date:20111117

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Marcello Vitale wrote:

> Rich, are you talking about Mary and those who, like her, keep saying they
> KNOW what is going on despite lacking all knowledge, experience,
> understanding, skill, intuition...? :-
>

Marcello, I asked you before.  What are you writing about? I don't
understand you and you're talking about me and saying incorrect things!

I never said I knew "what's going on" in terms of the details of what Rossi
is doing.  He doesn't provide enough information to know exactly.  I just
dislike how it looks and smells.  Despite that, I never said I knew for
certain that he was a scammer or that I had proof of a scam.  As for
knowledge, experience, understanding, and skill, I once was part of team
who designed calorimeters not unlike those that Rossi could use to prove
that his smaller E-cats behave as he says.  What more experience, etc.,
would you want?

So, sorry, but you're incorrect unless I misunderstood you.  I do have the
skills required to evaluate some if not all aspects of Rossi's experiments
-- I stick to what I know.  And I am NOT saying I "KNOW" what is going on
with Rossi behind the scenes.

Maybe we could have a better discussion if you stuck to issues such as the
need for independent testing.   Rossi continues to refuse to get it despite
Celani's excellent and entirely reasonable offer.  Why don't you discuss
why Rossi doesn't take up Celani? If Celani proved Rossi right, it would
end the skeptical chatter you seem to dislike so much.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Only two theories left. The big conspiracy theory and the true energy production theory.

2011-11-17 Thread Marcello Vitale

Rich, are you talking about Mary and those who, like her, keep saying they
KNOW what is going on despite lacking all knowledge, experience,
understanding, skill, intuition...? :-

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Rich Murray  wrote:

> "We may have a situation of one scammer and a lot of people who should
> have known better."
>
> right, one confused, deluded, desperate person, and his enablers, to use
> addiction treatment jargon...
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Mary Yugo  wrote:
>
> If this E-cat business turns out, as I strongly suspect it will, to be a
>> scam, I suspect Rossi will be the only scammer among the "usual suspects".
>> Along the way, he will have had to have accomplices and helpers -- some
>> with knowledge and some without.  I doubt Focardi was in on any scam.  I
>> have no idea about Levi -- he's a puzzlement.  Supposedly, he did the best
>> test of the E-cat EVER.  And then the guy won't repeat it with proper
>> recording, imaging and documentation?   He won't compel Rossi to let him do
>> that?  And he won't change his mind about the device when Rossi tells him
>> no?  I have no idea how that could work.   But then airplanes have been
>> flown into the ground killing everyone on board because a first officer
>> wouldn't question a bad decision from the captain in charge.
>>
>> Stremmenos is a puzzle too.  Is he really that credulous and incautious
>> as to endorse what Rossi has been doing?
>>
>> We may have a situation of one scammer and a lot of people who should
>> have known better.
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

2011-11-17 Thread Marcello Vitale

All I can say is that you have an uncanny ability to always find a way to
twist anything in a negative direction. A sitcom mother-in-law :-


On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Marcello Vitale wrote:
>
>> Having agents or other sales organizations is normal for B2B, where the
>> customer wants support for the product, asks a lot of questions, is an
>> expert of what he/she is buying. Again, it is not normal for retail
>> snake-oil peddlers to also recruit agents, unless those are the scam
>> victims themselves. The figure of the scamming agent is, instead, sooo
>> normal.
>
>
> Not sure what you're saying here.  It seems as if Rossi is asking a
> scammer to sell his ecat.  Why?  He can't get a legitimate sales company
> for heavy equipment or power equipment to do it?
>

Re: [Vo]:Nanomagnetism Theory

Given that REAL is single, self-interactive, fractal and infinite in every
possible way, then it is a reasonable fantasy to guess that something like
"adjacent" "nearby" realms of yet undiscovered energetic things exist, able
to feed tiny to huge to infinite amounts of energy and momentum into our
realm in unexpected ways, just as in 1896 when unexpected and inexplicable
excess heat output appeared in ancient uranium atoms, with various lighter
weight heavy element inpurities, including lead -- so all of us have to
always be alert for black swan anomalies -- in the long run, more fun,
too... from an incompetent scientific layman and pragmatic skeptic...

the new realm was the nuclear, incredibly deep within the flighty little
clouds of the chemical level of electrons and a million times more
energetic... Anyone predict that?  Rutherford looked for and found proof
for the nucleus in 1911, using theory to measure the size and density of
the nucleus in the first nuclear scattering experiments with alpha
particles from radium, with the scientist peering at a screen in the dark,
counting the little flashes -- did he ever shiver, hair standing on end?
 Only 34 years to Hiroshima...

the output of the Sun in all directions for hundreds of millions of years
was a similar embarassment, until 1905, when E = MC^2 opened the door to
more of REAL a crack --

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Examining the web's limited oscillon information, it would appear that it
> is important that the powder not be bound to the side of the reactor as
> conjectured by others.  The powder must remain free and could be located
> in the center of the reactor as stated on the ecat.com web site.
>
>
>
> In defense of the “particles bound to the side of the reactor conjecture’
> made with the greatest respect to your opinion…
>
> I don’t yet see a justification that the powder must vibrate. In fact,
> Rossi has stated that the powder was in the micron range which may be too
> heavy to be affected by sub-nanometer quantum mechanical vibrations which
> affect atoms at very low temperatures.
>
> Rossi has indicated that his powder is micron sized. It is the tubercle
> surface coverings on the particles that are nano-sized. Vacuum energy
> springing forth from any particular point in space, is most probably too
> feeble to move a micron sized particle into motion.
>
> But the particle may need to be as small as those found in cold hydrogen
> dusty plasma. A dusty plasma contains tiny charged particles of dust (as
> typically found in space), which also behaves like a plasma. Plasma that
> contains larger particles is called grain plasma.
>
> The information we have about the Rossi reaction points to the formation
> of exotic hydrogen spices comprised of multiple atoms configured in a
> number of crystalline forms.
>
> It may be these plasma derived dust particles which are the subject to
> vibrations.
>
> Next, the temperatures within the Rossi reactor are above the Curie
> temperature of nickel which would remove any magnetic property interactions
> that are mentioned associated with these vibrations.
>
> However, Rydberg hydrogen crystals are exquisitely reactive to magnetic
> influence because of their electromagnetic characteristics.
>
> Furthermore, in living systems that have been referenced, nickel is seldom
> if ever involved, but hydrogen in some form or another are always found.
>
> In short, Rydberg hydrogen crystals may be the subject of the oscillon
> mechanism.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
>
>>
>> Examining the web's limited oscillon information, it would appear that it
>> is important that the powder not be bound to the side of the reactor as
>> conjectured by others.  The powder must remain free and could be located in
>> the center of the reactor as stated on the ecat.com web site.
>>
>> Also, if oscillon activity does explain the anomalous heat in the Rossi
>> Reactor, it is easily understood why an external exciter is necessary, eg
>> the "frequencies" described by AR.
>>
>> Now comes the speculation for the heat source.  It definitely could be a
>> ZPF heat generator considering that the standing collisions could be
>> limiting the pair formation much like a Casimir cavity or could be allowing
>> rapid pair separation similar to the "mirror" discussed previously.
>>
>> In such case, the energy source could really be positron annihilation,
>> each one liberating 0.511 MeV.
>>
>> I think Ahern, et al have found the secret with this oscillon theory.  If
>> so, the new game begins.
>>
>> Here is a simple explanation of oscillons:
>>
>> http://www.raczynski.com/art/oscillon.htm
>>
>> T
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:ECAT site claims "thin Ni layer at center of reactor core"

2011-11-17 Thread Axil Axil

One indication that speaks against the production of steady state plasma is
the pulsed nature of the power fed to the internal heater.

The internal heater is most probably made of nichrome. *Nichrome* is a
non-magnetic alloy of nickel, chromium, and often iron, usually used as a
resistance wire.

When the electric power pulses into the internal heater, plasma may form
very close to the hot surface of the internal heater. When the power is
periodically removed, the plasma very near the surface of the internal
heater cools and Rydberg species of some form will assemble into crystals
and float throughout the volume of the hydrogen envelop.

In a pulsed power feed mode, the power may be high during the on period.
However when the power is measured over time, the meter will measure an
average power delivered to the heater which will be much less then that
maximum power that produced the plasma in burst mode.

Also, the temperature of the hydrogen envelope must always remain below the
plasma production temperature to avoid a runaway burn up reaction.

I conclude from the aforementioned train of thought, the active agent of
the Rossi reaction must be stable at low temperatures under that production
temperature needed for production of steady state plasma.

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Ron Wormus  wrote:

> True enough but the temp is a bit higher. I just don't see igniting a
> plasma at those pressures with the input power being reported.
> Ron
>
>
> --On Thursday, November 17, 2011 2:50 PM -0200 Daniel Rocha <
> danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sun's core operates in even higher pressure! :)
>>
>>
>> 2011/11/17 Ron Wormus 
>>
>> What makes you think that a plasma is formed in Ross's device? It
>> operates at high pressure (25
>> Bars) so I doubt that plasma is involved at all.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]: UK's DECC "Monitoring the sector" (LENR)

2011-11-17 Thread Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint

Mary stated,

"In other words, they don't believe Rossi either, on the evidence that he's
provided."

 

You're so adept at pointing out the obvious.

-m

 

From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 8:54 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: UK's DECC "Monitoring the sector" (LENR)

 

 

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Craig Brown  wrote:

I recently contacted DECC (UK equivalent of DoE) to get their view on what
they thought about the ecat, and to see if they had even heard of it.  I got
quite an interesting reply. Trigger for "further action" is an interesting
phrase.

 

 

"DECC is aware of this alleged power source: the DECC CSA, David MacKay FRS,
has read some of the literature and has met Sven Kulander, who has reviewed
an experiment and whose report is on the Defkalion website. The CSA's
judgment is that it is appropriate for DECC to maintain a watch on this
sector, with the key trigger for further action being the publication of the
work in a reputable peer-refereed journal, including full details so that
academic scientists can replicate the results." 


In other words, they don't believe Rossi either, on the evidence that he's
provided.

Re: [Vo]:Ahern to announce LENR findings on December 7 in New York City

2011-11-17 Thread Harry Veeder

This link
http://citi5.org/launch/?p=1833

gives this link at its source
http://e-catsite.com/2011/11/17/rossi-rival-to-announce-cold-fusionlenr-findings/

which in turn gives this link as its source:
http://citi5.org/launch/?p=1826

an almost circular reference

Harry


On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>>
>>> Check this link from their main site:
>>>
>>> http://citi5.org/launch/?p=1833
>>>
>>> they are watching us!  LOL!
>>
>> I apologize for using the word "owned" about Citi5 but whois.net says:
>>
>> Domain ID:D163010237-LROR
>> Domain Name:CITI5.ORG
>> Created On:10-Aug-2011 18:10:09 UTC
>> Last Updated On:10-Oct-2011 03:50:55 UTC
>> Expiration Date:10-Aug-2012 18:10:09 UTC
>> Sponsoring Registrar:Launchpad.com Inc. (R1860-LROR)
>> Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
>> Registrant ID:HG_17386669
>> Registrant Name:Chris Houts
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/chris-houts/34/9a9/b94
>
> T
>
>

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Craig Brown  wrote:

> Pseudosceptics is a better term to be honest. The ones who dispaly bizarre
> behaviour. Like how they are obsessed with protecting the financial
> interests of investers whom they've never met and are overtly concerned
> with saving us all from investing in controversial and exotic energy
> technologies.
>
> Mentioning Pink Invisible Flying Unicorns and a liberal sprinkling of
> references to James Randi, Carl Tilley etc etc, blah blah blah...
>

Yes.  I remind people that Carl Tilley was a crook who stole a half million
dollars from poor Tennessee farmers.  The free energy advocates initially
endorsed, promoted and featured his electric car that never needed
recharging.  He's now a convicted felon for fraud and last I heard was a
fugitive with a bench warrant for his arrest.  It was local TV reporter
skeptics who undid his scam-- not his investors or the believers.

Remember when you thought Dennis Lee had beaten the FTC in court?  Well,
they got the last laugh and the scamming convicted felon was finally shut
down by the FTC skeptics and the FBI.  He was featured on a Dateline NBC
show as the liar that he was.  Still support his HHO and car running on
water nonsense?

You left out Mylow!  Remember Mylow?  He was the joker who laughed at you
while you treated him as if he were a great inventor.Remember how he
strung you and Sterling Allan along with his fishing line and electric
motor?  And how you believed for months that he had a magnetic motor that
ran itself?  You ranted and raved against "pseudosceptics" then too.  But
they were right, were they not?  It wasn't you who enhanced the photos that
revealed the scam.  It was the skeptics.

