Re: [Vo]:New E-Cat customers to reveal their identity
As far as I know, Stanley Meyer sincerely believed that his devices could make energy from plain water. How the heck does one flummox oneself into that conclusion? How long would it take to test conclusively a purported device said to do that? A minute? Less -- it would never be able to start! I won't argue that the guy could not have been a nut case but he also took money and that suggests fraud. You claimed that Allan's more serious problem is that he supports obvious and less obvious scams and he actively solicits money for them by asking people to contribute. Which of these things you listed are scams, and which did Allan actively solicit money for? I'm not going to play that time-wasting game with you very much but maybe just once a little. Feel free to read the woowoo yourself and see which ones you attribute to fraud and scams and which ones you think are simply stupid or crazy and which ones Allan promotes. Or perhaps you really think Obama went to Mars. Allan promotes most of the stuff on his web pages simply by stating the claims as if they were facts -- a disgusting, revolting deceptive style that characterizes everything those guys write. With just a moment of thought, I can remember some of the most prominent recent scams promoted by Allan on his site. One of these is, of course, Steorn. And then there is the related and hilarious episode in which Sterling Allan was led by the nose all over the country by a comedian calling himself Mylow. Mylow claimed to have a self-running magnetic free energy motor and showed some semi-convincing video. He had Allan fly or drive hundreds or thousands of miles only to avoid meeting him by claiming illness or problems with his family!Allan even accompanied the guy to Howard Johnson's grave (the self styled inventor not the restaurant person) for a pilgrimage! Of course, Mylow never showed Allan his device. It was rib breakingly funny and went on for weeks until someone did a really amazing enhancement and analysis of several of the videos and located both the fish line and the motor Mylow used to fake the self running device! That was comedy and not a scam but old Allan went for it hook line and sinker like he does for just about everything. Another escapade was Carl Tilley with his no-need-to-charge electric DeLorean that ran on magnet power. That one wasn't funny even though the car was a fox. With plenty of public exposure from Allan, Tilley ripped off a half million dollars or more from poor Tennessee farmers who couldn't afford it. Allan did finally turn on Tilley but that was about the time Tilley became a convicted felon for the fraud and ran out of state. The other story that comes easily to mind is that of Dennis Lee and Jeff Otto. You can google Lee for his past free energy scams and misdeeds and he also is a convicted felon for fraud. Allan and his site promoted these guys' idiotic idea of using a car's battery to electrolyze water and then burn the hydrogen in the car. Of course, that can't work because it takes more energy to electrolyze the water than burning the hydrogen in an ICE can return. But push it they did until finally they were busted by the SEC for a variety of different fraudulent activities and claims for which they actually ripped off people. I offered them $100K on the spot for any car that could do what they said (basically a full size Honda Accord that was claimed to have averaged more than 100 mpg on an EPA loop). Of course, they never produced a car because I insisted on proper dynamometer testing. Anyway, they had other worries. The FBI was shutting them down. I think Otto is still reverberating around. I could probably still find some trap for the gullible type of web site he runs, selling the same old crap under different names. And as a scam, the concept marches on virtually unscathed all over the internet. Millions and millions of dollars are being wasted on it every year. Sterling still publishes HHO and Brown's Gas stories. Although the stoichiometric mix of hydrogen and oxygen is quite ordinary and has none of the special powers Allan and his authors attribute to it, it is highly explosive and extremely dangerous, a feature rarely mentioned by the promoters. Three people trying to commercialize Brown's Gas recently were killed in a northern suburb of Los Angeles when the mixture exploded, burning down the building and taking off its roof. The kind of stupidity promoted by Allan is dangerous as well as wasteful. The above describes the cut of client that Sterling Allan has promoted and given free advertising space to on his web site for decades. Craig Brown (AKA 007, News Editor and Free Energy Truth) is more focused on specific claims but his record is even worse. Someone responded to one of these message string that they found a technology that worked on Allan's site. I doubt anyone can claim the same for Brown's. Plus the guy is pure poison on forums where
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Bombshell - Orbo was all a sign error!
On 11/13/2011 2:57 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: I have a print-out of Steorn's report dated Oct. 31, 2008. At the moment I can't locate the pdf file, but I downloaded it from their website two or three years ago, and the name Mr. Rice does not appear in this report. The title is _Asymmetry and Energy in Magnetic Systems_. It includes ten diagrams and five graphs and describes four experimental configurations: 1) symmetric and linear MH 2) asymmetric and linear MH 3) symmetric and non-linear MH 4) asymmetric and non-lnear MH Only the last configuration showed an anomaly. Dr. Quack Pot's analsysis seems to discount the symmetric/asymmetric parameters since they aren't mentioned in your summary. This is not the report that QuackPot discussed. I gave the link to that one in my original email. It is still there. You could have simply clicked on it and downloaded it. Here are the links in full rather than hidden as an underlined word: http://pesn.com/2011/09/14/9501914_Steorn_Drops_Four_Bombshell_Documents_Validating_Orbo/ And the paper in question is to be found at: http://www.steorn.com/orbo/papers/jm-rice-report-28april-2008.pdf If you look at this second link and chop the file name from it: http://www.steorn.com/orbo/papers/ then you will find a short list of papers that Steorn have released. The one you are talking about I believe is this one: http://www.steorn.com/orbo/papers/asymmetry-and-energy-in-magnetic-systems-rev-1.0.pdf In this paper the anonymous writer has been very careful not to specify whether the net energy result that was obtained in your fourth case (asymmetric and non-lnear MH) was a net energy gain or a net energy loss. Isn't that remarkable? The very thing that any reader would want to know, indeed the only question of significant (billion dollar) interest, and they are very careful with their wording not to give the game away! Moreover they do not include enough information in the paper for an intelligent reader to be able to work it out (Unlike Rice's report for which is easy to determine that it is an energy loss). There is no mention (that I can find with a superficial reading) in this paper of any difference in rotating the armature in one direction compared to the other. There is also a very careful and complete replication of this configuration - with no suggestion of any energy gain ever to be had - by CLaNZeR at: http://www.overunity.org.uk/showthread.php?869-Steorns-PM-Orbo-Asymmetric-Non-linear-MH-setup Actually it is obvious from the net energy result obtained of 0.564 mJ per revolution that if it was an energy gain then CLaNZeR's little armature with its low bearing losses should have self run and spun its head off without any effort. Quackpot (as did I) pointed out that it is most likely the sudden field reversal in close proximity of a conducting surface that produces the energy loss, and this only happens in certain situations. In Steorn's case they noticed that this situation was brought about by means of an asymmetric and non-linear MH arrangement.
Re: [Vo]:New E-Cat customers to reveal their identity
On 11/13/2011 4:19 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: ... With just a moment of thought, I can remember some of the most prominent recent scams promoted by Allan on his site. One of these is, of course, Steorn. ... Allan (or at least Hank) is still promoting Steorn. Checkout this fairly recent and very positive article: http://pesn.com/2011/09/14/9501914_Steorn_Drops_Four_Bombshell_Documents_Validating_Orbo/ Checkout the section on Document #2 which is available for all to read at: http://www.steorn.com/orbo/papers/jm-rice-report-28april-2008.pdf Here is Hank's summary of it: So in short, when it comes to Steorn's permanent magnet based Orbo technology, this author's answer was, Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Which is sort of true, but if you bother to read the paper yourself carefully you will see that the author has made an error in the sign of the energy result and so it was a loss rather than a gain! So the answer should be No! No! No! No! OK mistakes happen. But having gone to the trouble of writing to Allan to point this more than a month ago, I would have expected that there should be some sort of note of correction added to say that this Document #2 is in fact probably the worst indictment of Steorn's Orbo possible! How long do you think Steorn has known that their energy gain was a misinterpreted energy loss? In their paper titled Asymmetry and energy in magnetic systems (probably late 2008), the way they pussyfoot around with words to avoid saying whether they measured a gain or a loss, while all the time implying that it was a gain, suggests strongly to me that they discovered their mistake before that paper was written!
[Vo]:
My dear friends, I have just published : http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/11/informavores-sunday-no-481.html You will not find here a definitive answer for the E-cat Enigma just some vague suggestions how to proceed in such cases of informational chaos. You will be able to see much more clearly the darkness at the end of the tunnel. Yours, as always, Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Bombshell - Orbo was all a sign error!
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 3:27 AM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: On 11/13/2011 2:57 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: I have a print-out of Steorn's report dated Oct. 31, 2008. At the moment I can't locate the pdf file, but I downloaded it from their website two or three years ago, and the name Mr. Rice does not appear in this report. The title is _Asymmetry and Energy in Magnetic Systems_. It includes ten diagrams and five graphs and describes four experimental configurations: 1) symmetric and linear MH 2) asymmetric and linear MH 3) symmetric and non-linear MH 4) asymmetric and non-lnear MH Only the last configuration showed an anomaly. Dr. Quack Pot's analsysis seems to discount the symmetric/asymmetric parameters since they aren't mentioned in your summary. This is not the report that QuackPot discussed. I gave the link to that one in my original email. It is still there. You could have simply clicked on it and downloaded it. Here are the links in full rather than hidden as an underlined word: http://pesn.com/2011/09/14/**9501914_Steorn_Drops_Four_** Bombshell_Documents_**Validating_Orbo/http://pesn.com/2011/09/14/9501914_Steorn_Drops_Four_Bombshell_Documents_Validating_Orbo/ And the paper in question is to be found at: http://www.steorn.com/orbo/**papers/jm-rice-report-28april-**2008.pdfhttp://www.steorn.com/orbo/papers/jm-rice-report-28april-2008.pdf If you look at this second link and chop the file name from it: http://www.steorn.com/orbo/**papers/ http://www.steorn.com/orbo/papers/ then you will find a short list of papers that Steorn have released. The one you are talking about I believe is this one: http://www.steorn.com/orbo/**papers/asymmetry-and-energy-** in-magnetic-systems-rev-1.0.**pdfhttp://www.steorn.com/orbo/papers/asymmetry-and-energy-in-magnetic-systems-rev-1.0.pdf In this paper the anonymous writer has been very careful not to specify whether the net energy result that was obtained in your fourth case (asymmetric and non-lnear MH) was a net energy gain or a net energy loss. Isn't that remarkable? The very thing that any reader would want to know, indeed the only question of significant (billion dollar) interest, and they are very careful with their wording not to give the game away! Moreover they do not include enough information in the paper for an intelligent reader to be able to work it out (Unlike Rice's report for which is easy to determine that it is an energy loss). There is no mention (that I can find with a superficial reading) in this paper of any difference in rotating the armature in one direction compared to the other. There is also a very careful and complete replication of this configuration - with no suggestion of any energy gain ever to be had - by CLaNZeR at: http://www.overunity.org.uk/**showthread.php?869-Steorns-PM-** Orbo-Asymmetric-Non-linear-MH-**setuphttp://www.overunity.org.uk/showthread.php?869-Steorns-PM-Orbo-Asymmetric-Non-linear-MH-setup Actually it is obvious from the net energy result obtained of 0.564 mJ per revolution that if it was an energy gain then CLaNZeR's little armature with its low bearing losses should have self run and spun its head off without any effort. Quackpot (as did I) pointed out that it is most likely the sudden field reversal in close proximity of a conducting surface that produces the energy loss, and this only happens in certain situations. In Steorn's case they noticed that this situation was brought about by means of an asymmetric and non-linear MH arrangement. Sorry I have tried to read the Rice paper by opening it my browser but it only displays the first few pages. When I dowload it and try to open it all I get is an error message. I was eagerly following clanzer's replication of Steorn's PM orbo but he got distracted by other work and never posted any decisive results as you can see on the last page of the discussion @ the link you provided. It is true that the PM orbo was not affected by the direction of rotation. I recalled incorrecly that the direction of rotation claim applied only to the eOrbo. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat
Hi, Am 13.11.2011 07:14, schrieb Berke Durak: After watching the available footage and looking at the pictures of the Oct. 28th demo, I have just drawn a diagram of the system as I think it was that day. http://i.imgur.com/Ipn7W.png Please report any inaccuracies or misuse of engineering symbols. I dont know the pneumatic and hydraulic symbols, but these are explained in the legend and so this should be understandable for anybody. I think it is professional work. It is not shown in the schematic, how the water flew back from the condensers into the reservoir. So far I have seen in the videos, the water level in the reservoir was higher above ground than the steam outlet. Rossi said the steam pressure was 20mm watercolumn. If the water flew back by gravity then the level of condensed water inside the condensers must be higher than the level in the reservoir. I find this hard to imagine. Im however, not an expert. It is possible Rossi made an error in his reply and the real pressure was 0.2 bar = 200cm watercolumn. This would also explain the steam temperature of 104.5 °C. I would like to have an explanation for this. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat
A couple of comments: -There were only two flowmeters on the water from the pumps. The two pumps without were not running. (There is a number of valves on the pipes from the pumps to the Ecats, but it is hard to know exactly the position on all of them from the videos.) -There was a valve on the connection to the 5l container for non-vaporized water, and it was closed. -I would move the condensers to the bottom of the figure, at the same height as the reservoir, as it would make the problem of how the water got back up into the latter more visible. -I got the impression that the reservoir 2 was connected to number 1 by a pipe all the time. -You could add the pressure meters on the outlet of the pumps, and we also know the pressure: 3.8 bar. /A.
Re: [Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat
Am 13.11.2011 12:10, schrieb Albert: A couple of comments: -There were only two flowmeters on the water from the pumps. The two pumps without were not running. (There is a number of valves on the pipes from the pumps to the Ecats, but it is hard to know exactly the position on all of them from the videos.) So far I have read there where no flowmeters. The flow was measured by a scaled reservoir, not continuously, but at any arbitrary time when the customer wanted it. I think the outflow point where it was measured is visible left from the water pumps in the video. It would be fine to make this obvious in the schematic. -There was a valve on the connection to the 5l container for non-vaporized water, and it was closed. -I would move the condensers to the bottom of the figure, at the same height as the reservoir, as it would make the problem of how the water got back up into the latter more visible. I think this would confuse and clutter the good drawing. This is usually not done in such schematics. In high pressure systems when the level above ground is irrelevant it is not documented. If it is relevant it can be written into the schematic where needed. -I got the impression that the reservoir 2 was connected to number 1 by a pipe all the time. -You could add the pressure meters on the outlet of the pumps, and we also know the pressure: 3.8 bar. /A.
