a picture of the above as an example of a machine
that had thermal power of at least 10MW.
Those locomotives were made around 1940.  They ran at 80mph max speed.
All locomotives of the Big Boy model worked for at least 20 years, and
retired only because of arrival of
more competitive diesel electric engines.  The numbers are impressive
compared to Rossi's plant.
Those beasts were able to dissipate huge amounts of heat, since their
thermodynamic efficiency was below 10% most of the time.
Yet they were reliable machines.

Rossi will have no safety problems with steam, assuming that he
followed those ancient engineering lessons. There is no reason for him
to use hot water.  I guess the idea is some kind of district heating
plant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating) using steam.
Then do the scale up to electrical power when eventually E-cat will be
able to support it.

mic

2011/10/19 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com:
 The power requirements for a large truck are enormous.   Maybe Rossi's 1
 Megawatt steam generator is not as powerful as we are thinking as it would
 barely be capable of powering one of those trucks at full capacity(316 KW x
 3).  I see that the latest 1 Megawatt BIG CAT will need a slight size
 reduction to become a successful replacement for that truck engine.  We have
 a long way to go.

 Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 1:35 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi's 1MW demo supposed to output steam, or just
 hot water under 100 C?

 Robert Lynn wrote:

 Actually pretty easy, just parallel together 3-4 truck radiators or 10
 car radiators (quite cheap) with standard cooling fans on them and
 pump water around with an open header tank.

 Wow. You are right. A large truck produces 425 hp, which is 316 kW. It
 takes a lot more than that in thermal power. I did not realize trucks
 are so powerful. I do not know efficient truck radiators are but that
 sounds like it would work.

 The water in the tank would end up getting very hot. That can be
 accounted for.

 The calorimetry is not as challenging as I though. I have no experience
 measuring such large amounts of heat, and no idea how it is done, but
 I'm sure there are many experts who know.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi's 1MW demo supposed to output steam, or just hot water under 100 C?

Terry,

you mean this?

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg53062.html

mic


2011/10/19 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com:
 On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:51 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
 svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:

 This does not bode well from my POV. Granted it is conceivable that
 Rossi DOES have access to a fire hydrant's worth of flowing water, and
 running that much water through his prototype is what he intends to do
 - but I suspect not.

 Either I dreamed it or someone recently cross posted from Rossi's blog
 that he planned to use Therm oil, or something of the sort, instead
 of water in the primary.

 I probably make it up in my own mind.  I'm sure he did not say Therminol.

 T

RE: [Vo]:S-C currents not DC?

2011-10-19 Thread Higgins Bob-CBH003

Say that initially the superconductor was brought into its SC state not
in the presence of magnetic fields.  At that time there are nominally no
supercurrents.  As you bring the SC into the presence of a magnet a
supercurrent must form that previously did not exist to prevent
penetration of the magnetic field into the superconductor.  This is not
a DC supercurrent because it has not existed in steady state for all
time.  Initially there will be some loss in the supercurrent because
there are components that are not DC.  At least that's my understanding.
I asked a guy at CERN about this in how they bring up their strong
supercurrent in their superconducting electromagnets.  It is not a
simple process.


From: Wm. Scott Smith [mailto:scott...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 4:28 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:S-C currents not DC?
 
How are S-C currents not DC?


To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation
From: fznidar...@aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:19:59 -0400

thanks for the info


-Original Message-
From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 8:48 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:quantum levitation
Note that superconductors have zero resistance only for DC.  At all
frequencies 
above DC, the resistance is finite and there is penetration.  Consider
also that 
true DC extends from time -infinity to +infinity as a constant.  Moving
the 
superconductor in a magnetic field does create resistance because the 
supercurrents are not DC.
 
Bob Higgins
 
-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com
mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com? ] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 12:27 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation
 
Is it posible the RF signal is warming the superconductor just above
the critical temperature so that it drops?
 
 
Harry
 
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:48 PM,  fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
 A new understanding of flux pinning is the most important relation in
100
 years.  The magnet floats on the superconductor.  Apply an RF field of
10
 mega hertz to a small disk and the magnet drops.  That what I saw,  so
what
 you say.  Now we know how energy is released.  Energy is pinned with
the
 atom by the same mechanism, discontinuities.  Where are the
discontinuities
 in the atom, here there are below.

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/10710753/the-elastic-
limit-of-space-and-the-quantum-condition
 What can you predict knowing the observed release condition?  Try the
energy
 levels of the hydrogen atom, the intensity of spectral emission,
 the distribution of electrons in the atom, and the frequency and
energy of
 the photon.  see below

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/1078/the-control-
of-the-natural-forces
 If you are so bright, where is your peer reviewed paper.  Here it is
below.
 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211006092
 
 An understating of flux pinning and flux release has the potential
 to transform the study of physics and our society.  That my story
 and I am sticking to it,  no matter what Jones says.
 Frank Znidarsic
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, Oct 18, 2011 7:20 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation
 
 
 All this talk of pinning is just fine, but all of this is nicely
predicted
 by the basic laws of electrical induction and the zero resistivity
offered
 by a superconductor, you would expect repulsion or attraction to
occur.
 