And do you not still support Steorn and still have their information about
them available on your web site?  What about all their lies and broken
promises since 2006?   What did Steorn's own hand picked jury say?  Why did
Steorn not show them any devices ever?  What happened when Steorn had a
show at the Kinetica Museum?  Did they allow Dr. Mike to "take a
screwdriver" to Orbo?   Where are their African pumps?  Where are their
0.5W/cc power density energy sources?  Where's their solid state Orbo kit?
Can I buy one?  Have they ever sold anything except lame cult club
memberships?  Do you still support them or do you now recognize that they
are scammers?

(Documentation for the above is all available from Google or elsewhere.
Some of the claims and discussions took place in the now deleted Steorn
forum and in comments on Sterling Allan's website.  Some are archived by
Moletrap members, the internet archives, and various private collections)

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing

As a "pragmatic skeptic", playing the essential role in scientific
collaboration of offering reason and public shared evidence based critical
evaluation and alternative interpretations, I caution as a member of the
loyal opposition that the members of the loyal proponents not succumb to
the very human temptation to demonize  ridicule belittle dismiss exclude
those fellows who present opportunities to constantly improve both content
and communication about challenging new lines of advance -- remember most
attacks falter, fail or become mired, but that motivates finding new and
better ways to proceed in exploring the forever complex treasure house of
REAL.   Willingness to positively practice collaboration among very
different points of view and modes of work is key to all human progress,
especially now in the instantaneous world Net.

How do you reverse being turned into a Newton by that witch Mary Yugo?
I don't notweN...

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Craig Brown  wrote:

Pseudosceptics is a better term to be honest. The ones who dispaly bizarre
> behaviour. Like how they are obsessed with protecting the financial
> interests of investers whom they've never met and are overtly concerned
> with saving us all from investing in controversial and exotic energy
> technologies.
>
> Mentioning Pink Invisible Flying Unicorns and a liberal sprinkling of
> references to James Randi, Carl Tilley etc etc, blah blah blah...
>
>
>   Original Message 
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
> From: Terry Blanton 
> Date: Fri, November 18, 2011 2:44 pm
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Craig Brown  wrote:
> >
> > There are only a small handful of what I would fairly term "sceptics"
> left
> > in the world.  The rest who display a clear establishment bias have an
> > agenda to derail and mock legitimate LENR research. MaryYugo as a prime
> > example.
>
> I think some people actually fear such a dramatic change to their world
> view.
>
> "She's a witch!"
>
> "How do you know she's a witch?"
>
> "She turned me into a newt . . . I got better."
>
> "Burn her!"
>
> T
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Nanomagnetism Theory

2011-11-17 Thread Axil Axil

Examining the web's limited oscillon information, it would appear that it
is important that the powder not be bound to the side of the reactor as
conjectured by others.  The powder must remain free and could be located in
the center of the reactor as stated on the ecat.com web site.

In defense of the “particles bound to the side of the reactor conjecture’
made with the greatest respect to your opinion…

I don’t yet see a justification that the powder must vibrate. In fact,
Rossi has stated that the powder was in the micron range which may be too
heavy to be affected by sub-nanometer quantum mechanical vibrations which
affect atoms at very low temperatures.

Rossi has indicated that his powder is micron sized. It is the tubercle
surface coverings on the particles that are nano-sized. Vacuum energy
springing forth from any particular point in space, is most probably too
feeble to move a micron sized particle into motion.

But the particle may need to be as small as those found in cold hydrogen
dusty plasma. A dusty plasma contains tiny charged particles of dust (as
typically found in space), which also behaves like a plasma. Plasma that
contains larger particles is called grain plasma.

The information we have about the Rossi reaction points to the formation of
exotic hydrogen spices comprised of multiple atoms configured in a number
of crystalline forms.

It may be these plasma derived dust particles which are the subject to
vibrations.

Next, the temperatures within the Rossi reactor are above the Curie
temperature of nickel which would remove any magnetic property interactions
that are mentioned associated with these vibrations.

However, Rydberg hydrogen crystals are exquisitely reactive to magnetic
influence because of their electromagnetic characteristics.

Furthermore, in living systems that have been referenced, nickel is seldom
if ever involved, but hydrogen in some form or another are always found.

In short, Rydberg hydrogen crystals may be the subject of the oscillon
mechanism.

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

>
> Examining the web's limited oscillon information, it would appear that it
> is important that the powder not be bound to the side of the reactor as
> conjectured by others.  The powder must remain free and could be located in
> the center of the reactor as stated on the ecat.com web site.
>
> Also, if oscillon activity does explain the anomalous heat in the Rossi
> Reactor, it is easily understood why an external exciter is necessary, eg
> the "frequencies" described by AR.
>
> Now comes the speculation for the heat source.  It definitely could be a
> ZPF heat generator considering that the standing collisions could be
> limiting the pair formation much like a Casimir cavity or could be allowing
> rapid pair separation similar to the "mirror" discussed previously.
>
> In such case, the energy source could really be positron annihilation,
> each one liberating 0.511 MeV.
>
> I think Ahern, et al have found the secret with this oscillon theory.  If
> so, the new game begins.
>
> Here is a simple explanation of oscillons:
>
> http://www.raczynski.com/art/oscillon.htm
>
> T
>

RE: [Vo]: UK's DECC "Monitoring the sector" (LENR)

I never said they DID believe Rossi. This has nothing to do with Rossi, "this sector" refers to LENR in general where Rossi is only one of a growing number of people with interesting and commercially useful results.Mary, you can try and spin their statement any way you like, but it's very clear. Their Chief Scientific Advisor has just admittted that "it is 
appropriate for DECC to maintain a watch on this sector". Their words, not mine. If you are having difficulty in accepting the fact that LENR is now moving slowly into mainstream acceptance by gov agencies then just say so.

 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [Vo]: UK's DECC "Monitoring the sector" (LENR)
From: Mary Yugo 
Date: Fri, November 18, 2011 2:53 pm
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Craig Brown  wrote: I recently contacted DECC (UK equivalent of DoE) to get their view on what they thought about the ecat, and to see if they had even heard of it.  I got quite an interesting reply. Trigger for "further action" is an interesting phrase.  "DECC is aware of this alleged power source: the DECC CSA, David MacKay FRS, has read some of the literature and has met Sven Kulander, who has reviewed an experiment and whose report is on the Defkalion website. The CSA's judgment is that it is appropriate for DECC to maintain a watch on this sector, with the key trigger for further action being the publication of the work in a reputable peer-refereed journal, including full details so that academic scientists can replicate the results." In other words, they don't believe Rossi either, on the evidence that he's provided.

RE: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing

Pseudosceptics is a better term to be honest. The ones who dispaly bizarre behaviour. Like how they are obsessed with protecting the financial interests of investers whom they've never met and are overtly concerned with saving us all from investing in controversial and exotic energy technologies.Mentioning Pink Invisible Flying Unicorns and a liberal sprinkling of references to James Randi, Carl Tilley etc etc, blah blah blah...

 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
From: Terry Blanton 
Date: Fri, November 18, 2011 2:44 pm
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Craig Brown  wrote:
>
> There are only a small handful of what I would fairly term "sceptics" left
> in the world.  The rest who display a clear establishment bias have an
> agenda to derail and mock legitimate LENR research. MaryYugo as a prime
> example.

I think some people actually fear such a dramatic change to their world view.

"She's a witch!"

"How do you know she's a witch?"

"She turned me into a newt . . . I got better."

"Burn her!"

T

Re: [Vo]: UK's DECC "Monitoring the sector" (LENR)

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Craig Brown  wrote:

> I recently contacted DECC (UK equivalent of DoE) to get their view on what
> they thought about the ecat, and to see if they had even heard of it.  I
> got quite an interesting reply. Trigger for "further action" is an
> interesting phrase.*
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *"DECC is aware of this alleged power source: the DECC CSA, David MacKay
> FRS, has read some of the literature and has met Sven Kulander, who has
> reviewed an experiment and whose report is on the Defkalion website. The
> CSA's judgment is that it is appropriate for DECC to maintain a watch on
> this sector, with the key trigger for further action being the publication
> of the work in a reputable peer-refereed journal, including full details so
> that academic scientists can replicate the results."* 
>

In other words, they don't believe Rossi either, on the evidence that he's
provided.

[Vo]: UK's DECC "Monitoring the sector" (LENR)

I recently contacted DECC (UK equivalent of DoE) to get their view on what they thought about the ecat, and to see if they had even heard of it.  I got quite an interesting reply. Trigger for "further action" is an interesting phrase."DECC
 is aware of this alleged power source: the DECC CSA, David MacKay FRS, 
has read some of the literature and has met Sven Kulander, who has 
reviewed an experiment and whose report is on the Defkalion website. The
 CSA's judgment is that it is appropriate for DECC to maintain a watch 
on this sector, with the key trigger for further action being the 
publication of the work in a reputable peer-refereed journal, including 
full details so that academic scientists can replicate the results."

Yours 
sincerely,   
Sandra
 BembridgeDECC Correspondence Unit

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Craig Brown  wrote:
>
> There are only a small handful of what I would fairly term "sceptics" left
> in the world.  The rest who display a clear establishment bias have an
> agenda to derail and mock legitimate LENR research. MaryYugo as a prime
> example.

I think some people actually fear such a dramatic change to their world view.

"She's a witch!"

"How do you know she's a witch?"

"She turned me into a newt . . . I got better."

"Burn her!"

T

[Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing

There are only a small handful of what I would fairly term "sceptics" left in the world.  The rest who display a clear establishment bias have an agenda to derail and mock legitimate LENR research. MaryYugo as a prime example.

 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
From: Terry Blanton 
Date: Fri, November 18, 2011 2:16 pm
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> If the skeptics are right, we are saved, still!

And, thank G-d, we did not have to violate any thermodynamic laws.  PTL!

T

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> (We have also
> suggested chemical reactions.)

Is this the royal "We"?  Are you nobility?  Is so, I will offer due
respect; but, you appear to use a pseudonym, which, BTW, the list
owner frowns upon.

You could be MaryYugo also for all I know.  If so, that's sick!

T

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

>   We can use Rossi's invention to gather the heat of the
> sun during the day and release it at night!

Sorry, nature has beat Rossi to it. That already happens. The ground and
water absorb heat in the day and release it at night. If that didn't happen
we would surely freeze at night.

You can ridicule the notion of storing energy if you like. (We have also
suggested chemical reactions.) But the fact remains that he puts a lot of
energy in during the startup phase. If he can't get more out than he puts
in, that's a pretty useless device, magical energy storage or not. In fact
if he can't get 4 or 5 times more thermal out than electrical in, then it's
no better than a heat pump. No one is claiming heat pumps are going to save
the world.

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> If he had actually pre-heated it, the skeptics would all be screaming that
> he magically "stored up" the heat in advance.
>

Well yes, that would have to be taken in to account. There's nothing magic
about storing heat. But there are limits to the storage of heat, and if the
output exceeds those limits, which would be automatic, if it exceeded the
energy content of an equivalent mass of chemical fuel, then it would still
be a useful demo.

> It is better to do the whole test, from start to finish, in the presence
> of the observers. Anyone who thinks 4 hours of heat after death is
> insufficient would not be satisfied with 40 hours or 4 years.
>

That's what I call irrational. We all admit to limits for heat storage.
Yours estimate is obviously far lower than the skeptics'. Four hours of
heat in the Oct 6 test was the equivalent of a paltry few kg of alcohol, at
most, but the ecat weighs 100 kg.  But clearly once the energy of a mass of
chemical fuel equal to the entire ecat is exceeded, then everyone would
have to be satisfied. And that would be reached in a matter of days or
weeks, depending on the actual output power (which would have to be
measured more carefully). But in a matter of months, even the careful
measurement would not be necessary, and if it lasted years, Rossi would be
god.

> You can't satisfy irrational people who set every-receding goals with no
> technical justification.
>
>
The goals are very well justified technically, and the only thing receding
is Rossi's attempts at meeting them, and the standards his followers
demand. The ecats are getting fatter, lower power, and requiring more
input. Insisting the opposite is happening doesn't make it true.

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> If the skeptics are right, we are saved, still!

And, thank G-d, we did not have to violate any thermodynamic laws.  PTL!

T

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:59 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> I think that they are in fact screaming that it was heated ahead of time.

But think about it Dave.  Even if Rossi has not invented a new source
of energy, he has done something just as phenomenal!

Rossi has created the perfect insulator!

Whatever energy he puts into the device, STAYS IN THE DEVICE.  At
least, until he decides to unleash it for his deception.

Rossi has found a way to heat a fire brick and keep the heat in the
brick.  All of it!

Think of it.  We can use Rossi's invention to gather the heat of the
sun during the day and release it at night!  AND, that will be a lot
cheaper than creating some silly source of energy from cold fusion.
We can take advantage of the HOT Fusion of the sun at night.

If the skeptics are right, we are saved, still!

T

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Robert Leguillon <
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I believe that he was recommending warming up the E-Cats before most of
> the reporters show up, with minimal supervision, if their time is too
> precious.
> It was not a theory on what may have occurred, merely a suggestion on what
> could occur to avail a longer (and hence more conclusive) run time.
> I disagree, but just wanted to clarify.
>
>
Yes. That's what I meant in this instance. Thanks, sometimes I need to be
clarified.