Re: [Vo]:U of Bologna denies any involvement with Rossi
Interesting, according Krivit's sources Daniele Passerini, David Bianchini and Giuseppe Levi, all of them were present in 18 hour test that gave conclusive proof for the technology. I would say that bribing one person for a fround (Giuseppe) could be reasonable. But bribing three independent and extremely credible persons to a fraud, is just out of the question. The cost of bribing one credible person is several kiloeuros, if not more. But for a three, there comes a problem that after getting the money one of them gets also the credit and exposes the fraud. You cannot trust humans! –Jouni PS. however, I here think that Krivit's sources are, what they usually are, just unchecked rumors or hearsay. 2011/11/11 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com: Data: 05 novembre 2011 10.01.45 GMT+01.00 A: Ufficio Stampa Alma Mater ufficiosta...@unibo.itmailto:ufficiosta...@unibo.it Oggetto: PRESS RELEASE - E-CAT: UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA IS NOT INVOLVED E-CAT: UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA IS NOT INVOLVED The clarification about the experiments conducted by Leonardo Corp. Bologna, 5th November 2011 - The University of Bologna called upon by FoxNews.comhttp://FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-fusion-plant/?test=faces) and by many other news published during the past few week - states that is not involved on E-Cat experiments conducted by Leonardo Corp., the company owned by Andrea Rossi. The University of Bologna stresses also that: 1) none of the experiments made with E-Cat (including that of 28th October 2011) has been carried out at the University of Bologna or by any of its scientists; 2) the University of Bologna (Department of Physics) is ready to carry out direct experiments on the E-Cat as soon as the contract signed with EFA Srl (Andrea Rossi's Italian company) will be put in effect: this is the only reason why the University of Bologna researchers attended as observers to E-Cat experiments. The University of Bologna is carefully following the situation development. *** According to what Storchi told me on the phone, the statement was written by Dario Braga, the vice president for research and Paolo Capiluppi, the head of the physics department. As per Steven Krivit here: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/11/university-of-bologna-denies-faculty-involvement-with-rossi/ Hmmm... where does that leave Levi? Also, I found this silliness very well done and irresistibly funny: Hitler plans to troll forums http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSbh2MsxdNs
Re: [Vo]:U of Bologna denies any involvement with Rossi
2011/11/13 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com: The cost of bribing one credible person is several kiloeuros, if not more. Errata: I meant that the cost is several _hundred_ kiloeuros. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat
-There were only two flowmeters on the water from the pumps. The two pumps without were not running. (There is a number of valves on the pipes from the pumps to the Ecats, but it is hard to know exactly the position on all of them from the videos.) So far I have read there where no flowmeters. The flow was measured by a scaled reservoir, not continuously, but at any arbitrary time when the customer wanted it. I think the outflow point where it was measured is visible left from the water pumps in the video. It would be fine to make this obvious in the schematic. If you look at the videos by NyTeknik and S. Allan, you can see two in-line flow-through volume meters: one at outlet of the water pump at the short end of the container, and one at the rightmost water pump at the side of the same. The two pumps at the left were, according to Mats Lewan, not running, even though the valves connecting their outputs to the container are still open. The water level in the reservoirs were, according to reports, kept constant by automatic valves connected to the water mains. /A.
Re: [Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat
Am 13.11.2011 12:43, schrieb Albert: -There were only two flowmeters on the water from the pumps. The two pumps without were not running. (There is a number of valves on the pipes from the pumps to the Ecats, but it is hard to know exactly the position on all of them from the videos.) So far I have read there where no flowmeters. The flow was measured by a scaled reservoir, not continuously, but at any arbitrary time when the customer wanted it. I think the outflow point where it was measured is visible left fromthe water pumps in the video. It would be fine to make this obvious in the schematic. If you look at the videos by NyTeknik and S. Allan, you can see two in-line flow-through volume meters: one at outlet of the water pump at the short end of the container, and one at the rightmost water pump at the side of the same. The two pumps at the left were, according to Mats Lewan, not running, even though the valves connecting their outputs to the container are still open. Sorry. I see the red (pneumatic?) cylinders, and the green-black pumps with a grey cable connected and nothing else than pipes. I dont know for what else to look. What's the color? The water level in the reservoirs were, according to reports, kept constant by automatic valves connected to the water mains. Thanks for this hint. /A.
Re: [Vo]:U of Bologna denies any involvement with Rossi
Am 13.11.2011 12:36, schrieb Jouni Valkonen: Interesting, according Krivit's sources Daniele Passerini, David Bianchini and Giuseppe Levi, all of them were present in 18 hour test that gave conclusive proof for the technology. I would say that bribing one person for a fround (Giuseppe) could be reasonable. But bribing three independent and extremely credible persons to a fraud, is just out of the question. The cost of bribing one credible person is several kiloeuros, if not more. But for a three, there comes a problem that after getting the money one of them gets also the credit and exposes the fraud. You cannot trust humans! It is possible that Rossi intentionally avoids a public conclusive proof. If it is proven totally and all doubts removed then he will be in a dangerous situation. All major players in this world, governments and companies would persecute and pressure him. As long Rossi only shows controversial demonstrations he is secure, because most dont believe it. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat
Sorry. I see the red (pneumatic?) cylinders, and the green-black pumps with a grey cable connected and nothing else than pipes. I dont know for what else to look. What's the color? Follow the pipes upwards, past the pressure gauges. The meters are round, and the color of brass. They are of the same kind as used in the October 6th demo.
Re: [Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat
Am 13.11.2011 13:31, schrieb Albert: Sorry. I see the red (pneumatic?) cylinders, and the green-black pumps with a grey cable connected and nothing else than pipes. I dont know for what else to look. What's the color? Follow the pipes upwards, past the pressure gauges. The meters are round, and the color of brass. They are of the same kind as used in the October 6th demo. Thanks, I did spot one of them at the right upper position. Didnt spot the other. It is absolutely clear to see in Sterling's video shortly after 00:23, but only for a fraction of a second. I am unable to stop the video at this precise position. Is there an easy possibility to view Youtube videos frame by frame without downloading? I use Firefox and Windows. Thanks so far for the hint!
Re: [Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat
Am 13.11.2011 13:49, schrieb Peter Heckert: Thanks, I did spot one of them at the right upper position. Didnt spot the other. It is absolutely clear to see in Sterling's video shortly after 00:23, but only for a fraction of a second. Here the precise link at 00:26: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=uFiJb2UhzqY#t=26s It is difficult to stop the video at this precise position. Is there an easy possibility to view Youtube videos frame by frame without downloading? I use Firefox and Windows. Thanks so far for the hint!
Re: [Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat
Here the precise link at 00:26: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=uFiJb2UhzqY#t=26s It is difficult to stop the video at this precise position. Check the picture of S. Allan and Rossi at http://pesn.com/2011/10/28/9501940_1_MW_E-Cat_Test_Successful/
Re: [Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat
Am 13.11.2011 14:14, schrieb Albert: Here the precise link at 00:26:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=uFiJb2UhzqY#t=26s It is difficult to stop the video at this precise position. Check the picture of S. Allan and Rossi at http://pesn.com/2011/10/28/9501940_1_MW_E-Cat_Test_Successful/ Yes, one is inside at the right. I never looked inside so closely before. http://pesn.com/2011/10/28/9501940_1_MW_E-Cat_Test_Successful/Andrea-Rossi_Sterling-Allan_Oct28_2011_1MW_test_rd.jpg
Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat web site up
Il giorno 13/nov/2011 02:23, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com ha scritto: Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: A. Final note There is a big difference between your efforts on http://www.lenr-canr.org and the e-cat site. The first is a service to the community, the other is for selling goods. What is wrong with selling goods?!? Stop it there! Why do you jump to the wrong conclusion?? I do manage a business so I am a pure capitalist I risk every day of my life my own capital. I bet on my business. Do you?! I do things for free too: it is an indirect way of supporting the business by letting others try the quality of work and to expand the network. Read well what I write. Free is not the same as gratis. Free is about freedom, like in freedom of speech. About being fair in business ad give credit to others' ideas when credit is due. And yes I do sell free things, customers can do whatever they please with them, with one caveat, they must respect others freedom when they sell derived works. Did I say I do not like Rossi jobs and is not his way of doing business as a whole? indeed I think he is very good at it in many aspects. Not the website. That website will make him loose potential customers. Back to the point... The difference between a free informative website and a business website is about selling. On a business if you damage potential sales, you are doing a poor job with the website. Rossi's site does not look like, and it is not a business site, it is very amateurish at presentation and at technical level, it does not speak business language, not that of the $1M or more type of potential customer. I hope someone tells this to Rossi ASAP. mic Do you have some ivory-tower objection to capitalism? You don't like to see people making a living? Do you think Rossi is obligated to give away secrets worth a trillion dollars? If you think people should give away their property, please send all of your money to me, at 1954 Airport Road. I cannot understand why people criticize Rossi for keeping this secret when it is the U.S. Patent Office that refuses to grant patents for cold fusion I cannot understand this attitude that Rossi should do whatever you say, or Mary Yugo says, even though what you want him to do would ruin his business. I wish he would do as I say only because I think it would be bring him more money, and it would bring cold fusion to the world more quickly. This is his discovery, his intellectual property, and his business. He can run his business any way he wants to. He has no obligation to tell us anything, or to do any public tests. If he wants to use obsolete web page software, that is his decision. We can criticize these decisions, or ridicule them, but people here act as if Rossi has a moral obligation to follow our orders. He does not. No businessman does. Thank goodness for that. Capitalism would not work if they did. Without capitalism we would all live in poverty. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Radio : advertising a scam ?
2011/11/13 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com: The issue isn't only or even mainly the instruments except for Bianchini using some silly Testo HVAC meter to pronounce the steam dry when the meter couldn't do that. Bianchini measured radioactivity IIRC. mic
Re: [Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat
Here is the third version : http://i.imgur.com/GbZri.png Changes - Added valve on connection to jerrican. It indeed seems closed on the Ny Teknik video. I suppose it was opened at some point? Did the 5l of unvaporized water mentioned in the report collect there? - Connected reservoirs 1 and 2. - I've added some 3.8 bar readings. Albert, by pressure meters on the outlets of the pumps, do you mean the pressure meters integrated into the pumps, or the ones I've drawn? - The two pumps on the side of the container close to the condensers are marked off. Where these the pumps you meant, Albert? Missing are : - the automatic valves for keeping the water level. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat
This looks pretty good. Ask Rossi if this is correct. Send him the link. He may want to use it himself, on his website. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat
I've added some 3.8 bar readings. Albert, by pressure meters onthe outlets of the pumps, do you mean the pressure meters integrated into the pumps, or the ones I've drawn? Exactly. My mistake, I somehow missed them last time. But I am not sure that there is any cross-connection between the two pumps that are on as you have drawn? And there is a valve on the cross-connection between the two pumps that are off. Which are exactly the pumps a meant. The 5 l cited as collected were measured from this can, as far as I understand. But it looks like it was an airtight connection to it, why I am skeptical to the function of it. There would be a need for the air displaced by the condensate to get out of the jerrycan. I would have liked to see a second hose go back to the topside of the steam-pipe.
Re: [Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat
/snip/ Added valve on connection to jerrican. It indeed seems closed on the Ny Teknik video. I suppose it was opened at some point? /snip/ This is unclear. It is indeed where the 5 L of condensed water was measured. It does appear closed in the video (if it were open, water/steam/both would be rushing out). Even if it were open, it is a shoddy way to collect condensed water, as their is no trap mechanism. Under the right conditions of high-speed flow, it could even serve better as a vacuum port, than a water outlet. It is also the only was that we would know how much, if any, water is vaporized. Rossi has been unconcerned of the question of water vaporization from the beginning, and this is par for the course. Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: Here is the third version : http://i.imgur.com/GbZri.png Changes - Added valve on connection to jerrican. It indeed seems closed on the Ny Teknik video. I suppose it was opened at some point? Did the 5l of unvaporized water mentioned in the report collect there? - Connected reservoirs 1 and 2. - I've added some 3.8 bar readings. Albert, by pressure meters on the outlets of the pumps, do you mean the pressure meters integrated into the pumps, or the ones I've drawn? - The two pumps on the side of the container close to the condensers are marked off. Where these the pumps you meant, Albert? Missing are : - the automatic valves for keeping the water level. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Oct. 28 demo: 3716 liters of water vaporized
Something Jed said about customers spurred a thought about customers, investors, and the difference between them. Customers exchange money for something that meets a current need. That can be a need to use a device, a need to gain access to technology early, or even a need to do some good. But in any case, there is a contract (implicit or explicit) for an exchange of values. The process of purchase is relatively rational, and relatively reversible. The return to the customer is relatively predictable. If the item purchased is grossly different from product specified or advertised, there is broad recourse under common and contract law. It's pretty easy to scam a customer if you only sell one item and flee, if you sell items so cheaply that the duped find the cost of recovery higher than the value recovered, or if the item sold is actually illegal. But selling large industrial equipment to a knowledgeable customer with a large legal department, in the hope of then selling them another one in three months is a scammers nightmare. Investors exchange money for an unknown future return. Business plans typically change radically as they encounter reality, unknown unknowns dominate the landscape. Decisions to invest are often irrational, emotional, and have less to do with physics than with hope. Investors are the ideal targets for a scammer: they are already dealing in intangibles and the time lines are long and the opportunities for the scammer to exit, stage left, are numerous. Investors are making high risk, high return bets. When we discuss the flow of money here, I think we should be clear about the role of the customer vs. investor, and draw conclusions as appropriate. Steorns actions are entirely consistent with wishful thinking on the part of investors and entrepreneur (if not an outright scam); Rossis actions are entirely consistent with a bold attempt to bootstrap a business on personal capital and customer sales. Rossi's business plan is currently and _clearly_ centered on customers. Let a system be evaluated, sell it on a returnable contract, expect to sell more units because the product itself generates a return on investment (if not for the first unit, then in a predictable fashion as a customer understands how to proper deploy them). This is not a scammers plan. I've been down this road (smaller scale, less impact on the world, to put it mildly) -- he's doing _exactly_ what I would do if I had the idea, the technology, and the courage. Mind you, I think I would spell better, have a cooler website, have better PR, and be a little more precise in my business language. But I'm not the guy who has the problem.