 No it is not.  This flux pinning thing is a big deal.  The same
mechanism
 accounts for the pinning of flux in a superconductor accounts for the
energy
 levels of the atom.
 A solution that includes both provides for a classical foundation for
 quantum physics.
 Flux is pinned in the nucleus too.  An understanding of the
 release mechanism provides for a new understanding of the cold fusion
 reaction.
 Flux is pinned at discontinuities.  It is shook free by a vibration at
a
 dimensional frequency of 1,094,000 meters/second.  Thats it.
 I did the experiment with the superconductor,  Horace now has it.
 
 
 Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:Rossi-related spreadsheets and graphs uploaded to LENR-CANR.org


Two more added:

http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Higgins%20Oct%206%2027kWreactorDiagram3.png

http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Higgins%20Oct%206%20Ecat_27kw_Test_20111006_AnalysisBH8.zip

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Is Rossi's 1MW demo supposed to output steam, or just hot water under 100 C?

2011-10-19 Thread Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.

Thanks again for the information.

Didn't these just dissipate heat by venting the steam to the atmosphere?
That seems wasteful.



-Original Message-
From: Michele Comitini [mailto:michele.comit...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 2:33 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi's 1MW demo supposed to output steam, or
just hot water under 100 C?


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

I already posted a picture of the above as an example of a machine
that had thermal power of at least 10MW.
Those locomotives were made around 1940.  They ran at 80mph max speed.
All locomotives of the Big Boy model worked for at least 20 years, and
retired only because of arrival of
more competitive diesel electric engines.  The numbers are impressive
compared to Rossi's plant.
Those beasts were able to dissipate huge amounts of heat, since their
thermodynamic efficiency was below 10% most of the time.
Yet they were reliable machines.

Rossi will have no safety problems with steam, assuming that he
followed those ancient engineering lessons. There is no reason for him
to use hot water.  I guess the idea is some kind of district heating
plant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating) using steam.
Then do the scale up to electrical power when eventually E-cat will be
able to support it.

mic

2011/10/19 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com:
 The power requirements for a large truck are enormous.   Maybe Rossi's 1
 Megawatt steam generator is not as powerful as we are thinking as it would
 barely be capable of powering one of those trucks at full capacity(316 KW x
 3).  I see that the latest 1 Megawatt BIG CAT will need a slight size
 reduction to become a successful replacement for that truck engine.  We have
 a long way to go.

 Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 1:35 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi's 1MW demo supposed to output steam, or just
 hot water under 100 C?

 Robert Lynn wrote:

 Actually pretty easy, just parallel together 3-4 truck radiators or 10
 car radiators (quite cheap) with standard cooling fans on them and
 pump water around with an open header tank.

 Wow. You are right. A large truck produces 425 hp, which is 316 kW. It
 takes a lot more than that in thermal power. I did not realize trucks
 are so powerful. I do not know efficient truck radiators are but that
 sounds like it would work.

 The water in the tank would end up getting very hot. That can be
 accounted for.

 The calorimetry is not as challenging as I though. I have no experience
 measuring such large amounts of heat, and no idea how it is done, but
 I'm sure there are many experts who know.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:S-C currents not DC?


I think this can be broken down into two components.  A transient plus a DC 
current would define the process.  The DC part would be steady for the length 
of time  that you make the observation.  The transient current takes care of 
the changing part.  By your definition of DC, there is no possibility of any 
existing.  Can you think of anything that has generated DC for all time?  Just 
a matter of definitions

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 5:41 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:S-C currents not DC?



Say that initially the superconductor was brought into its SC state not in the 
presence of magnetic fields.  At that time there are nominally no 
supercurrents.  As you bring the SC into the presence of a magnet a 
supercurrent must form that previously did not exist to prevent penetration of 
the magnetic field into the superconductor.  This is not a DC supercurrent 
because it has not existed in steady state for all time.  Initially there will 
be some loss in the supercurrent because there are components that are not DC.  
At least that’s my understanding.  I asked a guy at CERN about this in how they 
bring up their strong supercurrent in their superconducting electromagnets.  It 
is not a simple process.


From: Wm. Scott Smith [mailto:scott...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 4:28 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:S-C currents not DC?

 

How are S-C currents not DC?