But, in some other posts, I *have* suggested that the multi-cat might have
had some residual heat from previous runs. There certainly appears to be
some, because from time zero in Lewan's spreadsheet, the input water is
15C, and the output is 30C. That may not represent much heat, except we
don't know the flow rate during the warm-up period, and the detailed heat
transfer time constants.

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing


I think that they are in fact screaming that it was heated ahead of time.  Do 
you know of any irrational ideas left for the skeptics to suggest?  I think 
they have covered most of themmaybe we should be careful not to give them 
any ideas.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Nov 17, 2011 10:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing


David Roberson  wrote:



Please explain why it too so long for the temperature to read an elevated value 
during the October 28 test if the ECATs had been preheated?



As noted that was just Cude's suggestion. He did not pre-heat it. The reactor 
vessel had no water in it when the test began. The first thing they did was 
take it off the table and weigh it, empty. It was not warm when they did that.


If he had actually pre-heated it, the skeptics would all be screaming that he 
magically "stored up" the heat in advance.


It is better to do the whole test, from start to finish, in the presence of the 
observers. Anyone who thinks 4 hours of heat after death is insufficient would 
not be satisfied with 40 hours or 4 years. You can't satisfy irrational people 
who set every-receding goals with no technical justification.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ahern to announce LENR findings on December 7 in New York City

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/chris-houts/34/9a9/b94

http://goo.gl/4roVM

T

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing

David Roberson  wrote:

Please explain why it too so long for the temperature to read an elevated
> value during the October 28 test if the ECATs had been preheated?
>

As noted that was just Cude's suggestion. He did not pre-heat it. The
reactor vessel had no water in it when the test began. The first thing they
did was take it off the table and weigh it, empty. It was not warm when
they did that.

If he had actually pre-heated it, the skeptics would all be screaming that
he magically "stored up" the heat in advance.

It is better to do the whole test, from start to finish, in the presence of
the observers. Anyone who thinks 4 hours of heat after death is
insufficient would not be satisfied with 40 hours or 4 years. You can't
satisfy irrational people who set every-receding goals with no technical
justification.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ahern to announce LENR findings on December 7 in New York City

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>> Check this link from their main site:
>>
>> http://citi5.org/launch/?p=1833
>>
>> they are watching us!  LOL!
>
> I apologize for using the word "owned" about Citi5 but whois.net says:
>
> Domain ID:D163010237-LROR
> Domain Name:CITI5.ORG
> Created On:10-Aug-2011 18:10:09 UTC
> Last Updated On:10-Oct-2011 03:50:55 UTC
> Expiration Date:10-Aug-2012 18:10:09 UTC
> Sponsoring Registrar:Launchpad.com Inc. (R1860-LROR)
> Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
> Registrant ID:HG_17386669
> Registrant Name:Chris Houts

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/chris-houts/34/9a9/b94

T

Re: [Vo]:Ahern to announce LENR findings on December 7 in New York City

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> Check this link from their main site:
>
> http://citi5.org/launch/?p=1833
>
> they are watching us!  LOL!

I apologize for using the word "owned" about Citi5 but whois.net says:

Domain ID:D163010237-LROR
Domain Name:CITI5.ORG
Created On:10-Aug-2011 18:10:09 UTC
Last Updated On:10-Oct-2011 03:50:55 UTC
Expiration Date:10-Aug-2012 18:10:09 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Launchpad.com Inc. (R1860-LROR)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:HG_17386669
Registrant Name:Chris Houts
Registrant Organization:E3NYC
Registrant Street1:250 W 20th ST
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:New York
Registrant State/Province:NY
Registrant Postal Code:10011
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.9177978915
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:chrisjho...@gmail.com
Admin ID:HG_17386669
Admin Name:Chris Houts
Admin Organization:E3NYC
Admin Street1:250 W 20th ST
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:New York
Admin State/Province:NY
Admin Postal Code:10011
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.9177978915
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:chrisjho...@gmail.com
Tech ID:HG_17386669
Tech Name:Chris Houts
Tech Organization:E3NYC
Tech Street1:250 W 20th ST
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:New York
Tech State/Province:NY
Tech Postal Code:10011
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.9177978915
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:chrisjho...@gmail.com
Name Server:NS3192.HOSTGATOR.COM
Name Server:NS3191.HOSTGATOR.COM

T

Re: [Vo]:Ahern to announce LENR findings on December 7 in New York City

Terry Blanton  wrote:

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>

> > By the way, I believe this report will be on another gadget he has been
> > talking about. Not a cold fusion device. Perhaps it is related from a
> theory
> > point of view.
>

> You could be right; but, look at at the main site that Akira
> referenced.

Yeah, e-catsite. They put him at Ames, which is not quite right.

Well, maybe he will discuss his cold fusion work. He talks about if freely,
but I can't persuade him to write a paper. Too busy, he says.

Anyway, he has been talking about other stuff too lately, which is somewhat
over my head.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

>
> Rossi claims his device produces more energy (in the form of heat)
> than it consumes (in the form of electricity). This is a performance
> claim, and it should not be characterised as being more or less
> plausible.

But I wasn't talking about the plausibility of the claimed reaction. I was
talking about the plausibility of his method of measuring it.

> Unlike the Wright's claim of powered flight which could be adequately
> guaged without the aid of instruments, Rossi's claim must be guaged
> with some instruments.

(This is peripheral to the point, but anyway...)

I don't agree. If it runs without any input, then the fact that it produces
substantial output power can be identified without instruments. You can
tell if a 1.5 kW space heater is working without instruments, just as you
can tell if firewood is burning or not without a thermometer.

Now, to judge whether it exceeds chemical energy requires instruments only
if it exceeds it narrowly, by a factor of 10 or less maybe. But he's
claiming a factor of a million or so, so if he produced 100 times more than
chemical, that would be easy to identify without instruments.

He could use the heat to heat a big swimming pool, or a series of tanker
trucks, or something. If he takes the water from ambient to boiling, and
you estimate the volume, then no instruments are needed. Or if he used the
heat to produce electricity, and then used the electricity to do some work,
like lifting a large truck, or to power an electric car, then instruments
would not be needed to estimate the energy to within a factor of 100.

Of course, Rossi is nowhere near that level, and it would take some time,
so for the demos he is doing, where the claimed output barely exceeds what
he claims is feasible chemically (taking only a fraction of the weight of
the ecat), then yes, instruments are needed, especially since he also has
to provide input either continuously or periodically.

But to me, his need for instruments to demonstrate such a dramatic effect,
makes it much less credible.

If the instrumentation is sound then the claim
> is true, and the conceptual framework known as the "laws of physics"
> may not be capable of providing a plausibe explanation of the
> performance.
>
>

I already agreed with this. If Rossi's reactions depends on new physics to
produce heat from nickel and hydrogen, then so be it. My objection in this
instance was not that. It was that the observations he is basing the claim
on depend on *other* implausibilities. The new physics is presumably in the
H-Ni, but that shouldn't change the way water gets heated by the hot
conduits it flows through. Those heating elements still have to get hot,
and the way the heat flows through the brass or steel pipes is surely not
affected by Rossi's new H-Ni physics. Heat is still heat, surely.

What if the temperature read 90C at atmospheric pressure, and he claimed
complete vaporization. That would be implausible because water boils at
100C at atmospheric pressure. Would you then say that this is a new
phenomenon, and so we don't know what temperature water boils at when the
heat comes from a Rossi reaction? Therefore we can't say that it's
implausible? Would you say that?

Re: [Vo]:Ahern to announce LENR findings on December 7 in New York City

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> You could be right; but, look at at the main site that Akira
> referenced.  The site is owned by http://e3blue.com/ .  Take a look at
> that, too.

Check this link from their main site:

http://citi5.org/launch/?p=1833

they are watching us!  LOL!

Fortunately, December 7th is not far off.  AAMoF it also corresponds
with the date that Defkalion promises more information.

It's not April 1, is it?

T

Re: [Vo]:Ahern to announce LENR findings on December 7 in New York City

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> By the way, I believe this report will be on another gadget he has been
> talking about. Not a cold fusion device. Perhaps it is related from a theory
> point of view.
> He has also been working with Ames material on Arata style ZrO+Pd or Ni
> experiments, as I and others have reported here.

You could be right; but, look at at the main site that Akira
referenced.  The site is owned by http://e3blue.com/ .  Take a look at
that, too.

T

Re: [Vo]:From Focus.it Customer? Celani test?

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Hey, in this business our goal is to Stay Anomalous. We should make bumper
> sticker.

Yes, but, it won't sell.

> By the way, Mengoli should be included in the list of people who reported
> heat from bulk Ni:
> Mengoli, G., et al., Anomalous heat effects correlated with electrochemical
> hydriding of nickel. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1998. 20 D: p. 331.

Well, we can't leave out Dr. Patterson, G-d rest his soul.

T

Re: [Vo]:Ahern to announce LENR findings on December 7 in New York City

By the way, I believe this report will be on another gadget he has been
talking about. Not a cold fusion device. Perhaps it is related from a
theory point of view.

He has also been working with Ames material on Arata style ZrO+Pd or Ni
experiments, as I and others have reported here.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing

2011-11-17 Thread Robert Leguillon

I believe that he was recommending warming up the E-Cats before most of the 
reporters show up, with minimal supervision, if their time is too precious.
It was not a theory on what may have occurred, merely a suggestion on what 
could occur to avail a longer (and hence more conclusive) run time. 
I disagree, but just wanted to clarify.

David Roberson  wrote:

>
>snip...From: Joshua Cude 
>
>
>Second, what's to stop him from doing the pre-heating overnight, and getting 
>started at 7 am. These guys are professionals; they won't mind getting up 
>early. It's true, you might want a witness to measure the input energy, but if 
>it runs long enough to exclude chemical fuel, then storage is excluded too. 
>Then if they ran it self-sustained until 7 pm, you'd have 12 hours. Still too 
>short, but a lot better than 3 1/4 hours.
>
>...
>
>Please explain why it too so long for the temperature to read an elevated 
>value during the October 28 test if the ECATs had been preheated?
>
>Dave
>

Re: [Vo]:Ahern to announce LENR findings on December 7 in New York City

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Akira Shirakawa
 wrote:

> I see, sorry for the duplicate thread!
>
> However, more descriptive thread titles (subjects) would be helpful. Lately
> there are so many new posts each day that I am not able to keep up with
> their volume, so I find myself skipping threads and messages often depending
> solely on their subject.

No apology necessary!  No one was paying attention.

You have done a remarkable job of keeping us informed.  Do not
hesitate to post anything you find.  Sometimes I have to read things
three of four times to get it through my thick skull.

Thanks, Akira!

T

Re: [Vo]:Ahern to announce LENR findings on December 7 in New York City

2011-11-17 Thread Akira Shirakawa


On 2011-11-18 04:07, Terry Blanton wrote:

Keyword, 'oscillon'.

Jones Beene gets credit for the first posting.

For those not paying attention:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg55636.html


I see, sorry for the duplicate thread!

However, more descriptive thread titles (subjects) would be helpful. 
Lately there are so many new posts each day that I am not able to keep 
up with their volume, so I find myself skipping threads and messages 
often depending solely on their subject.


Cheers,
S.A.

[Vo]:Hydrofusion behind ecat.com?

2011-11-17 Thread Sean True

http://hydrofusion.com/ is also an apparent affiliate of Ing. Rossi.

http://energycatalyzer3.com/news/whos-behind-ecat-com reports that the
ecat.com DNS record was
associated with hydrofusion:

ecat.com; global options: +cmd
ecat.com. 86400 IN SOA ns1.ni59hosting.com. magnus.holm.hydrofusion.com. (
2011062802 ; serial
86400 ; refresh (1 day)
7200 ; retry (2 hours)
360 ; expire (5 weeks 6 days 16 hours)
86400 ; minimum (1 day)

Magnus Holm looks a lot like the Magnus Hahn at the October 6th demo,
and the same note from energycatalyzer3.com
links Niclas Sandstrom (also at the demo) to Hydrofusion as well.

Sweden
Magnus Hahn (??Scania)
Staffan Helgesson (??Equity/VC Creandum)
Niclas Sandstrom (Finance, ??VP Structured Finance, DBRS, ?PhD Theoretical
Physics Chalmers U, Gothenburg)
Thomas Johannson, (?Journalist, ??Swedish IIIEE)
Koen Vandenwalle (?Production Engineer, Volvo, Ghent Belgium)
Edward Jobson (Adjunct Professor, U of Gothenburg, Research Director, Volvo)
Roland Petterson (Professor of analytical chemistry, Uppsala)

Holm and Sandstrom have some chops in high energy physics:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9904099, and may have become high end
quants.
As Sutton says, it's where the money is.