Re: [Vo]:The U.S. Patent Office's formal policy to reject all cold fusion applications
Mary Yugo is right that SPAWAR indeed made much in recent years of claimed evidence for neutron emission for D-Pd codeposition in lithium sulfate electrolyte -- no reports of replication by independent lab attempts in the Galileo Project, as reported in great detail on Krivit's site -- as usual, the many SPAWAR reports have failed to result in any forward evolution of the technology, with no reproduction of excess heat, radiations, or transmutations by independent labs. Extraordinary Error -- no electric field exists inside a conducting liquid in an insulated box with two external charged metal plates, re work by SPAWAR on cold fusion since 2002 -- also hot spots from H and O microbubbles: Rich Murray 2010.02.22 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2010/02/extraordinary-error-no-electric-field.html http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/42 On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, I think most experts would say they do. That I would like to know more about. It should be easy to show -- add the catalyst and get evidence for a nuclear reaction namely neutrons and/or radiation. This test will not work. Cold fusion does not produce neutrons and it seldom produces radiation. I have told you that before. If you do not believe me, please review the literature on your own. Well that's inconvenient, isn't it? So we just look for anomalous heat and nothing else? How about products of reaction? You know -- like the ones that were *not* found when a sample of Rossi's ash analyzed in Sweden turned out to have the same ratio of copper isotopes as is found in ordinary mined copper? I think most readers here are familiar with the literature. Please do not make assertions about cold fusion that all readers here know to be incorrect. This is not a beginner's forum. Beginners should read the introductory papers by Storms at LENR-CANR.org, or the first chapter of my book. Please don't be patronizing. I already admitted I know little about the whole field of cold fusion and I do not have the time to study it until it is robustly proven and much better accepted by mainstream science publications. I do follow Rossi because the claim is incredibly extravagant, the style is flamboyant yet furtive and evasive, and nothing the guy does makes sense. That's interesting and fun for me. Run the same way without the catalyst and the evidence of nuclear reaction disappears. Someone has done that? Can you provide a link or citation? Of course. Hundreds of researchers have done that. Typically they run Pt instead of Pd, or H instead of D (with Pd). If you did not know that, you need to read the literature. Sorry but I looked at a couple of papers your referred me early on in our discussions and I couldn't understand them. There was no clear plot of anomalous energy vs time for long period and high outputs. Anything else claimed, at the moment, sorry but I have no interest. Please avoid trying to read my mind. I would be totally, completely and unequivocally delighted if cold fusion turns out to be feasible and substantial. I doubt that. Every expert I know -- except for Britz -- who has looked carefully at the evidence was convince that cold fusion is real. You say it is not real. It is difficult not to read your mind. You almost force me to suppose: You can doubt my veracity but unless you're psychic, you won't know what I'm thinking. And nobody as far as I know has ever demonstrated psychic powers. So basically, you're just calling me liar. Nice.I'll tell you again: I fervently hope cold fusion is real and gets robustly developed. I will jump up and down with joy the day it happens. Even if it's Rossi that does it although I will still dislike the guy for all the garbage he's done while developing it. You are no expert despite the fact that you say you have worked with calorimeters. I doubt that. No expert in what? I helped to design a family of specialized Seebeck effect calorimeters similar or identical to the device you bought for Storms. I didn't do the basic design of the sensing elements -- I was involved in other aspects of design and testing for end users. I don't know calorimeters? Calorimetry? Of course I do. Very very well. With all your references to boilers and HVAC systems and the similarities you suggest between that technology and what is needed to test Rossi's machines, I am starting to doubt that you understand calorimetry though at one time, I thought you did. OR You refuse to look at the evidence, despite all the effort you put into writing these messages and campaigning against cold fusion on the Internet. Once and for all, I am not in any way, shape or form campaigning against cold fusion ANYWHERE.
Re: [Vo]:Oct. 28 demo: 3716 liters of water vaporized
Sean True sean.t...@gmail.com wrote: Customers exchange money for something that meets a current need. That can be a need to use a device, a need to gain access to technology early, or even a need to do some good. But in any case, there is a contract (implicit or explicit) for an exchange of values. The process of purchase is relatively rational, and relatively reversible. . . . . . . selling large industrial equipment to a knowledgeable customer with a large legal department, in the hope of then selling them another one in three months is a scammers nightmare. . . . Investors exchange money for an unknown future return. Business plans typically change radically as they encounter reality, unknown unknowns dominate the landscape. Decisions to invest are often irrational, emotional, and have less to do with physics than with hope. . . . This is a sharp analysis. I agree completely. I've been down this road (smaller scale, less impact on the world, to put it mildly) -- he's doing _exactly_ what I would do if I had the idea, the technology, and the courage. Me too. If I were Rossi, I would be scrambling to try to get a patent. He may be doing this. Mind you, I think I would spell better, have a cooler website, have better PR, and be a little more precise in my business language. Well, you are a native speaker of English. But I'm not the guy who has the problem. Exactly. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat web site up
Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: The difference between a free informative website and a business website is about selling. On a business if you damage potential sales, you are doing a poor job with the website. Rossi's site does not look like, and it is not a business site, it is very amateurish at presentation and at technical level, it does not speak business language, not that of the $1M or more type of potential customer. I agree. I got the mistaken impression from the previous message that you find something wrong with Rossi's goal of making money. Many people do. I hope someone tells this to Rossi ASAP. Many people have told him. He does not care what people think. As I said, that is both a strength and a weakness. The one thing Rossi does accept is technical advice from experts. Not about his experimental technique, unfortunately, but some experts have told me he does listen when it comes to engineering. - Jed
[Vo]:People who will not do their homework do not deserve a response
I have had it with Mary Yugo. She wrote: This test will not work. Cold fusion does not produce neutrons and it seldom produces radiation. I have told you that before. If you do not believe me, please review the literature on your own. Well that's inconvenient, isn't it? So we just look for anomalous heat and nothing else? No, you look for helium, transmutations and tritium. Neutrons are very rare and may be anti-correlated with heat. Again, if you would take the time to read the literature you would know that. I already admitted I know little about the whole field of cold fusion and I do not have the time to study it until it is robustly proven and much better accepted by mainstream science publications. Okay. You don't have time to do your homework and learn something about this subject. Yet you do have time to write many messages full of ignorant mistakes. I do not mind answering people who are struggling to understand this subject, or who do not know which paper to look at for some detail. There are thousands of papers, and they are tedious to read. But this is willful, aggressive ignorance. Refusing to look. That is unacceptable to me. I will not take the time to respond to you if this is how you are going to act. You remind me of a creationist who thinks that evolutionary theory has never tried to explain how the eye evolved. This is gross ignorance. Darwin himself explained this, when he introduced the theory, in chapter 6. A creationist who wishes to join a biology discussion group may disagree with Darwin’s explanation, but he has an obligation to read the literature and learn what the claims are. Otherwise his critiques are assertions that everyone else knows are wrong. All of you statements about cold fusion are wrong. You are ignorant. If you are not even going to take the trouble to read the foundations of this field, do not presume to critique it. All the problems and weaknesses you imagine you have discovered were answered in the literature 20 years ago. If you do not wish to do your homework and learn something about this subject, fair enough, but in that case, you should not expect other people to take you seriously. Since this is your announced policy, I shall ignore you. Sorry but I looked at a couple of papers your referred me early on in our discussions and I couldn't understand them. If you do not understand them then I suggest you refrain from critiquing them. There was no clear plot of anomalous energy vs time for long period and high outputs. That is incorrect. As you say, you did not understand them. Anything else claimed, at the moment, sorry but I have no interest. You cannot understand this field by reading a few papers. You cannot ignore the bulk of the evidence. You have make a systematic effort and read a lot. It is okay that you have no interest but that means you have no knowledge. Sorry. I was under the impression that neutrons are expected in many cold fusion reactions. Another misunderstanding. The literature I've seen is very convoluted, unclear and tedious. Yes. Original source, cutting-edge science is like that. Very unclear and tedious. Lots of work. If you don't want to do the work, don't ask me and others to spoon-feed you the information, and don't expect anyone to take your views seriously. I want some robust results in a form that make them clear and obvious. Read McKubre of Fleischmann. When we have such results on an industrial scale, you will find them in textbooks. You are saying you will only be interested in cold fusion after it succeeds. Do you really think nobody but a small body of adherents wants inexpensive bountiful power free of oil cartels and Arab sheiks? Are you suggesting that only a small number of people read cold fusion papers? Readers at LENR-CANR.org have downloaded over 2 million papers. As you yourself have noted, reading these papers is tedious, hard work. That is rather a large number of people willing to make the effort to understand the subject. So go to other people and ignore DoE and Park. Who cares about them. Get funding from rich people and foundations if you have to. That is difficult to do when the Washington Post, the Sci. Am., Fox News and others often print articles claiming that the research is criminal fraud and lunacy. That puts a damper on research grant applications and proposals to venture capitalists. If your stuff is convincing, they'll give. I think you complain too much. If cold fusion doesn't get money, maybe there is a valid reason. I don't know that there is but I'm guessing it's true. The reasons cold fusion does not get money are not disputed. They are right out in the open. You can find them in the mass media, or any of dozens of statements made by Park. Cold fusion is not funded because opponents claim that all cold fusion researchers are criminals, frauds and lunatics. No technical reasons have been offered. If I
[Vo]:Rossi Updates/////// Propaganda
• mateo November 13th, 2011 at 12:55 AM Oops, posted my question too fast. I see your answer was: “The power generator had a power of 300 kW: it has been used not only to power the resistances of the reactors before they arrived to the self sustaining mode, but also to power the accessory electric motors: the water pumps and the heat dissipators and this is the reason why the power generator has been turned on also during the self sustained mode of the reactors.” I still question why you would use such a loud generator to power pumps for 5hrs when it could be done silently by plugging into the building’s electrical outlet? Leaving the generator on for this purpose seems like an unlikely choice to me. • Andrea Rossi November 13th, 2011 at 2:54 AM Dear Mateo: The genset had to power the resistances of the reactors, during the non self sustained mode, AND the electric motors of the water pumps and the heat dissipators. It would have been illogic to put 2 power generators, one for the electric motors and one for the resistances, so we have taken one for all. Of course, the power of the power-generator was regulated on the base of the energy consumed. All this has been necessary because in the workshop where we made the test there is only a small power from the grid, because it is not used normally for high power consuming duties. Useless to add that the person who made the test for the Customer has checked carefully also the power consumed from the power generator. By the way: this person is an engineer who has spent his life testing thermal systems in military concerns, and has been chosen for his specific experience in thermodynamics. Warm Regards, A.R. • Andrea Rossi November 13th, 2011 at 9:37 AM Dear Pietro F: We use English to be globally understood and not to be confined . About your question if the 1 MW plant is in operation yet: not yet, it will take a couple of more weeks to set up the plant on the proper site. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Oct. 28 demo: 3716 liters of water vaporized
It's pretty easy to scam a customer if you only sell one item and flee, if you sell items so cheaply that the duped find the cost of recovery higher than the value recovered, or if the item sold is actually illegal. But selling large industrial equipment to a knowledgeable customer with a large legal department, in the hope of then selling them another one in three months is a scammers nightmare. Investors exchange money for an unknown future return. Business plans typically change radically as they encounter reality, unknown unknowns dominate the landscape. Decisions to invest are often irrational, emotional, and have less to do with physics than with hope. Investors are the ideal targets for a scammer: they are already dealing in intangibles and the time lines are long and the opportunities for the scammer to exit, stage left, are numerous. Investors are making high risk, high return bets. When we discuss the flow of money here, I think we should be clear about the role of the customer vs. investor, and draw conclusions as appropriate. Steorns actions are entirely consistent with wishful thinking on the part of investors and entrepreneur (if not an outright scam); Rossis actions are entirely consistent with a bold attempt to bootstrap a business on personal capital and customer sales. Perhaps you're relying too much on what Rossi *says*. The Rossi story looks superficially much like Steorn's. In January 2010, Steorn gave a big and flamboyant but silly demo at the Waterways Museum in Dublin. They claimed that their spinning magnetic motor was overunity (making more energy than it used) but it required an obvious and large battery to run. It was tested in public but only with Steorn's instruments, setup and methods. The test results were not as convincing as Rossi's but Steorn said they were good. In this case, the audience asked better questions than the sort Rossi is asked after his demos. Steorn deflected the questions. They also removed the question and answer portion from their videos of the event. Fortunately, someone else preserved them. They helped confirm in many people's minds that Steorn did not have any unusual device and that their claims were wrong. Steorn also claimed that they were setting aside two days of the museum rental period in order to let private companies who had applied to test the device do so on their own terms. That is analogous to Rossi's claim that someone bought a megawatt plant and is testing it. Since then, Steorn said many companies tested but they have never told anyone who the companies were. No company has ever confirmed that they tested or bought any Steorn product. Free Energy Truth (Craig Brown) reported only glowing praise of those events, not the proper questions and ridiculous answers that followed. I don't recall exactly but best I remember, Sterling Allan also continued to promote Steorn from his site despite the bizarre results of the Waterways demo. Possibly, that is where we will be in a year with Rossi. He may claim more sales but they may be secret also. He may claim university research is being done but it also may remain secret. Steorn's scam, for those who accept that it was and is a scam, was collecting 20+ million Euros from investors. They did not scam buyers/customers because there probably never was one. One theory about Rossi is that it's an investor scam, not a purchaser scam. You are relying on Rossi's word for the customer being real and distinct and separate from Rossi. But even Jed Rothwell admits that much of what Rossi has said in the past was hype, exaggeration, and sometimes plain lies. I do not see why he would be trusted when he says he has a customer for that awkward and poorly put together machine in the container. Investor scams are much more convenient for the scammer than customer scams. The written agreements with the investors can be cleverly written so as to make the prospects for the device seem less certain than what the promoter says to them in secret verbally. There can be NDA's which may prevent investors from complaining in public and on forums. The scammer can appear to meet deadlines for demonstrations and products without actually doing so in a meaningful way. At one big meeting with prestigious scientists from all over the world, Steorn showed only a pitiful Minato type wheel that couldn't and didn't work and then they claimed the ridiculous excuse that its bearings failed. It was laughable but maybe it was done simply to meet contract requirements with investors. From history, it is clear that there are many ways to cheat investors. I don't remember them all!