To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation
From: fznidar...@aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:19:59 -0400

thanks for the info



-Original Message-
From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 8:48 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:quantum levitation

Note that superconductors have zero resistance only for DC.  At all frequencies 
above DC, the resistance is finite and there is penetration.  Consider also 
that 
true DC extends from time -infinity to +infinity as a constant.  Moving the 
superconductor in a magnetic field does create resistance because the 
supercurrents are not DC.
 
Bob Higgins
 
-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 12:27 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation
 
Is it posible the RF signal is warming the superconductor just above
the critical temperature so that it drops?
 
 
Harry
 
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:48 PM,  fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
 A new understanding of flux pinning is the most important relation in 100
 years.  The magnet floats on the superconductor.  Apply an RF field of 10
 mega hertz to a small disk and the magnet drops.  That what I saw,  so what
 you say.  Now we know how energy is released.  Energy is pinned with the
 atom by the same mechanism, discontinuities.  Where are the discontinuities
 in the atom, here there are below.
 http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/10710753/the-elastic-limit-of-space-and-the-quantum-condition
 What can you predict knowing the observed release condition?  Try the energy
 levels of the hydrogen atom, the intensity of spectral emission,
 the distribution of electrons in the atom, and the frequency and energy of
 the photon.  see below
 http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/1078/the-control-of-the-natural-forces
 If you are so bright, where is your peer reviewed paper.  Here it is below.
 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211006092
 
 An understating of flux pinning and flux release has the potential
 to transform the study of physics and our society.  That my story
 and I am sticking to it,  no matter what Jones says.
 Frank Znidarsic
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, Oct 18, 2011 7:20 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation
 
 
 All this talk of pinning is just fine, but all of this is nicely predicted
 by the basic laws of electrical induction and the zero resistivity offered
 by a superconductor, you would expect repulsion or attraction to occur.
 
 No it is not.  This flux pinning thing is a big deal.  The same mechanism
 accounts for the pinning of flux in a superconductor accounts for the energy
 levels of the atom.
 A solution that includes both provides for a classical foundation for
 quantum physics.
 Flux is pinned in the nucleus too.  An understanding of the
 release mechanism provides for a new understanding of the cold fusion
 reaction.
 Flux is pinned at discontinuities.  It is shook free by a vibration at a
 dimensional frequency of 1,094,000 meters/second.  Thats it.
 I did the experiment with the superconductor,  Horace now has it.
 
 
 Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:S-C currents not DC?

RF cavity is used in particle accelerators. Those things are AC yet
they dissipate very little, if I recall correctly a stationary RF in
one
of those lasts for months. They spend more energy for keeping things cool.

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

mic

2011/10/19 Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com:
Say that initially the superconductor was brought into its SC state not in
the presence of magnetic fields. At that time there are nominally no
supercurrents. As you bring the SC into the presence of a magnet a
supercurrent must form that previously did not exist to prevent penetration
of the magnetic field into the superconductor. This is not a DC
supercurrent because it has not existed in steady state for all time.
Initially there will be some loss in the supercurrent because there are
components that are not DC. At least that’s my understanding. I asked a
guy at CERN about this in how they bring up their strong supercurrent in
their superconducting electromagnets. It is not a simple process.

From: Wm. Scott Smith [mailto:scott...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 4:28 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:S-C currents not DC?

How are S-C currents not DC?

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation
From: fznidar...@aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:19:59 -0400

thanks for the info

-Original Message-
From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 8:48 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:quantum levitation

Note that superconductors have zero resistance only for DC. At all
frequencies

above DC, the resistance is finite and there is penetration. Consider also
that

true DC extends from time -infinity to +infinity as a constant. Moving the

superconductor in a magnetic field does create resistance because the

supercurrents are not DC.

Bob Higgins

-Original Message-

From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 12:27 PM

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation

Is it posible the RF signal is warming the superconductor just above

the critical temperature so that it drops?

Harry

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:48 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:

A new understanding of flux pinning is the most important relation in 100

years. The magnet floats on the superconductor. Apply an RF field of 10

mega hertz to a small disk and the magnet drops. That what I saw, so
what

you say. Now we know how energy is released. Energy is pinned with the

atom by the same mechanism, discontinuities. Where are
the discontinuities

in the atom, here there are below.

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/10710753/the-elastic-limit-of-space-and-the-quantum-condition

What can you predict knowing the observed release condition? Try the
energy

levels of the hydrogen atom, the intensity of spectral emission,

the distribution of electrons in the atom, and the frequency and energy of

the photon. see below

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/1078/the-control-of-the-natural-forces

If you are so bright, where is your peer reviewed paper. Here it is
below.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211006092

An understating of flux pinning and flux release has the potential

to transform the study of physics and our society. That my story

and I am sticking to it, no matter what Jones says.

Frank Znidarsic

-Original Message-

From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com

To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Tue, Oct 18, 2011 7:20 pm

Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation

All this talk of pinning is just fine, but all of this is nicely predicted

by the basic laws of electrical induction and the zero resistivity offered

by a superconductor, you would expect repulsion or attraction to occur.