New relations involving curvature components for the various
connections appearing in the theory of almost product manifolds are
given and the conformal behaviour of these connections are studied.
New identities for the irreducible parts of the deformation tensor are
derived. Some direct physical applications in Kaluza-Klein and gauge
theory are discussed.
Subjects:   High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)
Cite as:arXiv:hep-th/9904099v1

Re: [Vo]:Ahern to announce LENR findings on December 7 in New York City

Will December 7th have a new infamy?

Let's hope so!

T

Re: [Vo]:Ahern to announce LENR findings on December 7 in New York City

Ahern works with the people at Ames, but I don't think he is on staff.

Ames makes batches of ZrOPd and ZrONi which various people are testing.
Miley says they get some starting materials from Ames and do the rest of
the fabrication at U. Illinois.

95% of solving the cold fusion problem is in materials and materials
science. Once you get the right materials, the rest of the experiment is
relatively easy.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ahern to announce LENR findings on December 7 in New York City

Keyword, 'oscillon'.

Jones Beene gets credit for the first posting.

For those not paying attention:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg55636.html

T

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

2011-11-17 Thread Harry Veeder

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:
>>
>> If you came from a community that did not use levers and never
>> developed the rudiments of lever science, how would you react upon
>> hearing a story that one man shifted a stone with a branch that you
>> KNOW from the stones description should require at least 8 strong men?
>>
>> Is the story a tall tale? Was this man a giant? Perhaps the stone was
>> hollow.
>> If he is an ordinary man and the story is accurate, then he is a
>> magician who knows the magic of the lever.
>
> If he claimed to be able to perform this feat because of a new technology
> that I was unfamiliar with, then I might be skeptical, but open to observing
> a demonstration. If he described the method saying he would use a thin
> bamboo pole pivoted on yonder tree, I would be skeptical not only of his new
> technology, which I was unfamiliar with, but also of the implausibility of a
> bamboo pole being strong enough, because between the tree and the rock, the
> technology is old. Unless he is claiming that when the new technology of
> leverage is used, that the bamboo takes on new strength, and the old laws
> don't apply.
> So, Rossi is claiming a new heat-producing reaction, and while I'm skeptical
> of it, I'm interested in his attempts to demonstrate it. But the
> implausibility I expressed above, was not of the reaction Rossi claims, but
> of intermediate physics that is not new, and that is necessary to believe
> his interpretation of the demo.
> The interpretation of the Oct 28 demo, and all the other steam demos,
> assumes that the power transfer to the water increases 8-fold at the onset
> (or within minutes) of boiling, and that requires an 8-fold increase in the
> temperature difference between the heating element and the water. Given the
> time it takes to increase the temperature of the heating element to its
> first-fold power transfer (hours), this is impossibly implausible.
> Or is Rossi also claiming that if heat is produced by nuclear reactions,
> then the thermodynamics of heat transport is completely different?

Rossi claims his device produces more energy (in the form of heat)
than it consumes (in the form of electricity). This is a performance
claim, and it should not be characterised as being more or less
plausible. An explanation of performance may be so characterised, but
Rossi gets his eCat to perform without an explanation.

Unlike the Wright's claim of powered flight which could be adequately
guaged without the aid of instruments, Rossi's claim must be guaged
with some instruments. If the instrumentation is sound then the claim
is true, and the conceptual framework known as the "laws of physics"
may not be capable of providing a plausibe explanation of the
performance.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:From Focus.it Customer? Celani test?

Terry Blanton  wrote:

> > But, is will be wise to remain anomalous.  Unless you have a Craven
> > for dark avians.  :-)
>
> Fingers are not any better than Jed's voice recognition.  Remain
> "anonymous".  LOL!
>

Hey, in this business our goal is to Stay Anomalous. We should make bumper
sticker.

By the way, Mengoli should be included in the list of people who reported
heat from bulk Ni:

Mengoli, G., et al., *Anomalous heat effects correlated with
electrochemical hydriding of nickel.* Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A,
1998. *20 D*: p. 331.

- Jed

[Vo]:Ahern to announce LENR findings on December 7 in New York City

2011-11-17 Thread Akira Shirakawa


Hello group,

The source for this information isn't very well known (Citi5 group?), 
but the story appears to be true (still, I'd like it to be confirmed by 
others as well). Brian Ahern of Ames National Laboratory is going to 
announce his findings and a new theory on LENR in December.


Some excerpts from the story/announcement:

“In 1995 we made a major and fundamental discovery regarding 
nano-material properties. This almost completely unknown to most 
technologists. All materials processed within certain tolerances 
experience very different vibrational modes than all other aggregations 
of matter. IT PROVIDES A CONCISE EXPLANATION FOR THE BIOENERGETICS 
OBSERVED IN ALL ASPECTS OF NATURE.”


 “In the last 8 weeks I have been astounded by a superior 
nanotechnology that will capture the imagination of even the greatest 
foes of LENR. I believe all of LENR is just a new and unanticipated form 
of nanomagnetism.”


http://e-catsite.com/2011/11/17/rossi-rival-to-announce-cold-fusionlenr-findings/

Source: http://citi5.org/launch/?p=1826

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:From Focus.it Customer? Celani test?

Fact is, Rossi appears to know that there is a bright light in the
tunnel and it's not the exit.  It's a high speed train coming up on
his rear.  He's doing his best to tap it for all the cash he can.

He's not stupid.  He knows he has no unique right to the technology;
but, if he can grab a few million before the train arrives, good for
him!

So he's selling all he can as fast as he can.  He's making it all
himself and keeping as much of the money as he can for himself.

I doubt anyone will try to take the few million he grabs.  But he will
likely have a nice nest egg before the overwhelming flood overtakes
him.

T

Re: [Vo]:From Focus.it Customer? Celani test?

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> People skeptical about Rossi aren't paying attention.  It's not just
> Rossi.  It's also Ahern, Arata, Miley, Piantelli and who knows how
> many that aren't talking.  (Not to mention a few who whisper to those
> of us who have been following the work for two decades ;-)  They are
> all reporting increased anomalous energy densities, many approaching
> those of Rossi.
>
> Forget Rossi, there's some great coffee brewing and you need to take a sniff!
>
> But, is will be wise to remain anomalous.  Unless you have a Craven
> for dark avians.  :-)

Fingers are not any better than Jed's voice recognition.  Remain
"anonymous".  LOL!

T

Re: [Vo]:From Focus.it Customer? Celani test?

People skeptical about Rossi aren't paying attention.  It's not just
Rossi.  It's also Ahern, Arata, Miley, Piantelli and who knows how
many that aren't talking.  (Not to mention a few who whisper to those
of us who have been following the work for two decades ;-)  They are
all reporting increased anomalous energy densities, many approaching
those of Rossi.

Forget Rossi, there's some great coffee brewing and you need to take a sniff!

But, is will be wise to remain anomalous.  Unless you have a Craven
for dark avians.  :-)

T

Re: [Vo]:From Focus.it Customer? Celani test?

2011-11-17 Thread Daniel Rocha

I was talking about this with a friend one of these days. My proposal is
that if there isn`t a claim from an independent client until October 28th,
2012, I won`t believe this anymore. 1 year after the 1st buy.

2011/11/17 Mary Yugo 

>
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:
>>
>> > And how long are you willing to wait after the two months when no
>> > independent testing is revealed and no independent customer comes
>> forward?
>>
>> So, what is the alternative to waiting?
>>
>
> You misunderstood the question (deliberately?)   Let me rephrase:
>
> What will you say if after two months there is still no confirmation of an
> independent client and no credible verification that the E-cat works?  Will
> you still believe Rossi?
>

Re: [Vo]:From Focus.it Customer? Celani test?

Mary Yugo  wrote:

> What will you say if after two months there is still no confirmation of an
> independent client and no credible verification that the E-cat works?

Client information is Rossi's business, not ours.

I think there is already credible verification. You don't. That's all there
is to it.

  Will you still believe Rossi?
>

When will you believe that a vessel of water hot to the touch must cool
down?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo


He may sell you one for 100 k when he would sell it a lot cheaper to anyone 
else.

I recall $2000 per 1000 watts.  You are paying the 50 kW price for a 10 kW 
device.  He should do it fast.

Why not put together a long list of all of the things you want Rossi to do and 
just post it once a day?  Why the broken record?

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Mary Yugo 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Nov 17, 2011 6:53 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 
demo





On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:35 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Be careful what you ask for Mary.


I don't understand.  Do you mean I'd be upset to get an Ecat for $100K?  Why? 
(oh why?)
 

  I just wish Rossi had a good sense of humor.


I just wish he had a good sense of fairness and a willingness to conduct basic 
scientific experiments on his device or better yet, have them done.


.

Re: [Vo]:From Focus.it Customer? Celani test?

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:
>
> > And how long are you willing to wait after the two months when no
> > independent testing is revealed and no independent customer comes
> forward?
>
> So, what is the alternative to waiting?
>

You misunderstood the question (deliberately?)   Let me rephrase:

What will you say if after two months there is still no confirmation of an
independent client and no credible verification that the E-cat works?  Will
you still believe Rossi?

Re: [Vo]:From Focus.it Customer? Celani test?

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:

> And how long are you willing to wait after the two months when no
> independent testing is revealed and no independent customer comes forward?

So, what is the alternative to waiting?

T

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing


snip...From: Joshua Cude 


Second, what's to stop him from doing the pre-heating overnight, and getting 
started at 7 am. These guys are professionals; they won't mind getting up 
early. It's true, you might want a witness to measure the input energy, but if 
it runs long enough to exclude chemical fuel, then storage is excluded too. 
Then if they ran it self-sustained until 7 pm, you'd have 12 hours. Still too 
short, but a lot better than 3 1/4 hours.

...

Please explain why it too so long for the temperature to read an elevated value 
during the October 28 test if the ECATs had been preheated?

Dave

Re: [Vo]:From Focus.it Customer? Celani test?

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

> He's already said that deliveries to new customers will be in 2 months ...
> and that he's fully booked (ie 12 more for this one).
>

Sorry but where does he say that.  I missed it.  Is there a link please?

OK.  So we wait two more months.  I will have to use hot buttered rum to
warm up this winter until an E-cat is ready to do the job.

And how long are you willing to wait after the two months when no
independent testing is revealed and no independent customer comes forward?

Re: [Vo]:From Focus.it Customer? Celani test?


At 04:39 PM 11/17/2011, Mary Yugo wrote:
I find that a total cop-out and just more of the same nonsense we've 
been hearing so much of from Rossi.  It says he already proved it, 
doesn't need to do anything more, demo'd the megawatt plant, he has 
customers, and commercialization will prove it.  He neglects to say when!


He's already said that deliveries to new customers will be in 2 
months ... and that he's fully booked (ie 12 more for this one).

Re: [Vo]:From Focus.it Customer? Celani test?

Sorry. I see someone else posted the English versions.  That came up after
I wrote my post.

Re: [Vo]:From Focus.it Customer? Celani test?



At 04:39 PM 11/17/2011, Mary Yugo wrote:




http://www.focus.it/scienza/dove-va-l-e-cat-e-la-risposta-di-rossi-alla-proposta-di-celani-1203_C12.aspx
 

That link is interesting but hard to follow. 

Actually, there's an index tab that gives you the Italian and English 
versions.  S.A gave the English links.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting English article from Focus.it - letter by Celani to Rossi and Rossi's answer

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

> but it's a military research and I can't reveal any further detail, not
> the name, nor the place, nor the nationality of the customer».
>

How convenient.  How about telling us one about which details can be
revealed.  Like who it is and how it was tested and what the results were?
No need to reveal any secrets about the inside of the machine -- none at
all.

Re: [Vo]:New european commercial E-Cat Offer

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>
> I think you misunderstood, I was referring to Rothwell's examples
> (radioactivity, fusors etc) as failures to provide practical energy, but
> not scams. I was not referring to any of the examples on the web site,
> which I also suspect of being scams.
>

Sorry.  Some discussions are harder to follow you.  Also, I need to mention
that you often write what I'm thinking only better.  I find that difficult
to bear.  But I will be stoic so do continue and thanks.

Re: [Vo]:From Focus.it Customer? Celani test?

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:

>
> http://www.focus.it/scienza/dove-va-l-e-cat-e-la-risposta-di-rossi-alla-proposta-di-celani-1203_C12.aspx
>
>
That link is interesting but hard to follow. We could use help from the
resident Italian speakers. The related links below the article are also
interesting. It seems, if I understand it, that Celani is asking Rossi to
do an independent test of the E-cat, possibly by U of B, now or very soon.
Rossi answers that he only supports a two year research project and sees no
need for any more tests at the moment. Ah... what the heck... with
apologies for the length, here is Rossi's apparent reply.

"Dr. Francesco Celani and readers of Focus.
The proposal of Dr. Celani is interesting but out of time: in fact, he
proposes a test for us as that of October 6 was the last public test of a
Form E-Cat.