Re: [Vo]:People who will not do their homework do not deserve a response
mary yugo appeared on the Steorn forums and has never been supportive of any exotic energy technology developer, company or anything. this pseudonym is just a hater. On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I have had it with Mary Yugo. She wrote:
Re: [Vo]:People who will not do their homework do not deserve a response
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Esa Ruoho esaru...@gmail.com wrote: mary yugo appeared on the Steorn forums and has never been supportive of any exotic energy technology developer, company or anything. this pseudonym is just a hater. Most people now believe that Steorn was a scam. Are you suggesting I should support a scam. Name a single exotic energy technology or developer who has proven they have a valid method that I hated or failed to support or don't accuse me being a hater. I will cop to the charge of hating scammers. I despise them. I think that makes perfect sense. I can't imagine why one would have affection for thieves. One of the reasons Steorn was not able to waste more investor money than they did was that the critics and skeptics on their forum kept their feet to the fire. Even then, as recently as 6 months ago, someone sank another half million Euros in Steorn. I found that pretty amazing. I guess there are always some people who are beyond help and don't listen to reason.
Re: [Vo]:People who will not do their homework do not deserve a response
Keeping feet on fire is a good way of wasting valuable research and development time. Would you like to do your work while some know-it-all smart alec is lobbing rocks at your skull? You justify your actions by saying it was a scam and total trash, by your estimate. Now you give the usual (the ever-present) Just prove it to me and I*ll believe you and stop trying to disprove it by vaguely informed and vaguely uninformed information. If we continue on this and pick any single exotic energy technology, you'll roll out the But if it's so damn good, why don't they close the loop and prove to everyone it totally majorly works. There is nothing useful coming out of you. You will never support anything. You exist to detract and to put down, to destroy. You are not a creator and never will be. It's a shame because there is so much that could be done on this planet. I hope you get your kicks from writing negativity and have a happy life. It's tainted. I have only one quote for you: Do you create anything, or just criticize others work and belittle their motivations? -Steve Jobs On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Esa Ruoho esaru...@gmail.com wrote: mary yugo appeared on the Steorn forums and has never been supportive of any exotic energy technology developer, company or anything. this pseudonym is just a hater. Most people now believe that Steorn was a scam. Are you suggesting I should support a scam. Name a single exotic energy technology or developer who has proven they have a valid method that I hated or failed to support or don't accuse me being a hater. I will cop to the charge of hating scammers. I despise them. I think that makes perfect sense. I can't imagine why one would have affection for thieves. One of the reasons Steorn was not able to waste more investor money than they did was that the critics and skeptics on their forum kept their feet to the fire. Even then, as recently as 6 months ago, someone sank another half million Euros in Steorn. I found that pretty amazing. I guess there are always some people who are beyond help and don't listen to reason.
[Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
I have had it with Mary Yugo. I think Mary Yugo is a good addition to this list. Mary Yugo's skepticism is better than excusing Rossi's odd behaviour on the grounds that he must be an eccentric genius. Rossi seems like a scammer to me. Of course, I hope he really has come up with a wonder-working machine, but until there are some independent replications, I do not see why I should believe that he has.
Re: [Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat
I've checked the Ny Teknik video, and the jerrican valve is probably slightly open (the handle is not exactly perpendicular to the valve). Also, I think the two jerricans seem to be part of a contraption and may be connected together, because they are rotated 90 degrees with respect to each other. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:People who will not do their homework do not deserve a response
This test will not work. Cold fusion does not produce neutrons and it seldom produces radiation. I have told you that before. If you do not believe me, please review the literature on your own. Well that's inconvenient, isn't it? So we just look for anomalous heat and nothing else? No, you look for helium, transmutations and tritium. Neutrons are very rare and may be anti-correlated with heat. Again, if you would take the time to read the literature you would know that. OK, thanks. I guess in Rossi's case you look for transmutation to copper isotopes. However, the one time this was done, the copper from the ash from Rossi's machine had the EXACT isotope ratios that are found in nature. That would be compatible with someone simply seeding the ash with ordinary copper powder -- not with transmutation. I already admitted I know little about the whole field of cold fusion and I do not have the time to study it until it is robustly proven and much better accepted by mainstream science publications. ... ... ... If you do not wish to do your homework and learn something about this subject, fair enough, but in that case, you should not expect other people to take you seriously. Since this is your announced policy, I shall ignore you. By all means ignore me if you prefer. Ignoring the objections to Rossi's claims won't particularly help Rossi. Sorry but I looked at a couple of papers your referred me early on in our discussions and I couldn't understand them. If you do not understand them then I suggest you refrain from critiquing them. There was no clear plot of anomalous energy vs time for long period and high outputs. That is incorrect. As you say, you did not understand them. I understand what a clear plot of robust excess energy vs time for a long time looks like. That's simple and not convoluted and I never found one yet. Anything else claimed, at the moment, sorry but I have no interest. You cannot understand this field by reading a few papers. You cannot ignore the bulk of the evidence. You have make a systematic effort and read a lot. It is okay that you have no interest but that means you have no knowledge. Sorry. I was under the impression that neutrons are expected in many cold fusion reactions. Another misunderstanding. Again then, why the fuss when SPAWAR announced neutrons? The literature I've seen is very convoluted, unclear and tedious. Yes. Original source, cutting-edge science is like that. Very unclear and tedious. Lots of work. If you don't want to do the work, don't ask me and others to spoon-feed you the information, and don't expect anyone to take your views seriously. There's nothing tedious or unclear about Rossi's claims. That's why I find them interesting. And highly questionable. I want some robust results in a form that make them clear and obvious. Read McKubre of Fleischmann. When we have such results on an industrial scale, you will find them in textbooks. You are saying you will only be interested in cold fusion after it succeeds. Uh... yes, of course. I have little interest as long as it either fails or is equivocal. Do you really think nobody but a small body of adherents wants inexpensive bountiful power free of oil cartels and Arab sheiks? Are you suggesting that only a small number of people read cold fusion papers? Readers at LENR-CANR.org have downloaded over 2 million papers. As you yourself have noted, reading these papers is tedious, hard work. That is rather a large number of people willing to make the effort to understand the subject. That's tangential and doesn't answer my question or help your case. So go to other people and ignore DoE and Park. Who cares about them. Get funding from rich people and foundations if you have to. That is difficult to do when the Washington Post, the Sci. Am., Fox News and others often print articles claiming that the research is criminal fraud and lunacy. That puts a damper on research grant applications and proposals to venture capitalists. It wouldn't be difficult to do if, like Rossi, you claimed a robust result for a long time ... and it actually happened. It would be extremely easy. The problem isn't a lack of interest or funding. It's a lack of really good clear results. Maybe there's a lot of promising work but nothing like what Rossi claims has been shown by others that I've seen. If you know different, I'd love to see the reports. In clear plots of excess energy with time, robust amounts and long times. I doubt that exists or everyone would know it already. | If I thought the researchers were criminals and lunatics, I would probably oppose any funding myself. I certainly never said anything like that. I said Rossi may be a fraud and acts like one -- not that other researchers in cold fusion were. |You are guessing, whereas I know for a fact that applications for grants and
Re: [Vo]:People who will not do their homework do not deserve a response
No time to study the literature but time to nagger and flood forums all day with messages. 2011/11/13 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com This test will not work. Cold fusion does not produce neutrons and it seldom produces radiation. I have told you that before. If you do not believe me, please review the literature on your own. Well that's inconvenient, isn't it? So we just look for anomalous heat and nothing else? No, you look for helium, transmutations and tritium. Neutrons are very rare and may be anti-correlated with heat. Again, if you would take the time to read the literature you would know that. OK, thanks. I guess in Rossi's case you look for transmutation to copper isotopes. However, the one time this was done, the copper from the ash from Rossi's machine had the EXACT isotope ratios that are found in nature. That would be compatible with someone simply seeding the ash with ordinary copper powder -- not with transmutation. I already admitted I know little about the whole field of cold fusion and I do not have the time to study it until it is robustly proven and much better accepted by mainstream science publications. ... ... ... If you do not wish to do your homework and learn something about this subject, fair enough, but in that case, you should not expect other people to take you seriously. Since this is your announced policy, I shall ignore you. By all means ignore me if you prefer. Ignoring the objections to Rossi's claims won't particularly help Rossi. Sorry but I looked at a couple of papers your referred me early on in our discussions and I couldn't understand them. If you do not understand them then I suggest you refrain from critiquing them. There was no clear plot of anomalous energy vs time for long period and high outputs. That is incorrect. As you say, you did not understand them. I understand what a clear plot of robust excess energy vs time for a long time looks like. That's simple and not convoluted and I never found one yet. Anything else claimed, at the moment, sorry but I have no interest. You cannot understand this field by reading a few papers. You cannot ignore the bulk of the evidence. You have make a systematic effort and read a lot. It is okay that you have no interest but that means you have no knowledge. Sorry. I was under the impression that neutrons are expected in many cold fusion reactions. Another misunderstanding. Again then, why the fuss when SPAWAR announced neutrons? The literature I've seen is very convoluted, unclear and tedious. Yes. Original source, cutting-edge science is like that. Very unclear and tedious. Lots of work. If you don't want to do the work, don't ask me and others to spoon-feed you the information, and don't expect anyone to take your views seriously. There's nothing tedious or unclear about Rossi's claims. That's why I find them interesting. And highly questionable. I want some robust results in a form that make them clear and obvious. Read McKubre of Fleischmann. When we have such results on an industrial scale, you will find them in textbooks. You are saying you will only be interested in cold fusion after it succeeds. Uh... yes, of course. I have little interest as long as it either fails or is equivocal. Do you really think nobody but a small body of adherents wants inexpensive bountiful power free of oil cartels and Arab sheiks? Are you suggesting that only a small number of people read cold fusion papers? Readers at LENR-CANR.org have downloaded over 2 million papers. As you yourself have noted, reading these papers is tedious, hard work. That is rather a large number of people willing to make the effort to understand the subject. That's tangential and doesn't answer my question or help your case. So go to other people and ignore DoE and Park. Who cares about them. Get funding from rich people and foundations if you have to. That is difficult to do when the Washington Post, the Sci. Am., Fox News and others often print articles claiming that the research is criminal fraud and lunacy. That puts a damper on research grant applications and proposals to venture capitalists. It wouldn't be difficult to do if, like Rossi, you claimed a robust result for a long time ... and it actually happened. It would be extremely easy. The problem isn't a lack of interest or funding. It's a lack of really good clear results. Maybe there's a lot of promising work but nothing like what Rossi claims has been shown by others that I've seen. If you know different, I'd love to see the reports. In clear plots of excess energy with time, robust amounts and long times. I doubt that exists or everyone would know it already. | If I thought the researchers were criminals and lunatics, I would probably oppose any funding myself. I certainly never said anything like that. I said Rossi may
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Radio : advertising a scam ?
Did I get the wrong guy? Who measured the dryness of steam with a Testo HVAC meter? Thanks for any correction. On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/11/13 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com: The issue isn't only or even mainly the instruments except for Bianchini using some silly Testo HVAC meter to pronounce the steam dry when the meter couldn't do that. Bianchini measured radioactivity IIRC.
Re: [Vo]:People who will not do their homework do not deserve a response
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: No time to study the literature but time to nagger and flood forums all day with messages. I have time to study about Rossi and directly related writings. I don't have time to read the thousands of seemingly inconclusive and difficult papers Jed would like me to read. The ones he already suggested which I looked at were extremely and unnecessarily complex and did not convince me of anything. I am not here to debate cold fusion. I hope it works. I am here to discuss Rossi's extravagant claims and the lame evidence that he might be telling the truth and the more convincing evidence that he's not. What does nagger mean as a verb? I never saw the word used that way before. I find most of what believers write to be objectionable and I respond to it. It is premature to speculate about what the E-cat will do to the world until we know that it really works and believers simply assume that. And they are the ones who are the most prolific by far. I just respond occasionally.
Re: [Vo]:People who will not do their homework do not deserve a response
If you don't read the literature, you won't be able to tell apart what is logical to what is illogical. Besides, I am not a native speaker and gmail's dictionary offered a wrong correction. 2011/11/13 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: No time to study the literature but time to nagger and flood forums all day with messages. I have time to study about Rossi and directly related writings. I don't have time to read the thousands of seemingly inconclusive and difficult papers Jed would like me to read. The ones he already suggested which I looked at were extremely and unnecessarily complex and did not convince me of anything. I am not here to debate cold fusion. I hope it works. I am here to discuss Rossi's extravagant claims and the lame evidence that he might be telling the truth and the more convincing evidence that he's not. What does nagger mean as a verb? I never saw the word used that way before. I find most of what believers write to be objectionable and I respond to it. It is premature to speculate about what the E-cat will do to the world until we know that it really works and believers simply assume that. And they are the ones who are the most prolific by far. I just respond occasionally.
Re: [Vo]:People who will not do their homework do not deserve a response
A few years ago you picked Steorn as your favourite hobby horse. Now you've picked Rossi. What's the connection? They get a lot of publicity and people are interested in them. So you manifest yourself in whichever place strikes your whimsy, pour forth from the abundance within your soul and try your damnedest to convince everyone that they were being misled. The Prince(ss) rides the white horse and saves all internet imbeciles from having to believe in total crock (maryyugo opinion). What a waste of everyone's time. P.s. I *seriously* doubt Jed Rothwell expects you to read thousands. That's just a comfortable random number which makes it possible for you to scoff at the impossibility. I doubt Jed even sent you over 30 documents to check. On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: No time to study the literature but time to nagger and flood forums all day with messages. I have time to study about Rossi and directly related writings. I don't have time to read the thousands of seemingly inconclusive and difficult papers Jed would like me to read. The ones he already suggested which I looked at were extremely and unnecessarily complex and did not convince me of anything. I am not here to debate cold fusion. I hope it works. I am here to discuss Rossi's extravagant claims and the lame evidence that he might be telling the truth and the more convincing evidence that he's not. What does nagger mean as a verb? I never saw the word used that way before. I find most of what believers write to be objectionable and I respond to it. It is premature to speculate about what the E-cat will do to the world until we know that it really works and believers simply assume that. And they are the ones who are the most prolific by far. I just respond occasionally.