No it is not. This flux pinning thing is a big deal. The same mechanism

accounts for the pinning of flux in a superconductor accounts for the
energy

levels of the atom.

A solution that includes both provides for a classical foundation for

quantum physics.

Flux is pinned in the nucleus too. An understanding of the

release mechanism provides for a new understanding of the cold fusion

reaction.

Flux is pinned at discontinuities. It is shook free by a vibration at a

dimensional frequency of 1,094,000 meters/second. Thats it.

I did the experiment with the superconductor, Horace now has it.

Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi's 1MW demo supposed to output steam, or just hot water under 100 C?


Probably a Freudian slip but I wrote:


There is a reason why people nowadays demand ultrahigh-tech
test-everything-to-the-n'th degree before you turn on the first time,
and OSHA rules galore. It is a conspiracy to prevent innovation.


I meant it is NOT a conspiracy to prevent innovation. That is what some 
people think all these government rules are intended to do. Some 
Republican politicians think that.


There may be some truth to the idea. Having many rules raises the cost 
of developing new products, leaving only large corporations capable of 
doing it. It may lock out startup competition.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi's 1MW demo supposed to output steam, or just hot water under 100 C?


Michele Comitini wrote:


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

I already posted a picture of the above as an example of a machine
that had thermal power of at least 10MW.
Those locomotives were made around 1940.  They ran at 80mph max speed. . . .


Sure. No one disputes that people have been using large heat engines for 
a long time. I suppose the first ones exceeding 1 MW thermal were made 
in the 1820s. The Great Western, the first big, successful oceangoing 
steamship was built in 1838 and had a 750 hp engine (560 kW). Given the 
inefficiency of steam engines at that time I suppose that was roughly 5 
MW of steam.


Here is a triple expansion marine steam engine rated 2500 hp (1.8 MW):

http://www.lanevictory.org/laneVtour_museum2.php

(Scroll down the page a little)

That's roughly 5 MW of steam, which starts at high pressure and then 
works its way down to the large, low-pressure cylinder.


Let me point out something about this engine. I do not know much about 
these things, but as I mentioned, my father spent years working on one, 
until a deck engine nearly killed him. I have heard a lot about what it 
was like working on them. If you made a mistake, or if a steam hose came 
off or something else went wrong, it could maim you for life or kill you 
faster than you can say knife. My father said there wasn't a voyage he 
made when he did not see someone at the docks in New York maimed, 
crushed or decapitated.


Modern machines are much safer than these old ones, but untested 
prototype reactors like Rossi's are probably back to being dangerous. 
Right back to 1938. Especially when they are not designed by teams of 
experts with supercomputers at a leading industrial corporation.


Any machine on the scale of a megawatt, and any steam production on that 
scale is inherently dangerous. It can be tamed, but you have to spend 
millions of dollars to do it. You probably need more than five people 
working on the project. Perhaps Rossi has consulted with experts and 
used supercomputer simulations. He is an experienced and successful 
engineer who has developed heavy diesel equipment. He understands how to 
do these things. But someone who recently had to sell his house to 
finance the project is not working on the kind of scale you expect to 
see in modern industrial RD. It sounds like a shoestring operation to 
me, and I do not think it is wise to build heavy equipment on a shoestring.


There is a reason why people nowadays demand ultrahigh-tech 
test-everything-to-the-n'th degree before you turn on the first time, 
and OSHA rules galore. It is a conspiracy to prevent innovation. It is 
because our fathers and grandfathers worked with heavy equipment like 
marine engine, and with weapons and aircraft during WWII. They knew darn 
well what heavy equipment can  do to you. After the war, people of my 
father's generation who had worked in industry, factories, ships, or in 
the army, went to college with G.I. Bill, and then went to work at 
places like the National Bureau of Standards. They put into place 
industrial reforms and new rules which revolutionized workplace safety 
and equipment safety. Nowadays it costs far more to develop machines 
that it used to. I think it cost $1 billion to develop the Prius. 
Believe me, these extra layers of safety are worth every penny. Every 
year, tens of thousands of lives are saved, and hundreds of thousands of 
people walk away from automobile accidents that would have sent them to 
the hospital decades ago. The same kinds of improvements have been made 
in engine rooms, mines, factories and everywhere else. if you want to 
know what industry was like 60 years ago look Russia and China, and the 
appalling casualty rates there.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi's 1MW demo supposed to output steam, or just hot water under 100 C?

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Michele Comitini
michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote:
 Terry,

 you mean this?

 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg53062.html

Yes!  He said he would use diathermic oil.  This seems to be common in
Italy with several patents held by Italian inventors.  Here's a brief
description:

http://www.feasrl.com/eng/dettaglio_prodotto.asp?id=5

From what I can surmise with a limited review, this would seem to be
ideal for the Rossi Reactor.

