date:20120104

ok,

as far as I understand,
it seems to propose that industrializing a product is hard (in absolute,
and for Rossi).
they tell us to be ready for bad news and unexpected problems.
they take the example of thermo electric device that rossi fail to
industrialize correctly and demonstrate...
the story they tell about TE elements is quite interesting, giving details
about the failure causes (various).
their position oppose the idea that rossi did a scam with TE...

like petroldragon official story you can believe it or not.

for me, seeing the behavior an method of Rossi make that interpretation
credible,
and even coherent with petrol dragon, NI relation story...
it is also totally credible compared to usual problems in any big project.

however I'm not so sure of the worst, because LENR reactors are very simple.
being negative with Rossi, I'll say that this is why he succeeding making a
prototype, and it tooks a few month to defkalion
to make a copycat without copying and industrialize it.

stabilizing what I understand of an E-cat is an intern job for a young
engineer. (I've got colleagues at school that did harder)
stabilizing an ottoman is smarter, but once the e-cat/hyperion is stable,
it is well known method, needing maybe optimal command theory (maybe things
have changed since, but 20 year ago it would be what an intern would have
done for a company) .

some here talk about safety and redundancy. it is needed, but not so
complex, because the most critical safety is basic.
good design often is to separate safety low level, redundant , simple
reflex loop... that simply stop unlikely catastrophe.
beside a classic robust control system, more complex and less redundant.
anyway redundancy is mostly a research cost, not so much hardware. it is
divided by volume.

note that I agree with the uncertainties you notice, however I compare them
with other hypothesis.
Knowing also how business, research, and psychology works, I'm not
surprised...

to be honnest I'm more surprised that e-cat get demonstrated in public, but
it is compatible with Rossi's psychology.
Defkalion behavior is much more rational according to me.

2012/1/4 Mary Yugo 

>
>
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2012/1/4 Mary Yugo 
>>
>>> What opinion is that?
>>
>> yours, with respect.
>>
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> Sorry but I didn't understand the significance of the second comment and
> link.  Perhaps you can restate or expand on it?  Thanks.
>
>

[Vo]:Time Distortion Work

2012-01-04 Thread Harvey Norris


http://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/6638542345/
Separation in time between magnetic fields above and below a stack of three 
pancake spirals of the balanced 666 machine. The color codings of checkers show 
the series routing of coil segments for each phase before folding into a circle 
as a torsional field device, and then further given the appropriate equal 
capacities to resonate under that condition of mutual inductance between 
phasings. The simplest mathematical two dimensional magic square of nine 
elements will contain three diagonal progressions in three dimensions;(obtained 
by folding both sides of the 2d formation in 3d space to reveal the continuing 
diagonal progression) likewise here three twisting diagonals circling around 
each other in 3d space will enable the unique formation that will enable 
balanced currents on all three phases: which will never develope in other 
formations of coil placements, including the first solution of lateral 
placements. Likewise the MIDDLE segment of each series
 phase has a reversed polarity connection; whereby this practice enables the 
central segment to REPEL the magnetic fields created by the outer segments for 
5/6ths of the cycle time period, forcing those magnetic fields to be issued 
outwards from the assembly for use in efficient primary/secondary 
relationships. 
Likewise the first 2d magic square as an analogy shows that the opposite 
progressions of numbers towards the center are mirror images of each other; 
showing point symmetry. The net result of these actions will show a  torsional 
time "compression" between the opposing poles of the 666 machine, having 6 
polar 
compressions at one sixth of a cycle at 60 degrees of compressional  action in 
time
http://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/6638773467/
Magic Square Technology applied for seriesed coil segments yielding balanced 
currents to create torsional fields on three phase and time distortion effects 
on perimeters. Three diagonal progressions of phases wrapping around each other 
in 3d model produces torsional time effects on perimeters of poles.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/6638873427/
Moving former top scope sensor left to top of left coil stack, showing near 180 
phasing
http://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/6638910985/
By reversing or revolving 180 degrees the new top sensor placed to the left of 
the first measured stack; we see that the bottom magnetic field of the first 
stack with phase 3 on top, is almost identical in time with the magnetic field 
emitted by the stack with phase 1 on top. This then shows a near synchrony of 
magnetic fields between stack 3 phase on bottom and stack 1 phase on top, both 
of which are in front view. Not only this but we also showed both polarities of 
that observation by reversing the second sensor. Originally we showed that the 
magnetic field from phase 3 stack on both top and bottom were also FAIRLY 
close, 
perhaps 60 degrees difference at most. Next then we show the TIME difference 
between BOTH the TOP magnetic fields of phase stack three and phase stack one 
by 
attaching the extra sensor formerly shown sitting on top of the scope.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/6639042041/
Relative magnetic field separations for two front top magnetic fields.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/6639096085/
Giving one sensor a higher amplitude and moving around the circle to verify 120 
phase degree separation on the top magnetic field side
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