To avoid confusion or misunderstanding it is necessary to correctly
interpret the mandate of the University of Bologna, whose mission goes far
beyond that of simple test. The details of the collaboration with the
University are many and complex, but essentially it is a work of "reverse
engineering" that must begin with what happens in the reactor to test the
theory that explains those phenomena, or lay the groundwork for a new
theory. Because even if it is interpreted in the context of "cold fusion",
with this label are put together very distant phenomena.

And this is only the first step. Once you fully understand the phenomenon
we may be surprised to discover unexpected opportunities to exploit it, and
I think that it will. Today it is difficult for anyone to imagine a
scenario where the fossil fuel energy do not lord it, and yet ... I truly
believe that this moment is no longer so far away.

For this work that is primarily research and development is also planned
for the university, a commitment of two years: well that you understand the
difference between this commitment and the test proposed by Dr. Celani, no
matter how rigorous and comprehensive , also justifies the large difference
between the spending proposed by Celani and the sum agreed with the
University. Amount that I would point out, is fully funded by us, without
any help "public" or other research institutes, neither Italian nor
elsewhere.

Finally, as they know the readers of Focus and all those who follow the
situation for months, the critical period seems to be finally passed: our
1-megawatt pilot plant has convinced investors. Soon it will be fully
operational in a real industrial environment and beyond to produce thermal
energy is itself an object of further studies.

It is for these reasons that I do not see any advantage in a further test
of the E-Cat, which, from my point of view, no longer has to prove "if" it
works. I also know that Dr. Celani and other researchers are investigating
the world in many different ways to finally get the results even in the
industry by that set of phenomena that we call "cold fusion" I expect great
results and I wish them all a good job .
Sincerely
Andrea Rossi"

From:
http://www.focus.it/scienza/dove-va-l-e-cat-e-la-risposta-di-rossi-alla-proposta-di-celani-1203_C12.aspx
via Google Translate

I find that a total cop-out and just more of the same nonsense we've been
hearing so much of from Rossi. It says he already proved it, doesn't need
to do anything more, demo'd the megawatt plant, he has customers, and
commercialization will prove it. He neglects to say when!

Re: [Vo]:Interesting English article from Focus.it - letter by Celani to Rossi and Rossi's answer



At 04:10 PM 11/17/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote:  ..
There's a zero missing somewhere :
WHO IS THE CUSTOMER?Customer's spokesman,Domenico
Fioravanti, retired colonel of the Genio, doesn't tell anything that
would be revealing of its identity, but is Rossi himself who gives
Focus something more: «We are building a 130 MW thermal plant, made of 13
plant such as the one you saw on October 28th: but it's a military
research and I can't reveal any further detail, not the name, nor the
place, nor the nationality of the customer». 
13 * 1MW = 13 MW
OR
130* 1MW = 130 MW

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing

"   If it's a scam, the way Rossi will have brought out the E-cat will be
discussed for a long time for it's stupidity and lack of concern for the
well-being of the civilization."

Ooops... pressed the button too quickly.  If it' NOT a scam, etc. etc.
Very sorry for the extra post.  Will be more cautious.

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:03 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Some others hope that the ECAT is a scam, especially those who make a
> living based upon industries that will be replaced.

I have no relationship with any industry that wouldn't be helped rather
than hindered by the reality of an E-cat.   And the latest association of
Rossi with Schneider is the last straw that drives me to say I am convinced
it's a scam.  I can't prove it though.  Not yet.   If it's a scam, the way
Rossi will have brought out the E-cat will be discussed for a long time for
it's stupidity and lack of concern for the well-being of the civilization.

>  I think it is a moral issue to give support to people like Rossi who can
> really make a large positive impact upon the world.  Where do you stand?
>

It's a moral issue to stop scammers.  If Rossi isn't one, he can prove it
ridiculously easily.

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> David Roberson  wrote:
>
>
>> It is clear to me that Rossi does not want it to be easy to determine.
>> Everyone needs to understand that.  He is using misdirection to his
>> advantage.
>>
>
> During the 18 hour test in February, the machine clearly went out of
> control. If I had something like that I would not run it as hot as it can
> go.
>

Either that or it had a short-lasting hidden extra source of energy.

> In this case, running with only one cell enabled produces a clear signal.
> I do not see any advantage to running all three, if the purpose is to do a
> convincing demonstration. People were not convinced by 8 kW will not be
> convinced by 24 kW, or 24 MW for that matter.
>

Would you be convinced by 0.08 milliwatts?  The purpose of running a
convincing demonstration is to back up your claims.  Rossi claims a
tabletop fusion reactor that produces typically 10 kW continuously with 1/6
the power input and no fuel charge for 6 months or more.  Running for three
hours or so at reduced power is not convincing.  And that's before you get
to all the argument about measuring the enthalpy  -- arguments which Rossi
could easily squelch and hasn't.

> The duration was also long enough to satisfy any rational demand for
> proof. Mary Yugo and others keep saying the run was too short even though
> it was 24 times longer than anyone needs to be sure the effect is real. She
> sets arbitrary goals, and then whenever Rossi meets one of those goals, she
> sets another. There is no technical justification for demanding higher
> power or a longer run.
>

It's what Rossi claims he can do easily, for cripe's sake!  The
justification need not go beyond: Rossi said he could do it.  Well OK,
let's see it then.

> Both are far, far beyond what anyone else has accomplished, and far beyond
> any rational doubt. There is not the slightest chance the self-sustaining
> event can be explained with stored heat or chemistry.
>
> I suppose if Yugo had watched Wilbur Wright's flight on Sept. 9, 1908
> lasting 57 minutes, 31 seconds, she would have said: "I will not believe he
> can really fly until he goes for an hour!!!" Then, later that day when he
> flew for 1 hour 2 minutes, she would say: "I will not believe it until he
> flies for TWO HOURS."
>

This is another weird analogy.  Rossi is no Wright brother.  If anything
he's more of a Wrong brother (if that's too sarcastic, consider it
withdrawn).  What Rossi claims isn't the equivalent of a Wright Flyer.
It's more like a 747 or an F18.  And he can't even prove conclusively that
it ever left the ground.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting English article from Focus.it - letter by Celani to Rossi and Rossi's answer


At 04:10 PM 11/17/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: ...

I guess we all got the alert. Any bets on how many more posts are in 
the pipeline?

[Vo]:Re: From Focus.it Customer? Celani test? NO!



At 04:12 PM 11/17/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:


http://www.focus.it/scienza/dove-va-l-e-cat-e-la-risposta-di-rossi-alla-proposta-di-celani-1203_C12.aspx
 
Information about the customer. Possible new test by
Celani
A few links later, Rossi says no more tests.

[Vo]:From Focus.it Customer? Celani test?




http://www.focus.it/scienza/dove-va-l-e-cat-e-la-risposta-di-rossi-alla-proposta-di-celani-1203_C12.aspx
 
Information about the customer. Possible new test by Celani
I got an email ... maybe Raymond Zreick will comment further

(lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat  -- Hi,
google!)

Re: [Vo]:New european commercial E-Cat Offer

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:

> snip>
> Not the same at all. The web site in question is full of claims of free
> energy or practical energy based on some exotic new physical phenomenon. Of
> your examples, only sono fusion comes close (as a claim), and none of them
> have delivered as practical energy sources, so in that sense they are
> failures, although not scams.
>
> I guarantee you based on past experience, most if not all have some scam
> hidden in them.  Finding the scam is another matter.
>
>

I think you misunderstood, I was referring to Rothwell's examples
(radioactivity, fusors etc) as failures to provide practical energy, but
not scams. I was not referring to any of the examples on the web site,
which I also suspect of being scams.

[Vo]:Interesting English article from Focus.it - letter by Celani to Rossi and Rossi's answer

2011-11-17 Thread Akira Shirakawa


Hello group,

I just received this from Google Alerts.
Have a read at the latest article from Focus.it on Rossi's E-Cat, in 
English:


Part 1: Where is the E-Cat?

http://www.focus.it/scienza/dove-va-l-e-cat-e-la-risposta-di-rossi-alla-proposta-di-celani-1203/where-is-the-e-cat_PC12.aspx

Part 2: Dear Eng. Rossi...

http://www.focus.it/scienza/dove-va-l-e-cat-e-la-risposta-di-rossi-alla-proposta-di-celani-1203/dear-eng-rossi_PC12.aspx

Part 3: Dear Doc. Celani, dear Readers of Focus...

http://www.focus.it/scienza/dove-va-l-e-cat-e-la-risposta-di-rossi-alla-proposta-di-celani-1203/dear-doc-celani-dear-readers-of-focus_PC12.aspx

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:New european commercial E-Cat Offer

snip>

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Mary Yugo  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There are a lot of these claims, aren't there?

>>> Yes and so far, all have been scams or failures or both.
>>>
>>
>> Untrue. The Curies' claim of anomalous energy was not a failure.
>> Muon-catalyzed fusion and the fusor are real, and I expect Taleyarkhan's
>> sono fusion is real. It probably does not produce significant heat.
>>
>
I thought you were speaking of the current rash of crappola such as
magnetic motors, free energy whirly things and heaters, and such nonsense
as "HHO" gas and cars running on water.  We see a lot of that these days.

> Not the same at all. The web site in question is full of claims of free
> energy or practical energy based on some exotic new physical phenomenon. Of
> your examples, only sono fusion comes close (as a claim), and none of them
> have delivered as practical energy sources, so in that sense they are
> failures, although not scams.
>

I guarantee you based on past experience, most if not all have some scam
hidden in them.  Finding the scam is another matter.

> 
>

Thanks for the history lessons.

>  As many people have pointed out, all attempts to fly before the Wright
> brothers failed, but that did not mean the Wrights did not fly.
>
> Obviously not, but you're missing the point. Skeptics doubt Rossi
> fundamentally because of the lack of evidence. But a lot of people believe
> him because of the scientists that seem to be convinced. Considering that
> sort of meta-evidence, the fact that he enlists an organization that
> promotes a lot of failed free-energy scams or proposals, suggests that he
> has been unable to enlist a more legitimate organization that sells power
> to the people.
>

That he enlists a most probably scamming bunch of scoundrels suggests that
he's either desperate or exceedingly careless and sloppy or ridiculously
stupid about such matters or some mix of the above.  None of it is good.
I'd call those guys (Schneiders) criminals but I can't prove they aren't
simply idiots so I won't call them crooks without better evidence.  Hey,
that could be libel.

A man who had a legitimate proven tabletop fusion reactor wouldn't need to
go to the sort of scum Rossi patronizes.  He'd be able to get a hearing
with virtually any powerful company or individual on Earth and then he
could properly prove that his device is real.  You aren't curious about why
Rossi doesn't immediately do that?  Why he hasn't grabbed Kullander, Essen,
Levi and Focardi, had the four together agree on and develop an absolute
killer of a demonstration that over-proves his case, and then presented it
to some rich and famous people?  After all the time that has passed, it
just makes no sense at all.

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:35 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Be careful what you ask for Mary.
>

I don't understand.  Do you mean I'd be upset to get an Ecat for $100K?
Why? (oh why?)

>   I just wish Rossi had a good sense of humor.
>

I just wish he had a good sense of fairness and a willingness to conduct
basic scientific experiments on his device or better yet, have them done.

.

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> David Roberson  wrote:
>
>
>> Why the relatively short test?
>>
>
> That, I know the answer to. Rossi stopped the test because the people
> observing it asked him to stop it. They wanted to look inside. Also, it was
> late in the day and they had to go.
>

That's too funny. For want of dinner, the creates discovery in a century
was aborted.

First, I have not seen evidence that anyone asked him to stop the demo. I
think  you made it up, but if you have evidence, don't hold back.

Second, what's to stop him from doing the pre-heating overnight, and
getting started at 7 am. These guys are professionals; they won't mind
getting up early. It's true, you might want a witness to measure the input
energy, but if it runs long enough to exclude chemical fuel, then storage
is excluded too. Then if they ran it self-sustained until 7 pm, you'd have
12 hours. Still too short, but a lot better than 3 1/4 hours.

Third, I'm pretty sure you could get people to stay around for a few days,
observing in shifts. Surely Rossi has at least one trusted deputy he could
leave there when he got his sleep.

Fourth, if he had stuck with his smaller ecat, it wouldn't take as long to
exclude tricks. Notice that to get longer (public) runs, he had to build a
bigger and much heavier ecat. And still it's just a few hours.

>
> In his blog I think it was, Rossi said that this particular version of the
> machine can only self-sustain for about six hours, max. if that is true, it
> was close to the limit after 4 hours.
>

That's not really self-sustaining then is it. If the thing needed a similar
warm-up period every 6 hours, then you're right, running longer wouldn't
mean anything. And, if that's the case, then that means Rossi not only
*didn't* prove the ecat, but he *couldn't* prove it.