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
I perfectly agree with you and consider that what Mary Yugo says is a necessary and useful part of the broad spectrum of opinions re Rossi. Being a convinced feminist, I think ladies can be rational and very smart and good scientists technologists so I will abstain from asking her unpolitely if she is not actually my old friend Guy Moray from Aberdeen. Peter On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: I have had it with Mary Yugo. I think Mary Yugo is a good addition to this list. Mary Yugo's skepticism is better than excusing Rossi's odd behaviour on the grounds that he must be an eccentric genius. Rossi seems like a scammer to me. Of course, I hope he really has come up with a wonder-working machine, but until there are some independent replications, I do not see why I should believe that he has. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:The U.S. Patent Office's formal policy to reject all cold fusion applications
Rossi has a US Patent application: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=Ddate=20110113DB=EPODOClocale=en_EPCC=USNR=2011005506A1KC=A1 Ron --On Saturday, November 12, 2011 11:38 PM -0500 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, I think most experts would say they do. That I would like to know more about. It should be easy to show -- add the catalyst and get evidence for a nuclear reaction namely neutrons and/or radiation. This test will not work. Cold fusion does not produce neutrons and it seldom produces radiation. I have told you that before. If you do not believe me, please review the literature on your own. I think most readers here are familiar with the literature. Please do not make assertions about cold fusion that all readers here know to be incorrect. This is not a beginner's forum. Beginners should read the introductory papers by Storms at LENR-CANR.org, or the first chapter of my book. Run the same way without the catalyst and the evidence of nuclear reaction disappears. Someone has done that? Can you provide a link or citation? Of course. Hundreds of researchers have done that. Typically they run Pt instead of Pd, or H instead of D (with Pd). If you did not know that, you need to read the literature. Please avoid trying to read my mind. I would be totally, completely and unequivocally delighted if cold fusion turns out to be feasible and substantial. I doubt that. Every expert I know -- except for Britz -- who has looked carefully at the evidence was convince that cold fusion is real. You say it is not real. It is difficult not to read your mind. You almost force me to suppose: You are no expert despite the fact that you say you have worked with calorimeters. I doubt that. OR You refuse to look at the evidence, despite all the effort you put into writing these messages and campaigning against cold fusion on the Internet. It seems extraordinary to me that someone who expends so much effort on the subject knows practically nothing about cold fusion. In this very message you claim that cold fusion produces neutrons and radiation, even though I have told you many times that they do not. Either you are being disingenuous or you cannot bring yourself to study or remember anything about this subject, even the ABC's that have been common knowledge for 22 years! A person who spends years writing about something yet who does not know the first thing about it in denial. Strongly in denial. That is a sign of a person who does not want to know. Who cannot face facts. That is not characteristic of someone who would be delighted to be proven wrong. If you were the least bit delighted at that prospect, you would read the literature to find out if there is some tantalizing hope the claims might be true. You would acquire some basic knowledge of the phenomenon. Instead, you are aggressively ignorant, to the point where you repeatedly ask questions about things that everyone knows. Robert Park is the same way, by the way. He brags to people that he has never read a single paper on cold fusion. I am sure he has read nothing, because his books and his columns about it are grossly ignorant. I am not aware that Park has done what you accuse him of. I do not accuse him of anything! He brags about doing these things. To large crowds of people at the APS. He bragged about it to me, in person. He publishes columns in the Washington Post accusing cold fusion researchers of being criminals, lunatics and frauds. Perhaps he is not as ruthless as he claims to be. Perhaps he did not actually destroy as many lives and root out as many scientists as he claims. I know he managed to root out some, and I am sure he would love to nail them all. But in any case, I am not accusing him of anything; I am telling you what he says. If you do not believe me, read his columns, or the WaPost, or ask him yourself. When he realizes that he himself should have been rooted out decades ago, I expect he will be devastated. Any idea why anyone would do that? Are you asking why Park roots out cold fusion researchers? As I mentioned, in his newspaper columns and speeches he says he roots them out because they are criminals, lunatics and frauds. I suppose he sincerely believes that. I take his statements at face value. But as I said, ask him. It makes no sense and I tend to doubt it. You tend to doubt that Park said what he said? It is right there in the WaPost! Maybe he is beginning to have doubts . . . but in the past, he loved to attack cold fusion. As for destroying reputations, nothing restores them more than a few good experiments with convincing results and reliable data subject to replication by others. That is nonsense. Hundreds of impeccable, irrefutable cold fusion experiments
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
Am 13.11.2011 19:15, schrieb Vorl Bek: I have had it with Mary Yugo. I think Mary Yugo is a good addition to this list. Mary Yugo's skepticism is better than excusing Rossi's odd behaviour on the grounds that he must be an eccentric genius. Rossi seems like a scammer to me. Of course, I hope he really has come up with a wonder-working machine, but until there are some independent replications, I do not see why I should believe that he has. Rossi works with his customer on electric power, he says. This confirms what I already have said: This plant is experimental and cannot been used as an industrial heater and the customer, if real, is interested in the technology and not in an industrial strength heater. The new commercial website says expected lifetime: 20 years I find this ridiculous, this looked already very bad and corroded at september 6 and had leaks. And yes, let Rossi be Rossi. I will not buy a 1MW plant and most here will not and Rossi is not interested in public proof. Its absolutely impossible to do something. Even spreading the news is impossible without evidence and would not help Rossi. So he must do what he wants and if in 2 years (when Im still alive) he presents a selrunning 1 MW power plant, then I am convinced and happy. Andrea Rossi * November 13th, 2011 at 9:34 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=32#comment-117942 Dear Bernie Koppenhofer: Yes, we are working on this issue with the same Customer that made the test of October 28th and I am totally sure that we will be able to accomplish this target in matter of less than 2 years. Warm Regards, A.R. * November 13th, 2011 at 9:29 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=32#comment-117938 Mr Rossi: Recently you were asked if the E-Cat could replace the coal fired turbines in coal power plants, your reply was We are working on it, it will be possible, yes. Can you give us any kind of time frame for when this will be possible? Are you giving this development top priority? This development alone could create an economic boom, which the whole world needs desperately. *
Re: [Vo]:People who will not do their homework do not deserve a response
If you don't read the literature, you won't be able to tell apart what is logical to what is illogical. I disagree. Rossi's claim is different from most of the others in cold fusion because it is so extravagant -- I mean come on! A megawatt for six months on a handful of inexpensive fuel? That's pretty easy to test! It's quantitatively in an entirely different regime from anything claimed before. Although I do read lay announcements about CF in general, reading isn't very helpful in evaluating Rossi's huge claims. Either they stand on their own or they don't. Until they're proven, I don't care in the slightest about how they *might* work. It just couldn't matter less. To me anyway. Besides, I am not a native speaker and gmail's dictionary offered a wrong correction. Seems to me your English is excellent. I had no idea you were not a native speaker.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat web site up
http://www.leonardo-ecat.com/fp/Products/1MW_Plant/index.html NOTICE: November 13, 2011; 9:00 am MST Andrea Rossi has removed his official designation from this site until he has time to make certain corrections. Only those pages with the designation: Approved by Andrea Rossi should be considered official. [ I haven't found any so far ... ] Has a specification able for the 1 MW. Thermal Output Power1 MWElectrical Input Power Peak 200 kW Electrical input Power Average 167 kW COP 6 Power Ranges20 kW-1 MW Modules 52 Power per Module20kWWater Pump brand Water Pump Pressure 4 Bar Water Pump Capacity 1500 kg/hr Water Pump Ranges 30-1500 kg/hr Water Input Temperature 4-85 C Water Output Temperature85-120 CControl Box Brand Natl. Instr.Controlling SoftwareLeonardoOperation and Maintenance Cost $0.5/MWhr Fuel Cost $0.1/MWhr Recharge Cost $10/module Recharge Frequency 2/year Warranty2 years Estimated Lifespan 20 yearsPrice 2M EurosDimension 2.4 x 2.6 x 6m ( I'm using my laptop via the zimra web browser ... I don't know if that table's going to come out OK )
Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat web site up
Technical specifications Thermal Output Power 1 MW Electrical Input Power Peak 200 kW Electrical input Power Average 167 kW COP 6 Power Ranges 20 kW-1 MW Modules 52 Power per Module 20kW Water Pump brand Water Pump Pressure4 Bar Water Pump Capacity 1500 kg/hr Water Pump Ranges 30-1500 kg/hr Water Input Temperature 4-85 C Water Output Temperature 85-120 C Control Box Brand Natl. Instr. Controlling Software Leonardo Operation and Maintenance Cost $0.5/MWhr Fuel Cost $0.1/MWhr Recharge Cost $10/module Recharge Frequency 2/year Warranty 2 years Estimated Lifespan 20 years Price 2M Euros Dimension 2.4 x 2.6 x 6m ( I'm using my laptop via the zimra web browser ... I don't know if that table's going to come out OK )
[Vo]:Was it ever detected isotopes with medium half lives in transmutations
I don't remember in seeing in any paper isotopes with half lives of 1year to 1 years. That is, pretty much stable for the time length of any practical experiment but unstable to the point leaving a deadly waste, even if in small quantities.
Re: [Vo]:People who will not do their homework do not deserve a response
On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 10:22 -0800, Mary Yugo wrote: OK, thanks. I guess in Rossi's case you look for transmutation to copper isotopes. However, the one time this was done, the copper from the ash from Rossi's machine had the EXACT isotope ratios that are found in nature. That would be compatible with someone simply seeding the ash with ordinary copper powder -- not with transmutation. It's also possible that cold fusion occurs in nature, and through the eons, the copper we see around us is the product of the same reaction. Craig
[Vo]:More on Radio-iodine
Back in March, low levels of iodine-131 were found in rainwater in Massachusetts, not far from Rossi's New Hampshire Lab. The source was attribute to Fukushima, more or less by default (considering the coincidental timing). http://www.thebostonchannel.com/r-video/27338488/detail.html There is a small but finite possibility that the Fukushima explanation is incorrect, given what we know now. The main reason to suggest that this iodine isotope was not from the Japanese disaster is that radioiodine makes up only 3% of the net mass of isotopes released in a meltdown, and yet it was the only species detected in Mass. A smorgasbord of isotopes travel together in such a catastrophic release, seldom only one. What happened to the other 97% of isotopes? Yes, iodine is one of the easier ones to detect, but xenon and others, for instance, are very likely to be seen by the same detectors at the exactly the same time - whenever there has been a release that can be traced to an exact event. Plus with an 8 day half-life, there are roughly 3000 miles and hundreds of detectors situated west of Mass. and towards Japan - any one of which should have should have picked up this isotope if it was coming from Japan on prevailing winds. The wind patterns make it unlikely to have come east, from the Atlantic. The recent detection of iodine-131 in Europe is equally puzzling. There is no update on the http://www.iaea.org/ website yet. The detectors which are used for this are so sensitive, however, that another explanation is possible. Since this isotope is used in medicine, a single patient undergoing radiation therapy - who is physically near the detector can set it off, if so inclined (as in nature calls). This adds new meaning to the shorthand notation of P-out, does it not? BTW almost all Iodine-131 production for medicine is from neutron-irradiation of a tellurium target. Irradiation of natural tellurium produces I-131 as the only radionuclide and it is very efficient since the tellurium is neutron heavy with a high cross section. It is a 'natural' to be used in LENR - if the W-L theory is correct, for instance. But mainly, all of this goes back to speculation that Bismuth telluride (or tellurium alone) is Rossi's secret catalyst. This possibility is related to the many years of RD performed for DoE by Rossi (via Leonardo) when he was one of the main researchers for TEGs. There are also a number of other reasons why this molecule could become active for spillover hydrogen; but basically, it can be almost guaranteed that Rossi would have tried it with nano-nickel, early on, simply because he had lots of it in the Lab. Reputedly, AR - as an inventor, subscribes to the Edisonian approach of try everything. Caveat: Admittedly and let's be crystal-clear that all of the above bits of evidence are weak, completely circumstantial - and unlikely to mean anything relevant to the Rossi E-Cat now, based on normal probabilities - and/or better explanations. Nevertheless, this is published here in order to provide a written record (in the Vortex archives), in case at a later date - accurate information emerges from IAEA or from Italian authorities about a radiation leak in the Bologna area for iodine-131 (and nothing else) ... or else Rossi or one of his customers admits that bismuth telluride is the secret catalyst... or worse ... a meltdown at a customer's facility. This is a dangerous isotope, and AR is acting a little nuttier than normal these days, no? Warm regards (in a radioisotopical kinda way) Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor :sub-modules in PARALLEL
- Original Message - At 07:16 AM 11/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Higgins%20Oct%206%2027kWreactorDiagram4.png c) Rossi has said that the 3 cores are in SERIES, and then the fat-cats are connected in parallel. This would imply that water is injected into the wafer, not the tank, and then goes through three wafers. He said in the blog that the 3 cores are in series but in the Oct 28 acceptance test http://lenr.qumbu.com/test%2028%2010%2011/Page2.JPG he says Each module is made of 3 sub-modules of 3.3 kW each put in parallel.