[Vo]:How to watch a nuclear explosion

2012-01-04 Thread Harry Veeder

VIP observers watching the spectacle during Operation Greenhouse at
Enewetak Atoll, 1951.

http://umanesimo.tumblr.com/post/907321188/monochrom23reich-vip-observers-watching-the

Harry

[Vo]:2500 R ( $ 41 USA ) for Aakash Ubislate 7 with 7 inch (18 cm) tablet computer by Datawind: Yeshi Choedon: Rich Murray 2012.01.04

2012-01-04 Thread Rich Murray

2500 R ( $ 41 USA ) for Aakash Ubislate 7 with 7 inch (18 cm) tablet
computer by Datawind: Yeshi Choedon: Rich Murray 2012.01.04

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-million-world-cheapest-tablet-india.html

1.4 million orders for world's cheapest tablet in India
January 3, 2012

Indian students use "Aakash" in New Delhi in October.

The world's cheapest tablet computer has clocked 1.4 million bookings
since it was put up for sale online two weeks ago in India, a
spokeswoman told AFP on Tuesday.

The world's cheapest tablet computer has clocked 1.4 million bookings
since it was put up for sale online two weeks ago in India, a
spokeswoman told AFP on Tuesday.

Bookings for the long-awaited Aakash, pegged at 2,500 rupees ($41),
began on December 14, two months after it was unveiled as the
"computer for the masses" in India where millions struggle to fund
their education.

Datawind, the British company contracted by the Indian government to
manufacture Aakash, said it had been taken by surprise by the response
in India, where Apple's iPad computers costs a minimum of $600.

"The current response is overwhelming," a spokeswoman at the company's
New Delhi PR agency told AFP in an email that detailed the number of
bookings made so far.

Datawind is now taking orders for an upgraded version, called Ubislate
7 for March, and it will establish three new factories in 2012 to cope
with the rush of orders.

"We plan to produce 75,000 units per factory per month from around
April," the spokeswoman said.

The Economic Times in its online edition said the makers had run out
of stock of Aakash, which has a seven-inch (18-centimetre)
touchscreen, Wi-Fi Internet function, a multimedia player and 180
minutes of battery power.

The business daily said with around 400,000 pre-sales bookings for the
Aakash, sales of the device were more than sales for the entire Indian
tablet market last year which numbered about 250,000-300,000 units.

The stylish, locally-made Aakash uses an Android 2.2 operating system
and has an external 2GB storage card and two USB ports.

Critics had warned the device might struggle to live up to
expectations with its limited 256-megabyte random access memory (RAM).

The price of what has been dubbed "the world's cheapest computer"
should fall to $35 and could even be hammered down as low as $10,
DataWind has said.

The Aakash is part of a push to increase the number of students in
higher education and to give them the technological skills needed to
further boost the country's recent rapid economic growth.

(c) 2012 AFP

http://www.ubislate.com/



Specifications  Aakash (UbiSlate7)  UbiSlate 7+ (Upgraded Aakash)
Availability
Month   Inventory Status
January 
February
March   
Pricing Rs.2,499/-  Rs.2,999/-
Microprocessor  Arm11 – 366Mhz  Cortex A8 – 700 Mhz
Battery 2100 mAh3200 mAh
OS  Android 2.2 Android 2.3
Network WiFiWiFi & GPRS (SIM & Phone functionality)

The UbiSlate7+ is an Android 2.3 touch screen tablet that has a HD
video co-processor for a high-quality multimedia experience and core
graphics accelerator for faster application support.
This tablet is the only Android device in the market to offer
DataWind’s UbiSurfer browser, based on 18 international patents.
The UbiSurfer browser accelerates web pages by factors of 10x to 30x,
allowing for a web experience who’s speed is unrivalled.