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:03 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> I do not think anyone could say that it is not possible to make a
> sophisticated scam of an ECAT.  Rossi has helped the skeptical among us by
> allowing this to be the case.
> Do you honestly think that he is not aware of this possibility?  Why 1
> core?  Why the relatively short test?  All of these issues point to a
> planned attempt to misdirect.  He has
> his reasons and I am not sure that we will ever find out why.
>

So you're arguing that the lack of evidence is proof it works?

> Like I have said before, his 1 MW system was his real attempt to dazzle us.
>

With what? All anyone got to see was pipes and valves and insulation
covered boxes. There was nothing dazzling there. Even the steam was hidden,
and the heat was released to the sky *behind* barriers. Without the claimed
measurements from Rossi, there was no evidence of heat production at all.

He could have at least used the heat to do something like heat the water in
a big tanker truck, or expand big cylinder to lift a huge weight. But there
was absolutely nothing visual at all. Nothing even remotely dazzling.

>   The skeptics among us have conveniently disregarded the results of this
> test for their reasons.
>

No they haven't. The results have been regarded carefully. And even if you
accept Rossi's measurements, there is still no evidence for nuclear
reactions.

>
> It will not be long before the truth will come out about Rossi's system.
> Many of us think it is the real thing.  The others should be praying that
> it is.
>

Again, with the believer's testimony...

>
> I guess I should modify my last sentence.  Some others hope that the ECAT
> is a scam, especially those who make a living based upon industries that
> will be replaced.
>
>

I doubt it. If the claims were valid, it would be like the industrial
revolution, and the standard of living would improve for everyone. People
working in competing industries would not have difficulty finding jobs in
the cold fusion support industry. In fact conversion to cold fusion would
produce a lot of work for a lot of people.

> I think it is a moral issue to give support to people like Rossi who can
> really make a large positive impact upon the world.
>

So it is religious with you. So, by "people like Rossi" do you mean anyone
who makes free-energy claims without evidence? Or only Italians with a
record? If Rossi is wrong, all the support in the world won't help him. And
if he's right, pontificating skeptics on the interweb won't hurt him, and
he won't need support from the pions; he just needs one good demo.

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> During the 18 hour test in February, the machine clearly went out of
> control. If I had something like that I would not run it as hot as it can
> go. In this case, running with only one cell enabled produces a clear
> signal. I do not see any advantage to running all three, if the purpose is
> to do a convincing demonstration. People were not convinced by 8 kW will
> not be convinced by 24 kW, or 24 MW for that matter.
>

Lewan claimed only 2 - 3 kW, and that was based on unreliable thermocouple
placement. From the flow rate of the coolant, it could have been as low as
1 kW.

But it's not just the power, it's the energy out vs the energy in, and so
more energy out would obviously make it more convincing.

>
> The duration was also long enough to satisfy any rational demand for proof.
>

No it wasn't. It wasn't even long enough to satisfy many cold fusion
advocates demand for proof.

If what you say were true, Rossi's ecat would be on the cover of the NYT.

> Mary Yugo and others keep saying the run was too short even though it was
> 24 times longer than anyone needs to be sure the effect is real.
>

No. It was at least 24 times too short for any rational person to be sure
the effect is real.

She sets arbitrary goals, and then whenever Rossi meets one of those goals,
> she sets another.
>

No. The goals have not changed, but Rossi's results have fallen further and
further from meeting the goals.

On the other hand, the advocates keep lowering their standards for Rossi to
meet to satisfy their belief, as his ecats get fatter, produce lower power,
lower COP, and require greater input.

> There is no technical justification for demanding higher power or a longer
> run. Both are far, far beyond what anyone else has accomplished, and far
> beyond any rational doubt. There is not the slightest chance the
> self-sustaining event can be explained with stored heat or chemistry.
>

Actually you can accomplish what Rossi does with a fat cat using a portable
propane water heater, which weighs 1/5 as much, and requires no warm-up
period. So yes, it is easy to conceive of ways to produce his results using
stored energy or chemistry, and people have done it all over the internet.

> I suppose if Yugo had watched Wilbur Wright's flight on Sept. 9, 1908
> lasting 57 minutes, 31 seconds, she would have said: "I will not believe he
> can really fly until he goes for an hour!!!" Then, later that day when he
> flew for 1 hour 2 minutes, she would say: "I will not believe it until he
> flies for TWO HOURS."
>
>

Bad example because at the time, powered flight was not possible by any
other method, but of course heating water is possible without nuclear
energy.

A better example might be to compare the Wrights planes to gliders which
were around at the time. So if they launched their plane off a cliff and it
stayed aloft for 1/10 as long as a glider, that would not be impressive.
And if the Wrights were Rossi, subsequent shows would stay aloft for even
less time. (Of course this is hypothetical, since the Wrights could stay
aloft for longer than gliders, but this would be a relevant comparison.)

The bar has always been the same for Rossi: (1) produce more output energy
than input, and (2) have the excess energy be larger than could be produced
by storage or chemistry, and preferably more than could be produced by the
devices weight in the best chemical fuel. Rossi has never met the first
criterion, let alone the second.

Re: [Vo]:New european commercial E-Cat Offer

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Mary Yugo  wrote:
>
>
>> There are a lot of these claims, aren't there?
>>>
>>>
>> Yes and so far, all have been scams or failures or both.
>>
>
> Untrue. The Curies' claim of anomalous energy was not a failure.
> Muon-catalyzed fusion and the fusor are real, and I expect Taleyarkhan's
> sono fusion is real. It probably does not produce significant heat.
>

Not the same at all. The web site in question is full of claims of free
energy or practical energy based on some exotic new physical phenomenon. Of
your examples, only sono fusion comes close (as a claim), and none of them
have delivered as practical energy sources, so in that sense they are
failures, although not scams.

Curie did not claim a new source of practical energy (in the sense of the
web site in question), and she did not even discover radioactivity; that
was Becquerel. She never measured heat from radioactivity. She identified
and isolated 2 new radioactive elements: polonium and radium (and coined
the term radioactivity). Of course, she was right about the radioactivity,
but never claimed it as a source of energy, and of course natural
radioactivity has never been used as a source of energy.

Muon-catalyzed fusion and the fusor both produce fusion, and so are real,
but neither is useful as a source of energy, and so in that sense are
failures. But in neither case has anyone claimed to have demonstrated
practical heat. A lot of people had hopes that they might be able to get
practical heat out of them, so although the physics is well-understood, no
one has ever succeeded, or claimed to succeed in generating useful heat.
That's a big difference from the claims on the web site, where anomalous
and practical heat *are* claimed, and the physics is not understood.

In sono fusion, there is neither evidence for nuclear reactions, nor
practical heat, and the physics is dubious, although here some grandiose
claims were made. So this is the most like the claims on the web site.

But you missed one example where claims of practical heat from a novel
phenomenon were realized: fission. When people realized the possibility of
a chain reaction in uranium fission, they immediately began to envision
power too cheap to meter, and weapons to end all war. Well, power and
weapons were realized, but unfortunately it's not cheap, and we still have
war. In this case, though, the physics was well-understood, and the
predictions were based on that, and not on claims of unexplained heat in
some demo. The first fission reactor produced less than a watt of power,
but was completely convincing because of the neutrons. Within a few years,
they needed the Columbia river to cool reactors designed to produce
plutonium. That was a pretty convincing demo.

>
> As many people have pointed out, all attempts to fly before the Wright
> brothers failed, but that did not mean the Wrights did not fly.
>

Obviously not, but you're missing the point. Skeptics doubt Rossi
fundamentally because of the lack of evidence. But a lot of people believe
him because of the scientists that seem to be convinced. Considering that
sort of meta-evidence, the fact that he enlists an organization that
promotes a lot of failed free-energy scams or proposals, suggests that he
has been unable to enlist a more legitimate organization that sells power
to the people.

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing


I think you have an excellent understanding of how Mary thinks.  I believe that 
she might even say that she was not convinced that the Wright airplane was self 
powered, but glided instead since it only flew for a short while and that a 
wind held it up.  In her eyes the motor would have been just to fake us out.

I saw something else in the data collected during the October 6 test.  To me it 
was a well rehearsed power up sequence to get the core at the temperature he 
wanted for a test of the driven mode.  My analysis convinces me that he most 
likely uses this exact same sequence to verify operation of individual cores.  
The test data was really quite revealing when I viewed it in this manner.

Jed, I would have been running for the door during that Feb. test when the 
device started to go wild.  I try to avoid pain as much as possible!

It is apparent also, as you say, that he does not have good control of the 
device.  This will not be easy to do since there is a very long delay between 
application of modified power input and its effect showing up in the output.  
This is like trying to keep your car going straight down the road when the 
wheels do not respond for several seconds to the steering.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Nov 17, 2011 4:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing


David Roberson  wrote:

 

It is clear to me that Rossi does not want it to be easy to determine.  
Everyone needs to understand that.  He is using misdirection to his advantage.




I believe he does use misdirection, but in this case I'm pretty sure he just 
did not want the thing to get too hot. Even as late as October 6 I think it was 
he was having problems with control. I say that because the machine refused to 
turn on. You can see in the data that it starts to produce heat and then 
abruptly stops, up to 280 min. It works like a cranky internal combustion 
engine that keeps stalling. 


During the 18 hour test in February, the machine clearly went out of control. 
If I had something like that I would not run it as hot as it can go. In this 
case, running with only one cell enabled produces a clear signal. I do not see 
any advantage to running all three, if the purpose is to do a convincing 
demonstration. People were not convinced by 8 kW will not be convinced by 24 
kW, or 24 MW for that matter.


The duration was also long enough to satisfy any rational demand for proof. 
Mary Yugo and others keep saying the run was too short even though it was 24 
times longer than anyone needs to be sure the effect is real. She sets 
arbitrary goals, and then whenever Rossi meets one of those goals, she sets 
another. There is no technical justification for demanding higher power or a 
longer run. Both are far, far beyond what anyone else has accomplished, and far 
beyond any rational doubt. There is not the slightest chance the 
self-sustaining event can be explained with stored heat or chemistry.


I suppose if Yugo had watched Wilbur Wright's flight on Sept. 9, 1908 lasting 
57 minutes, 31 seconds, she would have said: "I will not believe he can really 
fly until he goes for an hour!!!" Then, later that day when he flew for 1 hour 
2 minutes, she would say: "I will not believe it until he flies for TWO HOURS."



- Jed

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing


It is OK, I understood what you meant.  The main thing Rossi needs to figure is 
how to keep the cores at the operating temperature.
I have suggested to him that he should insulate the cores from the heat sink to 
an engineered degree and I think he has done that.
The core heaters need to be in close contact to the cores also insulated 
properly from the heat sink to allow the best control of heat
and temperature.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Robert Leguillon 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Nov 17, 2011 4:58 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing


By reactance, I misspoke, meaning impedance, but you get the point.
If each "wafer" has its own core heater, the input current would have to triple 
to support three cells.

> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:40:24 -0600
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
> From: robert.leguil...@hotmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> 
> /snip/
> "Actually, there is no reason to believe that it will require additional 
> input energy to activate the 2 extra cores. He has a COP of 6 when all are 
> used which results in an output of 1558 * 6 = 9348 each ECAT of 107 total. I 
> used the test data to determine that this was entirely in line with the 
> results expected in the driven mode. He did not use 3 for his testthe 
> output of the 1 MW system proved that indirectly."
> /snip/
> If the 3 cells are in parallel, you have 3 core heaters. Tripling the number 
> of parallel loads, would result in one third of the circuit's reactance, and 
> therefore three times the total current...
> V x A(3) = Power(3) 
> Tripling input power

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing

David Roberson  wrote:

> Why the relatively short test?
>

That, I know the answer to. Rossi stopped the test because the people
observing it asked him to stop it. They wanted to look inside. Also, it was
late in the day and they had to go.

It was rather difficult to stop, as you see in the data.

It is a shame the thing took several hours to turn on. But that is what you
have to expect from prototype machines. It turns on a whole lot faster and
more reliably than any previous cold fusion device. If it turned out every
time, right away, on demand . . . I would suspect it is fake.

Defkalion claims that their machines work on demand, fully controlled. I
hope that is true.

In his blog I think it was, Rossi said that this particular version of the
machine can only self-sustain for about six hours, max. if that is true, it
was close to the limit after 4 hours. I guess he might have boosted it for
a while with input, and then let it run in self-sustaining mode again.

The power was fluctuating during the self-sustaining event, but it did seem
to be decreasing over time.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing


This is a misconception of Rossi's device.  The heat is common to the region 
where the cores are located.  Since each core generates extra heat, none is 
actually lost.
In fact they effect each other in a positive feedback manner.  How do you think 
that he achieves a COP of 6 in the 3 core unit otherwise?  The COP is only 
approximately 3
with 1 core.