Re: [Vo]:More on Radio-iodine
I was wondering how the big oil, big government conspiracy was going to discredit Rossi if he didn't manage to discredit himself enough (you know with silly web sites and more silly business plans.) But Jones you have found the build up of the back story for them to swoop in and claim Rossi is contaminating the world and must be shut down to save the world. :) :) On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Back in March, low levels of iodine-131 were found in rainwater in Massachusetts, not far from Rossi's New Hampshire Lab. The source was attribute to Fukushima, more or less by default (considering the coincidental timing). http://www.thebostonchannel.com/r-video/27338488/detail.html There is a small but finite possibility that the Fukushima explanation is incorrect, given what we know now. The main reason to suggest that this iodine isotope was not from the Japanese disaster is that radioiodine makes up only 3% of the net mass of isotopes released in a meltdown, and yet it was the only species detected in Mass. A smorgasbord of isotopes travel together in such a catastrophic release, seldom only one. What happened to the other 97% of isotopes? Yes, iodine is one of the easier ones to detect, but xenon and others, for instance, are very likely to be seen by the same detectors at the exactly the same time - whenever there has been a release that can be traced to an exact event. Plus with an 8 day half-life, there are roughly 3000 miles and hundreds of detectors situated west of Mass. and towards Japan - any one of which should have should have picked up this isotope if it was coming from Japan on prevailing winds. The wind patterns make it unlikely to have come east, from the Atlantic. The recent detection of iodine-131 in Europe is equally puzzling. There is no update on the http://www.iaea.org/ website yet. The detectors which are used for this are so sensitive, however, that another explanation is possible. Since this isotope is used in medicine, a single patient undergoing radiation therapy - who is physically near the detector can set it off, if so inclined (as in nature calls). This adds new meaning to the shorthand notation of P-out, does it not? BTW almost all Iodine-131 production for medicine is from neutron-irradiation of a tellurium target. Irradiation of natural tellurium produces I-131 as the only radionuclide and it is very efficient since the tellurium is neutron heavy with a high cross section. It is a 'natural' to be used in LENR - if the W-L theory is correct, for instance. But mainly, all of this goes back to speculation that Bismuth telluride (or tellurium alone) is Rossi's secret catalyst. This possibility is related to the many years of RD performed for DoE by Rossi (via Leonardo) when he was one of the main researchers for TEGs. There are also a number of other reasons why this molecule could become active for spillover hydrogen; but basically, it can be almost guaranteed that Rossi would have tried it with nano-nickel, early on, simply because he had lots of it in the Lab. Reputedly, AR - as an inventor, subscribes to the Edisonian approach of try everything. Caveat: Admittedly and let's be crystal-clear that all of the above bits of evidence are weak, completely circumstantial - and unlikely to mean anything relevant to the Rossi E-Cat now, based on normal probabilities - and/or better explanations. Nevertheless, this is published here in order to provide a written record (in the Vortex archives), in case at a later date - accurate information emerges from IAEA or from Italian authorities about a radiation leak in the Bologna area for iodine-131 (and nothing else) ... or else Rossi or one of his customers admits that bismuth telluride is the secret catalyst... or worse ... a meltdown at a customer's facility. This is a dangerous isotope, and AR is acting a little nuttier than normal these days, no? Warm regards (in a radioisotopical kinda way) Jones
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
In reply to Peter Heckert's message of Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:51:08 +0100: Hi, [snip] Andrea Rossi * November 13th, 2011 at 9:34 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=32#comment-117942 Dear Bernie Koppenhofer: Yes, we are working on this issue with the same Customer that made the test of October 28th and I am totally sure that we will be able to accomplish this target in matter of less than 2 years. Warm Regards, A.R. ...I am totally sure Rossi speak translation I hope. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Boiling at 0g
Quite different from what we are used to: http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2001/09/03/ast07sep_2_resources/bubble0g.mpg Full article here: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast07sep_2/ mic
Re: [Vo]:Boiling at 0g
test -- please disregard On Nov 13, 2011, at 5:50 PM, Michele Comitini wrote: Quite different from what we are used to: http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2001/09/03/ast07sep_2_resources/bubble0g.mpg Full article here: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast07sep_2/ mic
Re: [Vo]:People who will not do their homework do not deserve a response
It's also possible that cold fusion occurs in nature, and through the eons, the copper we see around us is the product of the same reaction. What reaction is that?
Re: [Vo]:People who will not do their homework do not deserve a response
see http://www.new.ans.org/pubs/journals/fst/a_114 On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: It's also possible that cold fusion occurs in nature, and through the eons, the copper we see around us is the product of the same reaction. What reaction is that?
Re: [Vo]:Order Form
Wooops. Even Rossi can't stand those guys any more, LOL. From: “Andrea Rossi – Leonardo Corp.” info@… To: “Sterling Allan” sterlingda@… Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 12:16 PM Subject: Re: temporary notice posted Sterling, please: all the website is not approved, please take out from the net all the website. I have to review all of it, I continue to receive a lot of troubles from it, instead of making my work I have to handle all the very bad comments I am receiving! I do not publish on the blog these comments, because I want not to polemize and expose you, but I am totally exasperated. Take immediately all the website out of the net, all of it is not approved! I looked at it superficially when I said that was good, because I had not time to read throughly and because I did not realize the very bad problems it was going to raise. Please take it off! I am sorry, I know you worked with honesty and enthusiasm, but it has been my mistakem not yours, now please take it all off the net! Warmest Regards, Andrea and on the site: NOTICE: November 13, 2011; 12:30 pm MST Andrea Rossi has removed his official designation from this site. The content herein should be considered under the editorial control of Sterling D. Allan of PES Network, Inc. and not approved by Andrea Rossi. See http://ecatnews.com for chronicle (independent site). and I can't load the order blank into Word 2003 with updates and converters but I suppose that could be a local problem. Sarcasm redacted.
Re: [Vo]:Order Form
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 3:55 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Whoopee. I have to rush to put up an order form for my pink, invisible flying unicorns that make free energy. What is this drivel?
Re: [Vo]:NI-H cell replication, some thoughts
I will attempt to address this question from Aussie Guy E-Cat: “He would need another naked, so to speak, element heater to boil off the electrons needed to form the H- ions, once they were broken apart from the supplied H2.” I don’t think that this “boiling off” is required. First some background quoted from ecatrepor: “although one might first think “the finer the better” because the finer the powder the more surface area per volume you get, this is not the case. Because in order to reach useful reaction rates with hydrogen, the powder needs to processed in a way that leads to amplified tubercles on the surface of his nano-powder. The tubercles are essential in order for the reaction rate to reach levels high enough for the implied total power output per volume or mass to reach orders of magnitude kW/kg – this level of power density is required for any useful application of the process. Rossi tells that he worked every waking hour for six months straight, trying dozens of combinations to find the optimal powder size for the Energy Catalyzer, or E-Cat. He further stresses that specific data about the final optimal grain size cannot be revealed, but can tell us that the most efficient grain size is more in the micrometer range rather than the nanometer range.” I remember seeing a picture of the Rossi stippled catalyst surface in pictures of his catalyst shown in his patent. This surface was bumpy and lumpy; and in my opinion, it was the surface wall of the reaction vessel and not an image of a pile of nano-powder. My current opinion is the micro powder is affixed to the walls of the reaction chamber through the use of some powder coating technique. This coating is porous and allows hydrogen to circulate in and among the micro-powder and at the same time provide a good thermodynamic heat transfer path with good conduction properties to the walls of the reaction chamber. For example, I believe that Rossi could produce such a mottled nickel surface by using a technique commonly found in the fabrication of artificial joints by medical device manufacturers. This technique produces the rough bone facing surface of metal knee or hip joints. The process involves “Inorganic Nanoparticles as Protein Mimics”. There has been a recently developed biomedical technology that produces metal surfaces that bond well with bone; a metal surface scaffold that optimizes bone growth onto and into the surface of these artificial joints. But there are many ways to skin a cat. There may be an easier way to get to the same result: a scaffold of micro sized nickel particles that extend out from the walls of the reaction chamber a fair distance (centimeters) which allows for a good circulation of hydrogen gas in and around the micro-particles. These micro-particles support a coating of nano-sized tubules that do all the work in the Rossi reaction. Why is this rough surface so all important? Now for some theory; a bumpy surface of the lattice wall is required to activate the Rossi process because such a surface will ionize the exotic hydrogen molecules that the pressurized hydrogen envelope will produce. The bumpy surface of a nickel lattice will “field-ionized” the Rydberg atoms in a highly excited hydrogen envelope that hug the surface of the reaction vessel. This phenomenon may be visualized as arising from the interaction of the Rydberg atom with the electric fields due to its electrostatic “image.” Compared to a hydrogen atom in the ground state, a Rydberg atom has an enhanced susceptibility to these fields. This is because the Rydberg electron experiences a greatly reduced electric field from the ion core due to their larger average separation. Polycrystalline metal surfaces of the nickel lattice will generate inhomogeneous “patch” electric fields outside its surface. These electrostatic fields also influence Rydberg atoms, potentially causing both level shifts and ionization and competing with the more intrinsic image charge effects. In general, patch fields arise from the individual nano-grains or “tubules” of a polycrystalline lattice surface exposing different crystal faces of the individual nano-crystals. Each of these faces has a different work function due to differing surface dipole layers. For example, Singh-Miller and Marzari have recently calculated the work functions of the (111), (100), and (110) surfaces of gold and found 5.15, 5.10, and 5.04 eV, respectively. These differing work functions correspond to potential differences just outside the surface beyond the dipole layer. Consequently, charge density must be redistributed on the surface to satisfy the electrostatic boundary conditions, producing macroscopic electric fields. While patch fields were first discussed extensively in the context of thermionic emission they are present near polycrystalline metal structures of any type, including electrodes and
[Vo]:Letters to the Senate request hearings on DOE and USPO.
http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/ Letters to the Senate request hearings on DOE and USPO. November 10, 2011 tags: cold fusion, DOE, LENR, Senate Energy Committee, USPO by Ruby Carat This past week Cold Fusion Now sent letters to all the US Senators on the Energy Sub-Committee requesting hearings on the Department of Energy’s refusal to acknowledge LENR science as a part of its research funding AND the US Patent Office’s lack of action on LENR technology. Join us!
[Vo]:Ruby Carat speaking at a TEDx event on cold fusion
Ruby Carat ( 'Cold Fusion Now' Blogger) will be speaking at a TEDx event in Ft.Lauderdale, Florida December 10. Harry http://www.tedxftl.com/speakers.html Ruby Carat Commercial Cold Fusion – The Viable Alternative Energy A new energy technology based on cold fusion science has been commercialized and is now entering the market. The Energy Catalyzer, or E-Cat for short, is the invention of Italian Andrea A. Rossi and is a technology based on two decades of research in the field of low-energy nuclear reactions LENR, the science developed from cold fusion. A thermal energy generator, the E-Cat is essentially a hot-water boiler. Heat is produced by a reaction between the hydrogen from water and a powder made of the metal nickel. The E-Cat produces steam, not electricity, but as a pioneering first step in generating energy using LENR technology, this is a major achievement. This technology promises to change the way we live on Earth, yet few people are aware of its existence. What can we expect as this ultra-clean technology begins to replace our current energy paradigm?
Re: [Vo]:Was it ever detected isotopes with medium half lives in transmutations
There was a movie about this in 1952 http://www.hulu.com/watch/70146/tales-of-tomorrow-ahead-of-his-time Frank Znidarsic -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 13, 2011 9:56 am Subject: [Vo]:Was it ever detected isotopes with medium half lives in transmutations I don't remember in seeing in any paper isotopes with half lives of 1year to 1 years. That is, pretty much stable for the time length of any practical experiment but unstable to the point leaving a deadly waste, even if in small quantities.
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
On 11/13/2011 1:15 PM, Vorl Bek wrote: I have had it with Mary Yugo. I think Mary Yugo is a good addition to this list. Mary Yugo's skepticism is better than excusing Rossi's odd behaviour on the grounds that he must be an eccentric genius. I have no idea if Rossi is a scammer or if he really has something. There's evidence to point both ways. He's certainly... unique. I'd like to be real, but he's gone out of his way to muddy the waters. Now the Pro-Rossi side is going to scream He has nothing to prove to anyone! Yeah, save it, heard it before. I'm going to agree with Vorl Bek and Peter Gluck. Mary is a good addition to the list, she's asking good questions, and has a sense of humor I like. The bacardi comment made me laugh, thanks Mary. Alan, she was kidding around, Google comedy and sarcasm. If you can't poke a little fun at all this mess, well, you're being entirely too serious. Vorl, Peter, the following is not directed at you, so if I say you in what I type below, I am only being general... I'll go on record saying that if anyone here is acting like a fully convicted creationist, it's the pro-Rossi side, at least here on Vortex. The man may be scamming, or he may not be. He may have the find of the century. It'd be great if he did. But just to believe that he isn't doing this... sounds like faith? Things are starting to sound so evangelical it's getting disturbing. But what can I say, I don't have a taste for faith and those sort of things these days, being one-hair-shy-of-an-agnostic. Show me da proof, mah boy. But...but... Rossi has nothing to prove to you!!! Nope, he doesn't, but he's made himself plenty public, made God knows how many claims, and there's money changing hands. How many people worldwide are spending money to replicate this? In the off chance he is lying (or more likely self deluding, if [IF] this isn't the real deal), valuable research time and money is being lost by unaffiliated parties. And while we're at it, you pro-Rossi folk want to talk about a dry run? Well, let's talk about a dry run. The following is an excerpt from a post I almost made, but clicked cancel. I'm sure plenty of you will be glad I didn't post the whole thing, but Warnock or not, here it is: Begin 1. Boiler companies may not (may not is stressed... a new design MAY) do any sort of dry runs, but this is using a technology that is hundreds of years old, and is known to work and reasonably well understood. There are no bullshit isotopes of copper that are somehow stable in an oil furnace. That said, I have talked to an older fellow who once worked with Dunkirk Radiator, and in the design process it is not unheard of to run the thing with line water pressure WITHOUT firing the thing up. How is this different than Rossi's thing? Very simply: Conventional boiler (type 2 diesel oil as example): -Chemical reaction - heats water -No electric heaters contributing to effect -No need to use inert fuel (nitrogen, etc) to see where the anomalous heat is coming from, because there is NO alternate heat source (no electric heater inside) Rossi's boiler (for want of a better term): -Nuclear reaction (unverified) - heats water -Electric heaters involved, contributes to effect by some amount -DEFINITE need to use inert fuel to make certain no nuclear reaction is taking place to see what the difference is between running on pure electric support power, and what the magnitude of the effect is. This is not a debatable point, and is how science is done. PERIOD. If you want to take Rossi's statement on face value, remember the N-rays. And that isn't science, so maybe you'd better go to church instead. 1a. Why would you NOT do this to convince anyone? 1b. Rossi doesn't want to convince anyone, but he wants to sell. Why not do both when it is cheap to do so? What have you lost, a little time? You supporters make it sound like the guy has no time to even hit the latrine. 1c. He has nothing to prove to anyone. Granted, fine. But going around making claims is inviting skepticism and criticism. You may be able to get away with it if you're not involving cash, but if you are, well, you'd better get used to it. 1d. If this experiment wasn't the pet favorite topic of the pro-Rossi Vortexians, no one would be doing the 1c above. It would be put up or shut up. End So that's my opinion, and I stick to it. If you like it, great. If not, well, I have other opinions. Sorry Groucho, I honestly do respect your principles. And just one more thing... if anyone here wants to throw the no sneering rule at Mary, or anyone else for that matter, then you better damn well do as Eric Clapton said: Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself. Read your own posts, and remove the spanish galleon from thine own eye before picking at sawdust. I will say this, and I am convinced of it; if this didn't have to do with cold fusion, if Rossi was claiming antigravity or something else, things would
Re: [Vo]:People who will not do their homework do not deserve a response
Mary Yugo has competent, courteous company in her skepticism -- especially Scott Little of earthtech.org in Austin, Texas, whose website displays an excellent calorimeter and many careful attempts since about 1995 to replicate CF experiments, including SPAWAR codeposition with D-Pd in a lithium chloride and palladium chloride electrolyte: http://www.earthtech.org/index.php/spawar
Re: [Vo]:Was it ever detected isotopes with medium half lives in transmutations
Before seeing it, I am referring to transmutations of cold fusion. I wonder why such isotopes haven't been seen, as far as I could search the literature. Not finding such isotopes would be a sort of Huizenga's 4th miracle, because there isn't anything that would stop such isotopes from forming in relation to any others. Also, forming these isotopes would be a confirmation that such transmutations are indeed happening and are not due any sort of contamination. -- Forwarded message -- From: fznidar...@aol.com Date: 2011/11/14 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Was it ever detected isotopes with medium half lives in transmutations To: vortex-l@eskimo.com There was a movie about this in 1952 http://www.hulu.com/watch/70146/tales-of-tomorrow-ahead-of-his-time Frank Znidarsic -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 13, 2011 9:56 am Subject: [Vo]:Was it ever detected isotopes with medium half lives in transmutations I don't remember in seeing in any paper isotopes with half lives of 1year to 1 years. That is, pretty much stable for the time length of any practical experiment but unstable to the point leaving a deadly waste, even if in small quantities.