The device includes WiFi connectivity and support for optional 3G modems.
Two full-sized USB ports are integrated into the unit allowing
pen-drives, external keyboards, web-cams, dongles and other
inexpensive peripherals to be attached.  Pen drives are a common
medium for storing and sharing content in India.
They are even used by people that are not computer savvy, for access
to music and videos.
A full sized USB ports allowing regular pen-drives to be plugged-in is
also available as an added advantage over other Tablets.


http://www.thisgivesmehope.com/2011/10/25/161-tablet-computers-for-indias-rural-children/

#161 Tablet computers for India’s rural children
October 25, 2011

Photo from krebsmaus07 via Flickr Creative Commons

While North Americans ponder whether to spend $199 for a Kindle Fire
or $499 for the least expensive iPad, the children in this photo will
soon have access to a tiny computer that promises to change their
world.
The world’s cheapest tablet computer is about to hit the market.

Indians will no doubt be lining up to buy the Aakash (“sky” in Hindi).
At $ 45 for government users and $ 35 for students, the tablet is low
cost, high power.

India’s Ministry of Human Resource and Development funded development
of the tablet and is subsidizing it for institutions.
 It comes with WiFi and Bluetooth, has 2 USB ports and uses Google’s
Android system.

UK-based Datawind won the bid to develop the 7-inch tablet. Components
were sourced globally and assembled in India. Commercial users will
pay just over $60. Unlimited In

Re: [Vo]:The biological effects of radiation are difficult to quantify

2012-01-04 Thread Daniel Rocha

If the released radiation is in the soft x-ray range, like 2KeV detection
will be extremely hard. Even kw of x rays will be stopped by less than
a millimeter of lead. I think it will hardly escape the powder itself.

Did anyone tryto detect that? Takahashi suggested something around that
wavelength.

2012/1/4 Mary Yugo 

>
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>>
>> As to what is politically expedient for Levi, he'd better think of
>>> something.  I suspect his career at U of Bologna is going to be curtailed
>>> some time soon unless Rossi coughs up some miracle such as $500K and a
>>> device to test.
>>>
>>
>> On what do you base this suspicion? I doubt that you know anything about
>> the situation. Generally speaking, your suspicions seem to be misplaced.
>> Your assertions about other people, institutions, history and experimental
>> results in this field are wildly inaccurate. You are chock full
>> misinformation and confusion. I suggest you try reading something about
>> these subjects before commenting on them.
>>
>
>
> All your suggestions for radiation testing are premature until Rossi's
> reactor passes independent tests showing it's real and not a scam or fraud
> or (very unlikely unless he's crazy) a delusion.Then fine, I suppose --
> people who specialize in it will know better than you or I what to test for
> and how.
>
> As for Levi, I suspect he missed something important in the February 18
> test.  I don't think he's dishonest but I do suspect a lack of competence
> and cleverness.  For one thing, the 130 kW burst is highly suspicious-- of
> bad thermocouple placement (in contact with one of the heaters) or some
> other form of interference.For another, what sort of scientist does
> such a definitive experiment on such a revolutionary system and takes data
> badly or not all and does no documentation, photos or lab notes?  Not a
> very good scientist, for sure.
>
> If Rossi turns out to be a fraud, Levi will be in big trouble for having
> allowed Rossi to mention his association with U of B so often,  to lend
> himself credibility.  The U has already distanced themselves from Rossi and
> I suspect if Rossi fails, they will distance themselves from his immediate
> ardent supporters as well on the basis that they should have known better.
> Focardi may escape due to his age and prior work-- anyway I hope so.  I
> suspect that Levi would end up being the main scapegoat if that term
> applies properly to someone who really bears some of the responsibility.
> Levi would deserve it in my opinion.  After his statements which provided
> much of Rossi's early credibility, such as that be, he owes the scientific
> community a replication of his experiment with proper standardization,
> blanking and calibration and proper documentation and publication.  I have
> no idea why politics would stand in the way as you say -  a success could
> only improve the prestige of everyone connected to it, especially if Rossi
> is, as you expect, eventually vindicated.  The only issue as I see it,
> would be to the experiment rigorously and properly and to report the
> results completely and accurately.  What more would the U want?
>
> See:
> http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/01/university-of-bologna-clarifies-relationship-with-rossi/
>
> I hope that clarifies my stance.  Misinformation and confusion?  Don't
> think so.  Read something about it?  I try to keep up almost daily and I
> think except for some infamous detailed calculations, I do pretty well.