I know the data is confusing.  The thermocouples are tricky at best, but there 
are some data points that can be trusted.  Working with these, I was able to 
untangle the mess.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Robert Leguillon 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Nov 17, 2011 4:50 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing


/snip/
Actually, there is no reason to believe that it will require additional input 
nergy to activate the 2 extra cores. He has a COP of 6 when all are used which 
esults in an output of 1558 * 6 = 9348 each ECAT of 107 total. I used the test 
ata to determine that this was entirely in line with the results expected in 
he driven mode. He did not use 3 for his testthe output of the 1 MW system 
roved that indirectly."
snip/
f the 3 cells are in parallel, you have 3 core heaters. Tripling the number of 
arallel loads, would result in one third of the circuit's reactance, and 
herefore three times the total current...
 x A(3) = Power(3) 
ripling input power

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing


I do not think anyone could say that it is not possible to make a sophisticated 
scam of an ECAT.  Rossi has helped the skeptical among us by allowing this to 
be the case.
Do you honestly think that he is not aware of this possibility?  Why 1 core?  
Why the relatively short test?  All of these issues point to a planned attempt 
to misdirect.  He has
his reasons and I am not sure that we will ever find out why.

Like I have said before, his 1 MW system was his real attempt to dazzle us.  
The skeptics among us have conveniently disregarded the results of this test 
for their reasons.
I am a bit unhappy with the fact that he did not give us good data to work with 
following this test, but he might be honest about the reason.

It will not be long before the truth will come out about Rossi's system.  Many 
of us think it is the real thing.  The others should be praying that it is.

I guess I should modify my last sentence.  Some others hope that the ECAT is a 
scam, especially those who make a living based upon industries that will be 
replaced.

I think it is a moral issue to give support to people like Rossi who can really 
make a large positive impact upon the world.  Where do you stand?

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Nov 17, 2011 4:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing





On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:29 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

 
It is clear to me that Rossi does not want it to be easy to determine. 



At least, in that, he succeeds.



  But, the results of this test speak for themselves.



But like you just said, they don't speak clearly. Actually, none of the results 
require nuclear reactions to explain them.



 
I fail to believe that so many important people are in a scam with Rossi.  It 
is just not credible to me.



I doubt that anyone other than Rossi is involved in a scam (maybe his wife). 
Most of the others demonstrated that they are not qualified to evaluate the 
tests by their failure to understand steam.


And who cares about the credibility of the scam. The issue is the credibility 
of the experiment, which is not.
 

 
The Ni-H system is the one we have been waiting for.  It will make history.



I fail to understand why you think a believer's statement like this will have 
any influence on people skeptical of the claims for technical reasons. It is 
just not credible to me.

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing

David Roberson  wrote:

> It is clear to me that Rossi does not want it to be easy to determine.
> Everyone needs to understand that.  He is using misdirection to his
> advantage.
>

I believe he does use misdirection, but in this case I'm pretty sure he
just did not want the thing to get too hot. Even as late as October 6 I
think it was he was having problems with control. I say that because the
machine refused to turn on. You can see in the data that it starts to
produce heat and then abruptly stops, up to 280 min. It works like a cranky
internal combustion engine that keeps stalling.

During the 18 hour test in February, the machine clearly went out of
control. If I had something like that I would not run it as hot as it can
go. In this case, running with only one cell enabled produces a clear
signal. I do not see any advantage to running all three, if the purpose is
to do a convincing demonstration. People were not convinced by 8 kW will
not be convinced by 24 kW, or 24 MW for that matter.

The duration was also long enough to satisfy any rational demand for proof.
Mary Yugo and others keep saying the run was too short even though it was
24 times longer than anyone needs to be sure the effect is real. She sets
arbitrary goals, and then whenever Rossi meets one of those goals, she sets
another. There is no technical justification for demanding higher power or
a longer run. Both are far, far beyond what anyone else has accomplished,
and far beyond any rational doubt. There is not the slightest chance the
self-sustaining event can be explained with stored heat or chemistry.

I suppose if Yugo had watched Wilbur Wright's flight on Sept. 9, 1908
lasting 57 minutes, 31 seconds, she would have said: "I will not believe he
can really fly until he goes for an hour!!!" Then, later that day when he
flew for 1 hour 2 minutes, she would say: "I will not believe it until he
flies for TWO HOURS."

- Jed

RE: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing

2011-11-17 Thread Robert Leguillon

By reactance, I misspoke, meaning impedance, but you get the point.
If each "wafer" has its own core heater, the input current would have to triple 
to support three cells.

> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:40:24 -0600
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing
> From: robert.leguil...@hotmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> 
> /snip/
> "Actually, there is no reason to believe that it will require additional 
> input energy to activate the 2 extra cores. He has a COP of 6 when all are 
> used which results in an output of 1558 * 6 = 9348 each ECAT of 107 total. I 
> used the test data to determine that this was entirely in line with the 
> results expected in the driven mode. He did not use 3 for his testthe 
> output of the 1 MW system proved that indirectly."
> /snip/
> If the 3 cells are in parallel, you have 3 core heaters. Tripling the number 
> of parallel loads, would result in one third of the circuit's reactance, and 
> therefore three times the total current...
> V x A(3) = Power(3) 
> Tripling input power

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing

2011-11-17 Thread Robert Leguillon

/snip/
"Actually, there is no reason to believe that it will require additional input 
energy to activate the 2 extra cores. He has a COP of 6 when all are used which 
results in an output of 1558 * 6 = 9348 each ECAT of 107 total. I used the test 
data to determine that this was entirely in line with the results expected in 
the driven mode. He did not use 3 for his testthe output of the 1 MW system 
proved that indirectly."
/snip/
If the 3 cells are in parallel, you have 3 core heaters. Tripling the number of 
parallel loads, would result in one third of the circuit's reactance, and 
therefore three times the total current...
V x A(3) = Power(3) 
Tripling input power

Re: [Vo]:New european commercial E-Cat Offer

Mary Yugo  wrote:

> There are a lot of these claims, aren't there?
>>
>>
> Yes and so far, all have been scams or failures or both.
>

Untrue. The Curies' claim of anomalous energy was not a failure.
Muon-catalyzed fusion and the fusor are real, and I expect Taleyarkhan's
sono fusion is real. It probably does not produce significant heat.

If you mean unconventional claims made after 1960 or so, most have been
failures, with the possible exception of the Hydrodynamics gadget. As far
as I can tell that really does work. It was tested with the best
instrumentation Georgia Tech. can recommend, and it apparently produced
significant excess heat, albeit not enough to have any commercial
significance.

I have no idea how many have been scams. I don't keep track of that.

The fact all those other claims failed has no bearing on cold fusion. Their
failure did not reduce the likelihood that cold fusion is real. Those other
claims are technically unrelated to cold fusion, in that they employ
magnets and things like that, and not hydrides or deuterides.

As many people have pointed out, all attempts to fly before the Wright
brothers failed, but that did not mean the Wrights did not fly. It did not
call into question their results. In the technical sense that is correct.
In the real world people at the time did doubt the Wrights flew because
there have been a number of failed attempts previously, especially
Langley's.

Actually, the closer you look at that particular example the more
complicated it becomes. Several people, such as Maxim, put propellers on
flying machines and took off long before December 17, 1903, but that was
not controlled flight. From an engineering point of view the Wrights
indisputable were the first to achieve controlled flight. No one came even
close to them previously.

There were precursor events in the history of cold fusion, such as Mizuno's
observation of anomalous heat in in palladium deuteride. But I think it is
fair to say that Fleischmann and Pons have indisputable priority. Mizuno
himself agrees.

Arata has undisputed priority for the nano-particle gas loading approach.
Celani, Rossi and others followed him. This would be true even if it turns
out Rossi was unaware of Arata. I doubt he was unaware. He seems to know a
lot about the field. A good experimentalist learns all about what other
people have done before plunging in.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:29 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

>
> It is clear to me that Rossi does not want it to be easy to determine.
>

At least, in that, he succeeds.

  But, the results of this test speak for themselves.
>

But like you just said, they don't speak clearly. Actually, none of the
results require nuclear reactions to explain them.

> I fail to believe that so many important people are in a scam with Rossi.
> It is just not credible to me.
>

I doubt that anyone other than Rossi is involved in a scam (maybe his
wife). Most of the others demonstrated that they are not qualified to
evaluate the tests by their failure to understand steam.

And who cares about the credibility of the scam. The issue is the
credibility of the experiment, which is not.

>
> The Ni-H system is the one we have been waiting for.  It will make history.
>

I fail to understand why you think a believer's statement like this will
have any influence on people skeptical of the claims for technical reasons.
It is just not credible to me.

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

Be careful what you ask for Mary.  I just wish Rossi had a good sense of humor.

-Original Message-
From: Mary Yugo 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Nov 17, 2011 3:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 
demo

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

At 11:45 AM 11/17/2011, Mary Yugo wrote:

I believe that is what the demand for independent university or government 
tests are for.

If he offered to sell you one, on condition that you could test it to your 
satisfaction before paying (clams?), would you buy it?

Absolutely!  As long as I get to chose the escrow company.

The other problem is that I don't want a huge kludge for 2 million dollars!  
I'd be happy to buy a small E-cat for say, $100K?   I'd set up the tests with 
some help from heat transfer/fluid flow specialists I know and it shouldn't 
take more than two weeks plus agreed on run time to do due diligence and 
acceptance testing.  All I would require would be that it run a long time (2-3 
weeks would be fine) and make a robust amount of excess energy  -1 kW 
continuous would be fine.  I'd be delighted (and would be able) to pay $100K 
for that.  I'd also require that Rossi allow the test results to become public. 
 No secrets-- just results in terms of methods used, instruments used,  raw 
data obtained and computed results.  No gamma spectrum or anything else he 
supposedly objects to.

I am pretty sure nothing like that will be made available to anyone.  Do you 
have reason to believe it will?  If not, why did you ask?

It would have been entirely in Rossi's interest to get one university (or 
famous lab) test rather than the dog and pony shows he provided yet he never 
did it.

BTW, I offered $100K cash on the spot to Dennis Lee and Jeff Otto for their HHO 
assisted Honda Accord that they advertised on their web site made 100 miles per 
gallon of gasoline.  I only asked that it have the same (or greater) 
performance and curb weight as the stock model and that the performance be 
verified on a dynamometer of my choosing.  Also that all the hydrogen be 
generated from electricity derived from engine power without external supplies 
of electricity and that the test be long enough (several thousand miles to rule 
out chemical energy storage or fuel inside the chassis or some other 
subterfuge).   All I heard were crickets in the night.  The offer was made on 
Sterling Allan's web site.

Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing


Actually, there is no reason to believe that it will require additional input 
energy to activate the 2 extra cores.  He has a COP of 6 when all are used
which results in an output of 1558 * 6 =  9348 each ECAT of 107 total.  I used 
the test data to determine that this was entirely in line with the
results expected in the driven mode.  He did not use 3 for his testthe 
output of the 1 MW system proved that indirectly.

It is clear to me that Rossi does not want it to be easy to determine.  
Everyone needs to understand that.  He is using misdirection to his advantage.

You have a valid point about his history.  But, the results of this test speak 
for themselves.

I fail to believe that so many important people are in a scam with Rossi.  It 
is just not credible to me.

The Ni-H system is the one we have been waiting for.  It will make history.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Robert Leguillon 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Nov 17, 2011 2:32 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT With 3 Cores Would Have Been Convincing


If Rossi did use three cores (assuming he didn't before):
he energy output may increase, but we'd still still be without any method to 
cually measure it, because of his calorimetry.
he energy consumed would have tripled, too, with a zero-net-gain possibility 
till on the table.
The October 6th test only needed proper calorimetry by independent observers. 
hat's it.  I seriously question Rossi's claims because this should be easy to 
emonstrate. They appear to be intentionally convoluted. Furthermore, his 
istory should give us pause, and ample justification for caution. 
His efforts with biodiesel (Petroldragon) and thermoelectric generation (LTI) 
ere both instances of taking real science, and claiming breakthroughs, 
ometimes orders-of-magnitude better, than everyone else. Keep this in mind.  It 
s not much different than taking a few watts claimed by Piantelli, and claiming 
housands. P&F have NOTHING to do with my skeptical view of Rossi.  Rossi and 
is weak demonstrations have everything to do with it.
I sincerely hope than Ni-H will match the claims the aggressive claims that 
have 
een made.  It would create a new industrial revolution, where cheap energy 
akes desalinization, industrial farming, and so much more, possible.  
The evidence just isn't there for Rossi's claims.  

avid Roberson  wrote:
>
It is unfortunate that Mr. Rossi did not use all three cores of his ECAT for 
he October 6, 2011 test.  The results would have indicated at least 2 times the 
bserved energy production.
I have completed an extensive review of the data collected during that October 
 test and it is apparent that we missed the big show.  It is not clear as to 
hy Rossi chose to limit the ECAT to the 1 core test case, but I suspect that it 
as part of his plan to dazzle the world with the October 28 demonstration.
It is possible that the control of the 1 MW system was more difficult than 
ossi anticipated which led to the decision to throttle it back to 470 kW.  In 
y opinion, the demonstration of the system at the reduced power level for the 
xtensive period of time was not a major failure.  It would have been surprising 
f the test had achieved all that Rossi expected since many unknown problems 
ften arise with complex systems such as this.  
The worst issue that we face is the continued barrage of criticism on this list 
hat mainly is a result of the skeptic’s total disbelief in anything related to 
old fusion.  I wonder if they would have been swayed had the data demonstrated 
he dramatic excess energy that I calculated with 3 cores.  I have a feeling 
hat something else would have given them reason to complain.
Dave

Re: [Vo]:The Oct. 6 data includes blank runs

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Mary Yugo  wrote:
>
>
>> Perhaps you miss the point about the hydrogen. It has to be completely
>>> removed from the Ni or you may get a cold fusion reaction. It will not be
>>> blank.
>>>
>>
>> Let's see if that's true.  I doubt it.  It's easily tested.
>>
>
> No, it is remarkably difficult to test whether the hydrogen is left in the
> metal.
>
>
>
>> How about a brand new E-cat?  It will be innocent of hydrogen.  There's
>> not a lot of hydrogen in room air.
>>
>
> I doubt they expose the powder to room air. I assume it is shipped in
> a vacuum or in nitrogen.
>

So, then, no hydrogen. Then it's remarkably easy to use nickel without
hydrogen. You're not making sense.