Thanks, Michele.

T

[Vo]:ecat.com video interview with Stremmenos

http://ecat.com

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NuNNicWV6kfeature=player_embedded

mic

p.s. www.e-cat.com now goes to google/green is this a joke or what???

[Vo]:S-C Niobium Cav is still impenetrable

I think what we are seeing in this case is that the niobium which is in a
superconducting state, surrounds the space we are using as a cavity; therefore,
we are still looking at the superconducting material as being an impenetrable
magnetic barrier, a barrier that happens to completely surround the space of
the cavity.

Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:07:09 +0200
Subject: Re: [Vo]:S-C currents not DC?
From: michele.comit...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

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

mic

From: Wm. Scott Smith [mailto:scott...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 4:28 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:S-C currents not DC?

How are S-C currents not DC?

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation
From: fznidar...@aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:19:59 -0400

thanks for the info

-Original Message-
From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 8:48 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:quantum levitation

Note that superconductors have zero resistance only for DC. At all
frequencies

above DC, the resistance is finite and there is penetration. Consider also
that

true DC extends from time -infinity to +infinity as a constant. Moving the

superconductor in a magnetic field does create resistance because the

supercurrents are not DC.

Bob Higgins

-Original Message-

From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 12:27 PM

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation

Is it posible the RF signal is warming the superconductor just above

the critical temperature so that it drops?

Harry

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:48 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:

A new understanding of flux pinning is the most important relation in 100

years. The magnet floats on the superconductor. Apply an RF field of 10

mega hertz to a small disk and the magnet drops. That what I saw, so
what

you say. Now we know how energy is released. Energy is pinned with the

atom by the same mechanism, discontinuities. Where are
the discontinuities

in the atom, here there are below.

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/10710753/the-elastic-limit-of-space-and-the-quantum-condition

What can you predict knowing the observed release condition? Try the
energy

levels of the hydrogen atom, the intensity of spectral emission,

the distribution of electrons in the atom, and the frequency and energy of

the photon. see below

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/1078/the-control-of-the-natural-forces

If you are so bright, where is your peer reviewed paper. Here it is
below.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211006092

An understating of flux pinning and flux release has the potential

to transform the study of physics and our society. That my story

and I am sticking to it, no matter what Jones says.

Frank Znidarsic

-Original Message-

From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com

To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Tue, Oct 18, 2011 7:20 pm

Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation

All this talk of pinning is just fine, but all of this is nicely predicted

by the basic laws of electrical induction and the zero resistivity offered

by a superconductor, you would expect repulsion or attraction to occur.

No it is not. This flux pinning thing is a big deal. The same mechanism

accounts for the pinning of flux in a superconductor accounts for the
energy

levels of the atom.

A solution that includes both provides for a classical foundation for

quantum physics.

Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi's 1MW demo supposed to output steam, or just hot water under 100 C?

http://www.youreporter.it/foto_Incendio_alla_centrale_elettrica_foto_dei_pompieri_1_1

That electric transformer contained diathermic oil!
I know it is not easy to handle as it can burn as any mineral oil.


mic

2011/10/20 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com:
 On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Michele Comitini
 michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote:
 Terry,

 you mean this?

 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg53062.html

 Yes!  He said he would use diathermic oil.  This seems to be common in
 Italy with several patents held by Italian inventors.  Here's a brief
 description:

 http://www.feasrl.com/eng/dettaglio_prodotto.asp?id=5

 From what I can surmise with a limited review, this would seem to be
 ideal for the Rossi Reactor.

 Thanks, Michele.

 T

RE: [Vo]:S-C currents not DC?


I have magnetized a torroid S-C by moving a nearby magnet away from it. (the 
magnet was present as it was cooling into the S-C state. I could move the 
magnet in a different direction and make the S-C torus into an opposite kind of 
magnet.  I don't see how else one could induce a current in a S-C. 
What is strange about this is the fact that the newly induced current that is 
inside the super conductor is still inducing a magnetic field outside of the 
conductor.
This is probably a quantum effect that is akin to how the strong magnetic field 
inside a ferrite core still acts strongly on the conducting coil that is 
outside of the core, even though the field itself, outside of the core is very 
slight. 

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:S-C currents not DC?
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:59:53 -0400


I think this can be broken down into two components.  A transient plus a DC 
current would define the process.  The DC part would be steady for the length 
of time  that you make the observation.  The transient current takes care of 
the changing part.  By your definition of DC, there is no possibility of any 
existing.  Can you think of anything that has generated DC for all time?  Just 
a matter of definitions


 


Dave








-Original Message-

From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com

To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 5:41 pm

Subject: RE: [Vo]:S-C currents not DC?