[Vo]:The Saint
Do you believe in coincidence? Neither do I. Tonight Cinemax aired a poorly received movie, poorly received in 1997 when it was released. It starred Val Kilmer as the notorious Saint, Simon Templar, along with Elizabeth Shue as Dr.Emma Russell. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120053/ If you're not familiar with the movie, you'll probably want to read the summary and possibly add it to your Netflix queue, assuming you still subscribe to the service after their fiasco. Having seen the movie when it came out, it impressed me further today when I was reminded of something I had forgotten. Dr. Russell, having proved cold fusion, after a very convoluted, conspiracy ridden plot, decided to present her experimental results to the world as a gift. She stood to make trillions, but she gave it to the world as a gratis. Templar also gave a few gifts of his own. So, while I do not expect such a noble gesture, nor a Nobel gesture, from Rossi, it does give one hope that someone out there is trying to say something by reviving this movie at this particular time. We call it disclosure in another hobby of mine. At a time of such financial crises in the world today, we could use such a disclosure. T
Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?
Hear, hear! On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Kyle Mcallister kyle_mcallis...@yahoo.comwrote: On 11/13/2011 1:15 PM, Vorl Bek wrote: Jed: I have had it with Mary Yugo. I think Mary Yugo is a good addition to this list. Mary Yugo's skepticism is better than excusing Rossi's odd behaviour on the grounds that he must be an eccentric genius.
Re: [Vo]:Order Form
What is this drivel? An attempt at humor. Sorry it didn't rattle your funny bone!
Re: [Vo]:People who will not do their homework do not deserve a response
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo has competent, courteous company in her skepticism -- especially Scott Little of earthtech.org in Austin, Texas, whose website displays an excellent calorimeter and many careful attempts since about 1995 to replicate CF experiments, including SPAWAR codeposition with D-Pd in a lithium chloride and palladium chloride electrolyte: http://www.earthtech.org/index.php/spawar Has Scott or his progeny Marissa commented on the Rossi Reactor? I think not. I know Marissa was on the Stoern forum for a while. But, for you to extrapolate them to this situation is inappropriate. But not unexpected from you Murray. BTW, what happened to your zen-laden sig file? T
Re: [Vo]:Order Form
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:09 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: What is this drivel? An attempt at humor. Sorry it didn't rattle your funny bone! Since when was putting people down humorous? Will you never run out of excuses and plausible but totally fake explanations? :D
Re: [Vo]:People who will not do their homework do not deserve a response
uh, Zen doesn't exist either, while reports of my survival are premature... Ri ch a r ... On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo has competent, courteous company in her skepticism -- especially Scott Little of earthtech.org in Austin, Texas, whose website displays an excellent calorimeter and many careful attempts since about 1995 to replicate CF experiments, including SPAWAR codeposition with D-Pd in a lithium chloride and palladium chloride electrolyte: http://www.earthtech.org/index.php/spawar Has Scott or his progeny Marissa commented on the Rossi Reactor? I think not. I know Marissa was on the Stoern forum for a while. But, for you to extrapolate them to this situation is inappropriate. But not unexpected from you Murray. BTW, what happened to your zen-laden sig file? T
Re: [Vo]:People who will not do their homework do not deserve a response
No, neither Scott nor Marissa replied to my emails months ago re Rossi -- apparently their tea leaves were so dry re this claim that they floated right away into nanodust -- as the Knight said to Death in Bergman's The Seventh Seal, while they were playing chess for life or death (for the Knight...), Your silence is most eloquent, my Lord... On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: uh, Zen doesn't exist either, while reports of my survival are premature... Ri ch a r ... On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo has competent, courteous company in her skepticism -- especially Scott Little of earthtech.org in Austin, Texas, whose website displays an excellent calorimeter and many careful attempts since about 1995 to replicate CF experiments, including SPAWAR codeposition with D-Pd in a lithium chloride and palladium chloride electrolyte: http://www.earthtech.org/index.php/spawar Has Scott or his progeny Marissa commented on the Rossi Reactor? I think not. I know Marissa was on the Stoern forum for a while. But, for you to extrapolate them to this situation is inappropriate. But not unexpected from you Murray. BTW, what happened to your zen-laden sig file? T
Re: [Vo]:Order Form
Because of the overall, all enveloping unity within which we all operate and cooperate, in every exchange between ALL being A and ALL being B is that A mirrors B to B, while B mirrors A to A, if one studies the actual transactions: ...Will you never run out of excuses and plausible but totally fake explanations?... So, it helps a lot to be humble, playful, gentle, humorous, careful, compassionate, patient, open, and keenly interested in any logs in one's own eye -- wiping it with a fingertip of spit helps, as Jesus was accurately reported to do... On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Esa Ruoho esaru...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:09 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: What is this drivel? An attempt at humor. Sorry it didn't rattle your funny bone! Since when was putting people down humorous? Will you never run out of excuses and plausible but totally fake explanations? :D
Re: [Vo]:People who will not do their homework do not deserve a response
Mary Yugo wrote: Even then, as recently as 6 months ago, someone sank another half million Euros in Steorn. I found that pretty amazing. I guess there are always some people who are beyond help and don't listen to reason. If this is the case and Steorn is a fraud, then those who have invested the money may appeal to court to get the full monetary compensation. If it is clear that Steorn has not used invested money for real research, then it is considered a fraud, and in Europe punishments are quite severe. For example Finnish aluminium battery inventor Rainer Partanen raised same 1.3 megaeuros of money from investors with his company Europositron and he is now imprisoned two and half year sentence and was requires to pay back at least 800 kiloeuros and that sum may rise even further, because not yet all the investors have appealed for compensation. This is the reason why it is impossible to make money with a fraud. It may be possible to get a decent job with false research, but there is no way to become rich. Because investors may withdraw all the money they have invested if they are not satisfied for the search and it can be shown in police investigation that invested money has been misused for leisure activities. Also fraudulent and exaggerated claims may be, if shown, considered as an act of fraud, because those who are seeking public money are not allowed to give misleading information for the investors. And for the long run it is not satisfactory to do hard research work, if it is sure that there cannot possibly be decent payback. Please note, that there are lots of people who genuinely are researching free energy, and they get appropriate and decent financial support (such as Randell Mills). The fact that they may not succeed with their research, does not make them a fraudsters, because at least they have tried to find a creative solution for the energy crisis. Those, such as Bill Gates, who are investing into alternative energy research companies, usually know exactly what they are doing. —Jouni
RE: [Vo]:Was it ever detected isotopes with medium half lives in transmutations
From: Daniel Rocha * Before seeing it, I am referring to transmutations of cold fusion. I wonder why such isotopes haven't been seen, as far as I could search the literature. Not sure what you are referring to, but there are many isotopes in that stability range - notably radium 226 (1,600 years half-life) which was commercially important many years ago for clock and watch dials.
Re: [Vo]:Was it ever detected isotopes with medium half lives in transmutations
Oh! Nice! Would you mind showing a paper with such transmutation? Perhaps an example in each order of magnitude in the interval. 2011/11/14 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net *From:* Daniel Rocha ** ** **Ø **Before seeing it, I am referring to transmutations of cold fusion. I wonder why such isotopes haven't been seen, as far as I could search the literature. ** ** Not sure what you are referring to, but there are many isotopes in that stability range – notably radium 226 (1,600 years half-life) which was commercially important many years ago for clock and watch dials. ** **
[Vo]:test, ignore
test, ignore. thank you.
Re: [Vo]:Oct. 28 demo: 3716 liters of water vaporized
Well, Mary Yugo, I find the similarities between Steorn and Rossi pretty compelling -- you've shifted my attitude a lot -- it's less plausible for me now to hope that Rossi is merely deluded, rather than running a competent scam -- you suggest it is actually to carry out such a scam and get away with the cash -- obviously works over 2 decades so far for BlackLight Power... thanks, Rich On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: It's pretty easy to scam a customer if you only sell one item and flee, if you sell items so cheaply that the duped find the cost of recovery higher than the value recovered, or if the item sold is actually illegal. But selling large industrial equipment to a knowledgeable customer with a large legal department, in the hope of then selling them another one in three months is a scammers nightmare. Investors exchange money for an unknown future return. Business plans typically change radically as they encounter reality, unknown unknowns dominate the landscape. Decisions to invest are often irrational, emotional, and have less to do with physics than with hope. Investors are the ideal targets for a scammer: they are already dealing in intangibles and the time lines are long and the opportunities for the scammer to exit, stage left, are numerous. Investors are making high risk, high return bets. When we discuss the flow of money here, I think we should be clear about the role of the customer vs. investor, and draw conclusions as appropriate. Steorns actions are entirely consistent with wishful thinking on the part of investors and entrepreneur (if not an outright scam); Rossis actions are entirely consistent with a bold attempt to bootstrap a business on personal capital and customer sales. Perhaps you're relying too much on what Rossi *says*. The Rossi story looks superficially much like Steorn's. In January 2010, Steorn gave a big and flamboyant but silly demo at the Waterways Museum in Dublin. They claimed that their spinning magnetic motor was overunity (making more energy than it used) but it required an obvious and large battery to run. It was tested in public but only with Steorn's instruments, setup and methods. The test results were not as convincing as Rossi's but Steorn said they were good. In this case, the audience asked better questions than the sort Rossi is asked after his demos. Steorn deflected the questions. They also removed the question and answer portion from their videos of the event. Fortunately, someone else preserved them. They helped confirm in many people's minds that Steorn did not have any unusual device and that their claims were wrong. Steorn also claimed that they were setting aside two days of the museum rental period in order to let private companies who had applied to test the device do so on their own terms. That is analogous to Rossi's claim that someone bought a megawatt plant and is testing it. Since then, Steorn said many companies tested but they have never told anyone who the companies were. No company has ever confirmed that they tested or bought any Steorn product. Free Energy Truth (Craig Brown) reported only glowing praise of those events, not the proper questions and ridiculous answers that followed. I don't recall exactly but best I remember, Sterling Allan also continued to promote Steorn from his site despite the bizarre results of the Waterways demo. Possibly, that is where we will be in a year with Rossi. He may claim more sales but they may be secret also. He may claim university research is being done but it also may remain secret. Steorn's scam, for those who accept that it was and is a scam, was collecting 20+ million Euros from investors. They did not scam buyers/customers because there probably never was one. One theory about Rossi is that it's an investor scam, not a purchaser scam. You are relying on Rossi's word for the customer being real and distinct and separate from Rossi. But even Jed Rothwell admits that much of what Rossi has said in the past was hype, exaggeration, and sometimes plain lies. I do not see why he would be trusted when he says he has a customer for that awkward and poorly put together machine in the container. Investor scams are much more convenient for the scammer than customer scams. The written agreements with the investors can be cleverly written so as to make the prospects for the device seem less certain than what the promoter says to them in secret verbally. There can be NDA's which may prevent investors from complaining in public and on forums. The scammer can appear to meet deadlines for demonstrations and products without actually doing so in a meaningful way. At one big meeting with prestigious scientists from all over the world, Steorn showed only a pitiful Minato type wheel that couldn't and didn't work and then they claimed the ridiculous excuse that its
Re: [Vo]:Was it ever detected isotopes with medium half lives in transmutations
See Reports of tritium production from Rossi-like experiments Jones Beene http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg49057.html On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Oh! Nice! Would you mind showing a paper with such transmutation? Perhaps an example in each order of magnitude in the interval. 2011/11/14 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net *From:* Daniel Rocha ** ** **Ø **Before seeing it, I am referring to transmutations of cold fusion. I wonder why such isotopes haven't been seen, as far as I could search the literature. ** ** Not sure what you are referring to, but there are many isotopes in that stability range – notably radium 226 (1,600 years half-life) which was commercially important many years ago for clock and watch dials. ** **
[Vo]:a modest proposal