> I very much doubt that anyone will persuade Rossi to do any sort of blank
>> test so this is pretty academic at this point.
>>
>
> Actually, he has already done blank tests, including the one on Oct. 6.
>
> There are long segments during which input balanced output.
>

No there weren't, and if there were, there is no way to know it. During the
warm-up, especially before the water is boiling, the output is much less
than the input.


> Some of these are followed by segments in which the power was turned off
> and the temperature declined rapidly.
>

When the flow rate was increased dramatically.



> Those are blanks. There is blank as anything can be.
>

No. There is no independent way to know when the claimed reactions is
occurring. The blank should be a run in which observers can be sure the
reactants are not available for the claimed reaction.



> 1. Use instruments that have been corrupted and produce fake numbers. To
> do a blank, you would simply adjust instruments to reflect the true balance
> between input and output.
>
> 2. Install a hidden source of input power. To do a blank with this, you
> simply turn off the hidden source.
>
>
Obviously, a blank can be faked too, and would only be credible if
independent observers handled the devices, and best if Rossi was not even
aware which ecat was the blank one. This would be easy to set up in
principle, but impossible with Rossi.

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo


At 12:55 PM 11/17/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
At 12:25 PM 11/17/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: No secrets-- just results 
in terms of methods used, instruments used,  raw data obtained and 
computed results.  No gamma spectrum or anything else he supposedly objects to.


You demand the trade secrets of everything you buy?  I thought you'd 
be happy if it were unicorn-powered. What's their gamma-ray spectrum?


Ooops ... I misread that. You DON'T want said sekrits. Sorry.

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

Voice input can be annoying. I need to adjust this latest upgrade. It works
better but I get careless.

I meant to say:

Most cold fusion devices do not PRODUCE any dangerous radiation.


I said "Most devices are small. Perhaps when you scale them up to kilowatts
or megawatts they do produce significant radiation."

I did not mean they suddenly start radiating. I meant that the radiation
per watt of anomalous power is small, but when power is increased the
radiation increases to the point where it becomes easy to detect.

I doubt that is the situation.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

> At 12:25 PM 11/17/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: No secrets-- just results in
> terms of methods used, instruments used,  raw data obtained and computed
> results.  No gamma spectrum or anything else he supposedly objects to.
>
> You demand the trade secrets of everything you buy?  I thought you'd be
> happy if it were unicorn-powered.

No. Perhaps you misread what I wrote or I was not clear?   I only demand
good tests of radical new claims before I buy anything.  I don't understand
your problem with my response.  I'd buy a unicorn powered generator too if
someone could prove by proper testing that it made cheap energy.

| What's their gamma-ray spectrum?

I was referring to a test Rossi objected to that someone wanted to run in
one of his first public demonstrations.  The nuclear physicist who was
doing the radiation monitoring wanted to do some sort of spectroscopy on
the radiation from the E-cat.  Apparently it did produced some back then.
Rossi objected.  I don't want to do anything like that -- no need.  A three
week run at a verified 1kW excess output over some reasonable input (less
than 300 watts for example) or something proportional but different from
that example would be fine.  Under independent testing, of course.  No
Rossi fingers adjusting anything.

The points you may have missed are that I would want verified performance
numbers before buying an E-cat and they would need to be iron clad but I
would not ask for anything that could be remotely interpreted as asking for
trade secrets.  Do you have a problem with any of that in the prior
sentence?  If it's not clear, by all means ask again and I'll do my best to
explain it more.

Re: [Vo]:Bowing out of the discussion for a while

I also...

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>
>> I've got too much other stuff I'm not getting too, and the Rossi
>> discussion is looking to be interminable.
>>
>> If my will power falters I'll unsubscribe for a while; absent that I'll
>> be trying to ignore goings-on here, partly in the no doubt vain hope that
>> something will have been resolved when I next look in.
>>
>> 'Til later...
>>
>>
> Pity. I always find your comments interesting and perceptive.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo


Alan J Fletcher wrote:

At 12:25 PM 11/17/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: No secrets-- just results in 
terms of methods used, instruments used,  raw data obtained and 
computed results.  No gamma spectrum or anything else he supposedly 
objects to.


You demand the trade secrets of everything you buy?  I thought you'd 
be happy if it were unicorn-powered. What's their gamma-ray spectrum?


I believe she means just the opposite. She would not demand secrets, 
just a black box analysis.


I myself would not be willing to attend a demonstration of a Rossi 
device unless there was robust radiation detection equipment in place. I 
do not need to see the spectrum but I would demand assurances that the 
test is reasonably safe. I say this because Celani detected anomalous 
bursts of radiation when the machine turned on.


Most cold fusion devices do not any dangerous radiation. Most devices 
are small. Perhaps when you scale them up to kilowatts or megawatts they 
do produce significant radiation. Or perhaps only nickel ones produce 
radiation. That does not seem likely but I see no reason for anyone to 
take risks, when we can install detection equipment. I hope it would be 
possible to turn off the device quickly if significant radiation is 
detected.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Only two theories left. The big conspiracy theory and the true energy production theory.

"We may have a situation of one scammer and a lot of people who should have
known better."

right, one confused, deluded, desperate person, and his enablers, to use
addiction treatment jargon...

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Mary Yugo  wrote:

If this E-cat business turns out, as I strongly suspect it will, to be a
> scam, I suspect Rossi will be the only scammer among the "usual suspects".
> Along the way, he will have had to have accomplices and helpers -- some
> with knowledge and some without.  I doubt Focardi was in on any scam.  I
> have no idea about Levi -- he's a puzzlement.  Supposedly, he did the best
> test of the E-cat EVER.  And then the guy won't repeat it with proper
> recording, imaging and documentation?   He won't compel Rossi to let him do
> that?  And he won't change his mind about the device when Rossi tells him
> no?  I have no idea how that could work.   But then airplanes have been
> flown into the ground killing everyone on board because a first officer
> wouldn't question a bad decision from the captain in charge.
>
> Stremmenos is a puzzle too.  Is he really that credulous and incautious as
> to endorse what Rossi has been doing?
>
> We may have a situation of one scammer and a lot of people who should have
> known better.
>

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

At 12:25 PM 11/17/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: No secrets-- just results in 
terms of methods used, instruments used,  raw data obtained and 
computed results.  No gamma spectrum or anything else he supposedly objects to.


You demand the trade secrets of everything you buy?  I thought you'd 
be happy if it were unicorn-powered. What's their gamma-ray spectrum?

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

>
> If you came from a community that did not use levers and never
> developed the rudiments of lever science, how would you react upon
> hearing a story that one man shifted a stone with a branch that you
> KNOW from the stones description should require at least 8 strong men?
>
> Is the story a tall tale? Was this man a giant? Perhaps the stone was
> hollow.
> If he is an ordinary man and the story is accurate, then he is a
> magician who knows the magic of the lever.
>

If he claimed to be able to perform this feat because of a new technology
that I was unfamiliar with, then I might be skeptical, but open to
observing a demonstration. If he described the method saying he would use a
thin bamboo pole pivoted on yonder tree, I would be skeptical not only of
his new technology, which I was unfamiliar with, but also of the
implausibility of a bamboo pole being strong enough, because between the
tree and the rock, the technology is old. Unless he is claiming that when
the new technology of leverage is used, that the bamboo takes on new
strength, and the old laws don't apply.

So, Rossi is claiming a new heat-producing reaction, and while I'm
skeptical of it, I'm interested in his attempts to demonstrate it. But the
implausibility I expressed above, was not of the reaction Rossi claims, but
of intermediate physics that is not new, and that is necessary to believe
his interpretation of the demo.

The interpretation of the Oct 28 demo, and all the other steam demos,
assumes that the power transfer to the water increases 8-fold at the onset
(or within minutes) of boiling, and that requires an 8-fold increase in the
temperature difference between the heating element and the water. Given the
time it takes to increase the temperature of the heating element to its
first-fold power transfer (hours), this is impossibly implausible.

Or is Rossi also claiming that if heat is produced by nuclear reactions,
then the thermodynamics of heat transport is completely different?

[Vo]:The Oct. 6 data includes blank runs

Mary Yugo  wrote:

> Perhaps you miss the point about the hydrogen. It has to be completely
>> removed from the Ni or you may get a cold fusion reaction. It will not be
>> blank.
>>
>
> Let's see if that's true.  I doubt it.  It's easily tested.
>

No, it is remarkably difficult to test whether the hydrogen is left in the
metal.

> How about a brand new E-cat?  It will be innocent of hydrogen.  There's
> not a lot of hydrogen in room air.
>

I doubt they expose the powder to room air. I assume it is shipped in
a vacuum or in nitrogen.

> I very much doubt that anyone will persuade Rossi to do any sort of blank
> test so this is pretty academic at this point.
>

Actually, he has already done blank tests, including the one on Oct. 6.

There are long segments during which input balanced output. Some of these
are followed by segments in which the power was turned off and the
temperature declined rapidly. There was clearly no anomalous heat being
produced during these segments.

Those are blanks. There is blank as anything can be. Since you do not
accept that data, I'm sure you would not accept any other blank data.

You keep repeating this term "blank" like an incantation, as if it had some
magical power to bolster data. It does not. It would do nothing to expose a
fake. There are two ways to make fake data:

1. Use instruments that have been corrupted and produce fake numbers. To do
a blank, you would simply adjust instruments to reflect the true balance
between input and output.

2. Install a hidden source of input power. To do a blank with this, you
simply turn off the hidden source.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New european commercial E-Cat Offer

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Daniel Rocha  wrote:
>
> http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Energy_By_Motion_(EBM)#Funds_Raised
>>
>
> Thanks.
>
> I see this is some other claim. Nothing to do with Rossi.
>
> There are a lot of these claims, aren't there?
>
>
Yes and so far, all have been scams or failures or both.

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

> At 11:45 AM 11/17/2011, Mary Yugo wrote:
>
>> I believe that is what the demand for independent university or
>> government tests are for.
>>
>
> If he offered to sell you one, on condition that you could test it to your
> satisfaction before paying (clams?), would you buy it?
>

Absolutely!  As long as I get to chose the escrow company.

The other problem is that I don't want a huge kludge for 2 million
dollars!  I'd be happy to buy a small E-cat for say, $100K?   I'd set up
the tests with some help from heat transfer/fluid flow specialists I know
and it shouldn't take more than two weeks plus agreed on run time to do due
diligence and acceptance testing.  All I would require would be that it run
a long time (2-3 weeks would be fine) and make a robust amount of excess
energy  -1 kW continuous would be fine.  I'd be delighted (and would be
able) to pay $100K for that.  I'd also require that Rossi allow the test
results to become public.  No secrets-- just results in terms of methods
used, instruments used,  raw data obtained and computed results.  No gamma
spectrum or anything else he supposedly objects to.

I am pretty sure nothing like that will be made available to anyone.  Do
you have reason to believe it will?  If not, why did you ask?

It would have been entirely in Rossi's interest to get one university (or
famous lab) test rather than the dog and pony shows he provided yet he
never did it.

BTW, I offered $100K cash on the spot to Dennis Lee and Jeff Otto for their
HHO assisted Honda Accord that they advertised on their web site made 100
miles per gallon of gasoline.  I only asked that it have the same (or
greater) performance and curb weight as the stock model and that the
performance be verified on a dynamometer of my choosing.  Also that all the
hydrogen be generated from electricity derived from engine power without
external supplies of electricity and that the test be long enough (several
thousand miles to rule out chemical energy storage or fuel inside the
chassis or some other subterfuge).   All I heard were crickets in the
night.  The offer was made on Sterling Allan's web site.

Re: [Vo]:New european commercial E-Cat Offer