Say that initially the superconductor was brought into its SC state not in the 
presence of magnetic fields.  At that time there are nominally no 
supercurrents.  As you bring the SC into the presence of a magnet a 
supercurrent must form that previously did not exist to prevent penetration of 
the magnetic field into the superconductor.  This is not a DC supercurrent 
because it has not existed in steady state for all time.  Initially there will 
be some loss in the supercurrent because there are components that are not DC.  
At least that’s my understanding.  I asked a guy at CERN about this in how they 
bring up their strong supercurrent in their superconducting electromagnets.  It 
is not a simple process.









From: Wm. Scott Smith [mailto:scott...@hotmail.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 4:28 PM

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Subject: [Vo]:S-C currents not DC?



 




How are S-C currents not DC?









To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation

From: fznidar...@aol.com

Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:19:59 -0400



thanks for the info




-Original Message-

From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com

To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 8:48 am

Subject: RE: [Vo]:quantum levitation


Note that superconductors have zero resistance only for DC.  At all frequencies 
above DC, the resistance is finite and there is penetration.  Consider also 
that true DC extends from time -infinity to +infinity as a constant.  Moving 
the superconductor in a magnetic field does create resistance because the 
supercurrents are not DC. Bob Higgins -Original Message-From: Harry 
Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 12:27 
PMTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSubject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation Is it posible the 
RF signal is warming the superconductor just abovethe critical temperature so 
that it drops?  Harry On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:48 PM,  fznidar...@aol.com 
wrote: A new understanding of flux pinning is the most important relation in 
100 years.  The magnet floats on the superconductor.  Apply an RF field of 10 
mega hertz to a small disk and the magnet drops.  That what I saw,  so what 
you say.  Now we know how energy is released.  Energy is pinned with the atom 
by the same mechanism, discontinuities.  Where are the discontinuities in the 
atom, here there are below. 
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/10710753/the-elastic-limit-of-space-and-the-quantum-condition
 What can you predict knowing the observed release condition?  Try the energy 
levels of the hydrogen atom, the intensity of spectral emission, the 
distribution of electrons in the atom, and the frequency and energy of the 
photon.  see below 
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/1078/the-control-of-the-natural-forces
 If you are so bright, where is your peer reviewed paper.  Here it is below. 
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211006092  An 
understating of flux pinning and flux release has the potential to transform 
the study of physics and our society.  That my story and I am sticking to it,  
no matter what Jones says. Frank Znidarsic   -Original Message- 
From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tue, Oct 18, 2011 7:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation   All 
this talk of pinning is just fine, but all of this is nicely predicted by the 
basic laws of electrical induction and the zero

Re: [Vo]:The reaction was not dying off; it was increasing, and it was deliberately quenched

Ron Wormus prot...@frii.com wrote:


 I find the heat after death nomenclature to be a bit weird.


It is a bit weird. I use it from force of habit.

There is some benefit to preserving technical terminology with
peculiar etymology or mistaken etymology: you can look up the early papers
on the subject. The term remains the same over time, even though it is
strange. The classic example is meteorology which -- as it turned out --
has nothing to do with meteors. If you want read old papers on the subject
or the history of it, keeping the same word is handy.

You can see that word was coined around 1750 and peaked during WWII, I
expect with British words like met agency:

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=meteorologyyear_start=1700year_end=2000corpus=0smoothing=3



 I think Rossi's self sustaining mode is more descriptive. Any idea where
 heat after death originated?


It is more descriptive. Heat after death originated with Fleischmann and
Pons, like everything else in this field. They get the blame for everything.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:ecat.com video interview with Stremmenos

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Michele Comitini
michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote:
 http://ecat.com

 or

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NuNNicWV6kfeature=player_embedded

Two questions:

1)  What is the white crystalline substance the man with gloves is
removing from the top of the eCat at 1:30 into the video?

2)  What is Stremmenos smoking in his pipe?  ;-)

Only the first question is serious.

Interesting that Stremmenos compares the advancements of the Rossi
Reaction to the photo electric effect, which earned Einstein his
Nobel.

T

Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi's 1MW demo supposed to output steam, or just hot water under 100 C?

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Michele Comitini
michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote:
 http://www.youreporter.it/foto_Incendio_alla_centrale_elettrica_foto_dei_pompieri_1_1

 That electric transformer contained diathermic oil!
 I know it is not easy to handle as it can burn as any mineral oil.

Yes, Michele, I thought of that when I was researching diathermic oil.
  If one thinks there could be a steam explosion, imagine the disaster
of an oil fire.

T

Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi's 1MW demo supposed to output steam, or just hot water under 100 C?