I'd like to offer a modest proposal: namely, that we all forget Rossi and focus on how to move the field of LENR forward, either to a definitive demonstration that it has potential we should pursue with greater resources, or to a recognition that there's no there there, and that we should look elsewhere for solutions to humanity's energy needs. Let me try to support this proposal. First, the part about forget Rossi: I think Rossi has been an enormous time/talent sink with no benefit to the LENR field. Arguably, he's set the field back quite a lot. Look back at the posts here at Vortex and consider how much time and effort has been spent by a bunch of smart people in trying to figure out what Rossi has or doesn't have. Wet steam, dry steam. What about that thermocouple/pump/contract with U of B/whatever? Generator on or off during the run? etc., etc, with no end in sight. I believe it's been wasted effort. Rossi provides very little information that can be independently confirmed. Thus, we fill in the blanks according to our predispositions - those who very much want to believe he has something wonderful find ways to rationalize his conduct to harmonize with his claims. Those who require independent confirmation of extraordinary claims dismiss him out of hand. I don't know what Rossi has. Given the dearth of confirmable information he's provided, I *can't* know what he has. Believing he's made a breakthrough would require taking him at his word, which is an exercise of faith that I can't justify in light of his conduct. But dismissing the entire field of LENR because of Rossi's claims isn't consistent with what seem to me to be glimmerings of phenomena we ought to be investigating with both vigor and detachment. So I'm dumping Rossi. Figuring out the truth of the man's activities seems rather too close to our ancestors' use of divination to predict their future - attempts to make information-starved decisions that devolve to futile exercises in misplaced faith and colossal wastes of time and talent. If he has something, it will eventually surface in unambiguous form. Meanwhile, life is short, and I have better ways to allocate my time. I'm reading no more stories about Rossi and will spend no further time considering or discussing his claims. I've decided to adopt a tough loveattitude to those who work in LENR. I'm grateful for their work, and I'll be glad to review their results. But in exchange for giving my time and intelligence to review their work, the work has to be worth looking at. The experiments have to be fully described. Claims made have to be supported with data. The work has to be replicable, and eventually replicated, by independent investigators. I will ignore investigators who omit data or play coy in any way for supposed commercial reasons. I recognize there are valid business reasons for secrecy. But because secrecy so easily masks self-delusion or fraud, and so inhibits exposure of honest errors, I won't pay attention to those who offer results without making themselves available for full disclosure. Not worth my time, nor, may I suggest, yours. Second, I think the field of LENR lacks the credibility to have a fair chance at demonstrating its potential or lack thereof. My (admittedly limited) impression of the field is that it's a collection of interesting, suggestive, but nondefinitive results which, taken as a whole, aren't yet convincing to people who can spend serious money to figure out what's going on, or whether there's anything going on at all. For example, I've read Arata's results and hoped for an independent lab replicate and extend them. I keep looking for more about Brian Ahern's replication of Arata's work, but I don't see any publications. I read about SPARAW's CR-39 neutron detection results and the criticisms thereof. I've reviewed Piantelli's publications, and many others'. Lots of effort, all of it thusfar falling short of providing definitive, in-your-face proof that LENR merits serious resources. Whatever your assessment of the work to date, I think you'd agree that the field isn't exactly storming forward at the moment. It's starved of resources and seems riven by destructive partisan squabbles. The questions that I think should be discussed here on Vortex and elsewhere are: what are the critical experiments that need to be done to elevate LENR's credibility to something that merits real resources? By that, I mean motivating government and/or industry to put several hundred million dollars per year into at least ten years of investigation by first-rate workers with good facilities and with no axe to grind about the results. How should those experiments be done, in detail? Who should do them first, and who should replicate them later? Who might fund this work, why should they fund it, and what's the nature of the program that will convince resource allocaters to take
Re: [Vo]:Was it ever detected isotopes with medium half lives in transmutations
What about other elements than tritium? Tritium is a consequence of the decay of Lithium and Berilium formed by the successive stages of deuterium fusion or hydrogen, for example. I am thinking more about heavier elements, that should be formed by transmutation of the containing lattice. 2011/11/14 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com See Reports of tritium production from Rossi-like experiments Jones Beene http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg49057.html On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Oh! Nice! Would you mind showing a paper with such transmutation? Perhaps an example in each order of magnitude in the interval. 2011/11/14 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net *From:* Daniel Rocha ** ** **Ø **Before seeing it, I am referring to transmutations of cold fusion. I wonder why such isotopes haven't been seen, as far as I could search the literature. ** ** Not sure what you are referring to, but there are many isotopes in that stability range – notably radium 226 (1,600 years half-life) which was commercially important many years ago for clock and watch dials. ** **
Re: [Vo]:
also, the barking dog: MU!!! an excellent teaching -- I never read that book -- thanks! Would you sponsor me as a member of the CMNS group? I trust that whatever you decide is a good decision. No one owes me an explanation for any decision they make. with appreciation, Rich On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: My dear friends, I have just published : http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/11/informavores-sunday-no-481.html You will not find here a definitive answer for the E-cat Enigma just some vague suggestions how to proceed in such cases of informational chaos. You will be able to see much more clearly the darkness at the end of the tunnel. Yours, as always, Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Oct. 28 demo: 3716 liters of water vaporized
Rich Murray: Re: Joshua Cude, can you assess Robert E. Godes, Brillouin Energy Corp. energy claims and theory? Rich Murray 2011.02.27 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg43133.html You brought up Brillouin Energy Corporation awhile back. You asked for some reaction from people. Many people think that Brillouin experiments supports Rossi's claims. Mary Yugo has Steorn on the brain. These two systems:Steorn and Rossi, are not alike. I would like a critic of Brillouin Energy Corporation from the naysayers; their science is on a track that somewhat parallels Rossi. Mary will be more technically conformable with Brillouin since it does produce neutrons and radioactive wastes. Brillouin is also very open and you can replicate their reaction right from their documentation. Kind Regards: Axil On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: Well, Mary Yugo, I find the similarities between Steorn and Rossi pretty compelling -- you've shifted my attitude a lot -- it's less plausible for me now to hope that Rossi is merely deluded, rather than running a competent scam -- you suggest it is actually to carry out such a scam and get away with the cash -- obviously works over 2 decades so far for BlackLight Power... thanks, Rich On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: It's pretty easy to scam a customer if you only sell one item and flee, if you sell items so cheaply that the duped find the cost of recovery higher than the value recovered, or if the item sold is actually illegal. But selling large industrial equipment to a knowledgeable customer with a large legal department, in the hope of then selling them another one in three months is a scammers nightmare. Investors exchange money for an unknown future return. Business plans typically change radically as they encounter reality, unknown unknowns dominate the landscape. Decisions to invest are often irrational, emotional, and have less to do with physics than with hope. Investors are the ideal targets for a scammer: they are already dealing in intangibles and the time lines are long and the opportunities for the scammer to exit, stage left, are numerous. Investors are making high risk, high return bets. When we discuss the flow of money here, I think we should be clear about the role of the customer vs. investor, and draw conclusions as appropriate. Steorns actions are entirely consistent with wishful thinking on the part of investors and entrepreneur (if not an outright scam); Rossis actions are entirely consistent with a bold attempt to bootstrap a business on personal capital and customer sales. Perhaps you're relying too much on what Rossi *says*. The Rossi story looks superficially much like Steorn's. In January 2010, Steorn gave a big and flamboyant but silly demo at the Waterways Museum in Dublin. They claimed that their spinning magnetic motor was overunity (making more energy than it used) but it required an obvious and large battery to run. It was tested in public but only with Steorn's instruments, setup and methods. The test results were not as convincing as Rossi's but Steorn said they were good. In this case, the audience asked better questions than the sort Rossi is asked after his demos. Steorn deflected the questions. They also removed the question and answer portion from their videos of the event. Fortunately, someone else preserved them. They helped confirm in many people's minds that Steorn did not have any unusual device and that their claims were wrong. Steorn also claimed that they were setting aside two days of the museum rental period in order to let private companies who had applied to test the device do so on their own terms. That is analogous to Rossi's claim that someone bought a megawatt plant and is testing it. Since then, Steorn said many companies tested but they have never told anyone who the companies were. No company has ever confirmed that they tested or bought any Steorn product. Free Energy Truth (Craig Brown) reported only glowing praise of those events, not the proper questions and ridiculous answers that followed. I don't recall exactly but best I remember, Sterling Allan also continued to promote Steorn from his site despite the bizarre results of the Waterways demo. Possibly, that is where we will be in a year with Rossi. He may claim more sales but they may be secret also. He may claim university research is being done but it also may remain secret. Steorn's scam, for those who accept that it was and is a scam, was collecting 20+ million Euros from investors. They did not scam buyers/customers because there probably never was one. One theory about Rossi is that it's an investor scam, not a purchaser scam. You are relying on Rossi's word for the customer being real and distinct and separate from Rossi. But even Jed Rothwell admits that much
Re: [Vo]:Was it ever detected isotopes with medium half lives in transmutations
If you read Mileys results, he produced 39 elements many new with diverging isotopic concentrations. One of the most interesting parts of Miley’s work (presented in the slides) is that he has created a unique analysis tool to do precise but broad based analysis of content of elements within the nickel powder. He checks the powder, sets up the machine, heats up the device, then lets it run wherein it generates more energy than is put into it. Then he takes the powder and analyzes its content again. He finds that 39 different elements have statistically significant shifts of isotope abundance. That’s interesting to say the least. The results really haven’t been processed by anyone yet in terms of what it means for a theory describing how these things work, I have my own ideas but that doesn’t mean much. But Miley wants the test run on Rossi’s device and I sure would like to see that also. On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: What about other elements than tritium? Tritium is a consequence of the decay of Lithium and Berilium formed by the successive stages of deuterium fusion or hydrogen, for example. I am thinking more about heavier elements, that should be formed by transmutation of the containing lattice. 2011/11/14 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com See Reports of tritium production from Rossi-like experiments Jones Beene http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg49057.html On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Oh! Nice! Would you mind showing a paper with such transmutation? Perhaps an example in each order of magnitude in the interval. 2011/11/14 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net *From:* Daniel Rocha ** ** **Ø **Before seeing it, I am referring to transmutations of cold fusion. I wonder why such isotopes haven't been seen, as far as I could search the literature. ** ** Not sure what you are referring to, but there are many isotopes in that stability range – notably radium 226 (1,600 years half-life) which was commercially important many years ago for clock and watch dials. ** **
Re: [Vo]:Oct. 28 demo: 3716 liters of water vaporized
I haven't been able to find a published journal article to get the kind of detailed information that would enable me to assess Robert E. Godes, Brillouin Energy Corp. energy claims and theory -- I haven't succeeded in developing a discussion with him. So, as yet, the lack of detailed public evidence is the evidence, as usual... If you have found detailed documentation, please make it available for public discussion. On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Rich Murray: Re: Joshua Cude, can you assess Robert E. Godes, Brillouin Energy Corp. energy claims and theory? Rich Murray 2011.02.27 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg43133.html You brought up Brillouin Energy Corporation awhile back. You asked for some reaction from people. Many people think that Brillouin experiments supports Rossi's claims. Mary Yugo has Steorn on the brain. These two systems: Steorn and Rossi, are not alike. I would like a critic of Brillouin Energy Corporation from the naysayers; their science is on a track that somewhat parallels Rossi. Mary will be more technically conformable with Brillouin since it does produce neutrons and radioactive wastes. Brillouin is also very open and you can replicate their reaction right from their documentation. Kind Regards: Axil On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: Well, Mary Yugo, I find the similarities between Steorn and Rossi pretty compelling -- you've shifted my attitude a lot -- it's less plausible for me now to hope that Rossi is merely deluded, rather than running a competent scam -- you suggest it is actually to carry out such a scam and get away with the cash -- obviously works over 2 decades so far for BlackLight Power... thanks, Rich On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: It's pretty easy to scam a customer if you only sell one item and flee, if you sell items so cheaply that the duped find the cost of recovery higher than the value recovered, or if the item sold is actually illegal. But selling large industrial equipment to a knowledgeable customer with a large legal department, in the hope of then selling them another one in three months is a scammers nightmare. Investors exchange money for an unknown future return. Business plans typically change radically as they encounter reality, unknown unknowns dominate the landscape. Decisions to invest are often irrational, emotional, and have less to do with physics than with hope. Investors are the ideal targets for a scammer: they are already dealing in intangibles and the time lines are long and the opportunities for the scammer to exit, stage left, are numerous. Investors are making high risk, high return bets. When we discuss the flow of money here, I think we should be clear about the role of the customer vs. investor, and draw conclusions as appropriate. Steorns actions are entirely consistent with wishful thinking on the part of investors and entrepreneur (if not an outright scam); Rossis actions are entirely consistent with a bold attempt to bootstrap a business on personal capital and customer sales. Perhaps you're relying too much on what Rossi *says*. The Rossi story looks superficially much like Steorn's. In January 2010, Steorn gave a big and flamboyant but silly demo at the Waterways Museum in Dublin. They claimed that their spinning magnetic motor was overunity (making more energy than it used) but it required an obvious and large battery to run. It was tested in public but only with Steorn's instruments, setup and methods. The test results were not as convincing as Rossi's but Steorn said they were good. In this case, the audience asked better questions than the sort Rossi is asked after his demos. Steorn deflected the questions. They also removed the question and answer portion from their videos of the event. Fortunately, someone else preserved them. They helped confirm in many people's minds that Steorn did not have any unusual device and that their claims were wrong. Steorn also claimed that they were setting aside two days of the museum rental period in order to let private companies who had applied to test the device do so on their own terms. That is analogous to Rossi's claim that someone bought a megawatt plant and is testing it. Since then, Steorn said many companies tested but they have never told anyone who the companies were. No company has ever confirmed that they tested or bought any Steorn product. Free Energy Truth (Craig Brown) reported only glowing praise of those events, not the proper questions and ridiculous answers that followed. I don't recall exactly but best I remember, Sterling Allan also continued to promote Steorn from his site despite the bizarre results of the Waterways demo. Possibly, that is where we will be in a year with Rossi. He may claim more sales but
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Radio : advertising a scam ?
Galantini performed the dryness measurement 2011/11/13 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com Did I get the wrong guy? Who measured the dryness of steam with a Testo HVAC meter? Thanks for any correction. On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/11/13 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com: The issue isn't only or even mainly the instruments except for Bianchini using some silly Testo HVAC meter to pronounce the steam dry when the meter couldn't do that. Bianchini measured radioactivity IIRC.