-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:The biological effects of radiation are difficult to quantify

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> As to what is politically expedient for Levi, he'd better think of
>> something.  I suspect his career at U of Bologna is going to be curtailed
>> some time soon unless Rossi coughs up some miracle such as $500K and a
>> device to test.
>>
>
> On what do you base this suspicion? I doubt that you know anything about
> the situation. Generally speaking, your suspicions seem to be misplaced.
> Your assertions about other people, institutions, history and experimental
> results in this field are wildly inaccurate. You are chock full
> misinformation and confusion. I suggest you try reading something about
> these subjects before commenting on them.
>

All your suggestions for radiation testing are premature until Rossi's
reactor passes independent tests showing it's real and not a scam or fraud
or (very unlikely unless he's crazy) a delusion.Then fine, I suppose --
people who specialize in it will know better than you or I what to test for
and how.

As for Levi, I suspect he missed something important in the February 18
test.  I don't think he's dishonest but I do suspect a lack of competence
and cleverness.  For one thing, the 130 kW burst is highly suspicious-- of
bad thermocouple placement (in contact with one of the heaters) or some
other form of interference.For another, what sort of scientist does
such a definitive experiment on such a revolutionary system and takes data
badly or not all and does no documentation, photos or lab notes?  Not a
very good scientist, for sure.

If Rossi turns out to be a fraud, Levi will be in big trouble for having
allowed Rossi to mention his association with U of B so often,  to lend
himself credibility.  The U has already distanced themselves from Rossi and
I suspect if Rossi fails, they will distance themselves from his immediate
ardent supporters as well on the basis that they should have known better.
Focardi may escape due to his age and prior work-- anyway I hope so.  I
suspect that Levi would end up being the main scapegoat if that term
applies properly to someone who really bears some of the responsibility.
Levi would deserve it in my opinion.  After his statements which provided
much of Rossi's early credibility, such as that be, he owes the scientific
community a replication of his experiment with proper standardization,
blanking and calibration and proper documentation and publication.  I have
no idea why politics would stand in the way as you say -  a success could
only improve the prestige of everyone connected to it, especially if Rossi
is, as you expect, eventually vindicated.  The only issue as I see it,
would be to the experiment rigorously and properly and to report the
results completely and accurately.  What more would the U want?

See:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/01/university-of-bologna-clarifies-relationship-with-rossi/

I hope that clarifies my stance.  Misinformation and confusion?  Don't
think so.  Read something about it?  I try to keep up almost daily and I
think except for some infamous detailed calculations, I do pretty well.

Re: [Vo]:The biological effects of radiation are difficult to quantify

Mary Yugo  wrote:

> No radioactivity at all has ever been found in any other than the very
> first Rossi experiment and it has been looked for each time.
>

There are several problems with this:

1. Only a few tests of Rossi reactor have been done. We need thousands of
hours in hundreds of labs before we can rule the possibility of dangerous
radiation.

2. A burst of radiation reportedly occurs when the reaction is started or
stopped. Therefore the reaction must be started and stopped thousands of
times automatically with instruments in place.

3. The reactor is shielded. There may be radiation but it has not been
measured. We need to be sure shielding is adequate. The first step is to
remove it and find out exactly how much radiation a given level of power
produces, assuming there is a correlation.

4. We need a comprehensive theory to explain the radiation so that we can
predict how much radiation there will be under any circumstances, including
extreme ones such as overheated reactors.