2011-10-19 Thread Jouni Valkonen

2011/10/19 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
 I should point out that Dennis has in mind using the temperature of the
 water in the swimming pool, rather than the flow Delta T.
 That seems tricky to me because the test will run for many hours and it is

I do not believe that megawatt demonstration is too tricky or
difficult to do by sparging steam into swimming pool. Swimming pools
are well insulated from bottom and sides, therefore all heat that is
escaping is from the surface. We know the surface area exactly and I
think that surface temperature is easy to monitor measuring the
infrared radiation from the pool. Of course there are many other ways
to establish good sense of surface temperature of the pool during the
test. More or less accurately.

Then it should be straight forward to calculate the major heat loss.
Therefore pool would be easiest way to do the demonstration with
reasonable accuracy.

We do not need to worry about the stirring of the pool, if we go up to
boiling point of water. A boiling swimming pool would be the most
spectacular demonstration and it should suit well into Rossi's needs.

Keep it simple!

   –Jouni

[Vo]:Ni Palladium must be colder than liq N

Ni  Palladium must much be colder than liq N
Unless perhaps they are part an ceramic oxide, similar to YCBO or are part of 
certain thin layer phenomena.
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation
From: fznidar...@aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:52:06 -0400

I have also tried to stimulate nickel and palladium wires in a nitrogen bath 
with RF energy.  The cryogenics were intended to extend the domain of the 
superconductivity.  The RF was tuned from 60 to 1000 mega hertz.  No anomalous 
energy was produced.  go to page six of the link below and the video will run 
on IE.  I have, however, learned from my mistakes and believe that I can now do 
it.  I now have some people helping me.  The best outcome for me is if Rossi 
clearly produces thermal energy.  That will open more doors.  

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapterb.html#Pg6

Frank

-Original Message-

From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com

To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 12:20 pm

Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation

thanks for the info

-Original Message-

From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com

To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 8:48 am

Subject: RE: [Vo]:quantum levitation

Note that superconductors have zero resistance only for DC.  At all frequencies 
above DC, the resistance is finite and there is penetration.  Consider also 
that 
true DC extends from time -infinity to +infinity as a constant.  Moving the 
superconductor in a magnetic field does create resistance because the 
supercurrents are not DC.

Bob Higgins

-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 12:27 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation

Is it posible the RF signal is warming the superconductor just above
the critical temperature so that it drops?

Harry

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:48 PM,  fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
 A new understanding of flux pinning is the most important relation in 100
 years.  The magnet floats on the superconductor.  Apply an RF field of 10
 mega hertz to a small disk and the magnet drops.  That what I saw,  so what
 you say.  Now we know how energy is released.  Energy is pinned with the
 atom by the same mechanism, discontinuities.  Where are the discontinuities
 in the atom, here there are below.
 http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/10710753/the-elastic-limit-of-space-and-the-quantum-condition
 What can you predict knowing the observed release condition?  Try the energy
 levels of the hydrogen atom, the intensity of spectral emission,
 the distribution of electrons in the atom, and the frequency and energy of
 the photon.  see below
 http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/1078/the-control-of-the-natural-forces
 If you are so bright, where is your peer reviewed paper.  Here it is below.
 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211006092

 An understating of flux pinning and flux release has the potential
 to transform the study of physics and our society.  That my story
 and I am sticking to it,  no matter what Jones says.
 Frank Znidarsic

 -Original Message-
 From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, Oct 18, 2011 7:20 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation

 All this talk of pinning is just fine, but all of this is nicely predicted
 by the basic laws of electrical induction and the zero resistivity offered
 by a superconductor, you would expect repulsion or attraction to occur.

 No it is not.  This flux pinning thing is a big deal.  The same mechanism
 accounts for the pinning of flux in a superconductor accounts for the energy
 levels of the atom.
 A solution that includes both provides for a classical foundation for
 quantum physics.
 Flux is pinned in the nucleus too.  An understanding of the
 release mechanism provides for a new understanding of the cold fusion
 reaction.
 Flux is pinned at discontinuities.  It is shook free by a vibration at a
 dimensional frequency of 1,094,000 meters/second.  Thats it.
 I did the experiment with the superconductor,  Horace now has it.

 Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:Forbes: Mark Gibbs of Forbes follows up with a new Rossi article

2011-10-19 Thread Jouni Valkonen

2011/10/19 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com:
 On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
 svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
 Again, mostly harmless.

 How many strikes does one get in this ball game?


Actually this one is correct, but a little bit misinformed, because
the cold fusion demonstration will be the reason for the End of the
World. That is because Mayans predicted this great cold fusion
demonstration to happen in October 28th 2011 and it will cause the End
of this world period. The new era human kind will begin on that day.

It may cause some grumbles before, hence misinformed date for The End
of the World. But actually world is just reborn on October 28th day.
It is not The End.

Here is more info about the Mayan calendar by Swedish Mayan calendar
researcher Carl Calleman. Please note that in popular beliefs they
have wrong date, December 21st 2012. But the October 28th 2011 is the
correct date for the End of Mayan calendar and world as we know it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Johan_Calleman

   –Jouni

[Vo]:If You Liked Stuxnet

. . . you'll love duqu:

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/security/3311788/duqu-trojan-precursor-next-stuxnet-symantec-warns/

Re: [Vo]:If You Liked Stuxnet

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 . . . you'll love duqu:

 http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/security/3311788/duqu-trojan-precursor-next-stuxnet-symantec-warns/

All Stuxnet did was take out most of the Iranian centrifuges.
Brushehr could become Iran's Fukushima.

Would we test it on our own drones?

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/drone-virus-nuisance/

Naa, that would be like testing LSD on our own soldiers.

T

Re: [Vo]:If You Liked Stuxnet

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Would we test it on our own drones?

 http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/drone-virus-nuisance/

 Naa, that would be like testing LSD on our own soldiers.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/afghanistan/la-fg-pentagon-drone-20111014,0,5628010.story

T

Re: [Vo]:S-C currents not DC?



You are having a lot of fun William.  I am assuming that some of the flux from 
your permanent magnet is passing through the toroid.  Any change in the coupled 
flux will generate a voltage around the S-C loop.   This voltage of course 
would cause a current to flow through the zero ohm nature of the S-C.  Here 
comes the interesting part that I am guessing at.  There should be inductance 
associated with the loop of S-C material along with the zero valued resistance. 
 Now, when a voltage is applied across a perfect inductor it acts like an ideal 
integrator. I would expect a current to flow within the S-C that corresponds to 
the ideal integration of the derivative of the flux change linkage.  If you 
integrate a derivative, you get the original function.  This is an interesting 
phenomenon. It looks as though you have an internal current generated that will 
regenerate the net flux magnitude associated with the original magnetic field.  
This newly generated flux field does not have to match in space the original 
field, but instead has to be the same integrated value over the linkage area.  
You would now have a nice toroidal magnetic that can be pointing in either 
direction depending upon the original magnetic linkage.  I have been careless 
with the signs of the derivative functions because I am more interested in the 
magnitude of the effect, but it could be cleaned up with a little extra effort.

Let me suggest another interesting experiment for you to conduct.  Locate a 
round magnet with a small gap through which your S-C material will pass.  The 
field needs to be along the circle.  You can make one out of a toroidal coil of 
wire that is wound tightly so that a very small amount of field escapes outside 
the toroid.  If done well, you would have virtually no field intersecting your 
S-C material as it loops through the toroidal coil.  I would expect for this 
set up to yield the same kind of effect as you initially observed with the 
permanent magnetic.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Wm. Scott Smith scott...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 7:46 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:S-C currents not DC?


I have magnetized a torroid S-C by moving a nearby magnet away from it. (the 
magnet was present as it was cooling into the S-C state. I could move the 
magnet in a different direction and make the S-C torus into an opposite kind of 
magnet.  I don't see how else one could induce a current in a S-C.  


What is strange about this is the fact that the newly induced current that is 
inside the super conductor is still inducing a magnetic field outside of the 
conductor.


This is probably a quantum effect that is akin to how the strong magnetic field 
inside a ferrite core still acts strongly on the conducting coil that is 
outside of the core, even though the field itself, outside of the core is very 
slight. 


To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:S-C currents not DC?
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:59:53 -0400


I think this can be broken down into two components.  A transient plus a DC 
current would define the process.  The DC part would be steady for the length 
of time  that you make the observation.  The transient current takes care of 
the changing part.  By your definition of DC, there is no possibility of any 
existing.  Can you think of anything that has generated DC for all time?  Just 
a matter of definitions
 
Dave



-Original Message-
From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 5:41 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:S-C currents not DC?



Say that initially the superconductor was brought into its SC state not in the 
presence of magnetic fields.  At that time there are nominally no 
supercurrents.  As you bring the SC into the presence of a magnet a 
supercurrent must form that previously did not exist to prevent penetration of 
the magnetic field into the superconductor.  This is not a DC supercurrent 
because it has not existed in steady state for all time.  Initially there will 
be some loss in the supercurrent because there are components that are not DC.  
At least that’s my understanding.  I asked a guy at CERN about this in how they 
bring up their strong supercurrent in their superconducting electromagnets.  It 
is not a simple process.


From: Wm. Scott Smith [mailto:scott...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 4:28 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:S-C currents not DC?

 

How are S-C currents not DC?


To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation
From: fznidar...@aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:19:59 -0400

thanks for the info



-Original Message-
From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 8:48 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:quantum levitation

Note that superconductors have zero resistance only for DC.  At all frequencies 
above DC,

[Vo]:Making Sense of ECAT Water Pump Flow Rate