5. Rossi himself does not know much about radiation. Some radiation experts
have looked at this but we need many more to look at it.

  If it's not there at all, you don't need animal experiments!
>

Obviously. But we should do them anyway. You never know whether something
else might be causing a problem. For example, cell phones may to cause
biological damage. This might be caused by radiation but it might be caused
by holding a warm object next to your head for several hours a day. Biology
is the most complex phenomenon in the known universe. In some ways, it is
barely understood, and it cannot be predicted in detail. The only way to
ensure there are no biological hazards from a novel and unknown source of
energy is to do actual tests with living plants and animals.

>The cause of the first burst in Rossi's experiment is suspected by some
> of being some sort of "plant" (deliberate placement and brief exposure of a
> radioactive source to deceive) and/or artifact.
>

That is nonsense and it is irrelevant. It makes no difference what Rossi
has discovered or not discovered, or tested for or not tested for. The work
is barely begun. This reactor must be tested extensively by thousands of
experts worldwide, in many different institutions such as UL. I think it
would be lunacy to allow the introduction of this technology before that
happens, for any purpose, at any level, even centralized reactors.

As to what is politically expedient for Levi, he'd better think of
> something.  I suspect his career at U of Bologna is going to be curtailed
> some time soon unless Rossi coughs up some miracle such as $500K and a
> device to test.
>

On what do you base this suspicion? I doubt that you know anything about
the situation. Generally speaking, your suspicions seem to be misplaced.
Your assertions about other people, institutions, history and experimental
results in this field are wildly inaccurate. You are chock full
misinformation and confusion. I suggest you try reading something about
these subjects before commenting on them.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The biological effects of radiation are difficult to quantify

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>  Mary Yugo wrote:
>
>   And by the way, it's expensive.
>>>
>>
>>  It is much cheaper than inadvertently irradiating hundreds of thousands
>> of people.
>>
>
> What's wrong with ordinary radiation detectors?
>
>
> You can measure radioactivity with instruments but you cannot predict what
> effect it will have on different species.
>

No radioactivity at all has ever been found in any other than the very
first Rossi experiment and it has been looked for each time.  If it's not
there at all, you don't need animal experiments!   The cause of the first
burst in Rossi's experiment is suspected by some of being some sort of
"plant" (deliberate placement and brief exposure of a radioactive source to
deceive) and/or artifact.

> At the National Plasma Fusion Science Lab in Nagoya, they exposed fish and
> other species to tritium at levels much higher than national standards
> allows. (Standards in Japan, the U.S. and Europe are pretty much the same,
> I gather.) They saw no ill effects. Tritium is a lot safer than people
> think. That's good because I believe tritium is the most common radioactive
> product from cold fusion, and it is difficult to contain.
>

Tritium is a "low energy beta emitter" exclusively.  As such, there is no
biohazard whatever from external use because the skin stops beta
particles.  The problem arrives if tritium is ingested, inhaled or absorbed
through the skin.  In that case, it's toxicity depends on dose.  It's
limited because of the turnover of water in the body which is fairly brisk
but it's still a concern in people if not in fish.

I have no idea what this has to do with the price of aardvark teeth in
Scotland.

As to what is politically expedient for Levi, he'd better think of
something.  I suspect his career at U of Bologna is going to be curtailed
some time soon unless Rossi coughs up some miracle such as $500K and a
device to test.  And that, in my view, is exceedingly unlikely!

RE: [Vo]:The biological effects of radiation are difficult to quantify

2012-01-04 Thread Robert Leguillon

FWIW, I use tritium-illuminated sights on my compound bow. 
See:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium_illumination

Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 17:48:58 -0500
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:The biological effects of radiation are difficult to quantify

Mary Yugo wrote:

And by the way, it's expensive.

It is much cheaper than inadvertently irradiating
  hundreds of thousands of people.

  What's wrong with ordinary radiation detectors?

You can measure radioactivity with instruments but you cannot
predict what effect it will have on different species. Different
power levels, the overall dose, and different types of radioactivity
have different effects. You have to first measure the radioactivity
a cold fusion reactor produces (if any) and then subject various
species to that level and type of radiation for extended periods.
Just knowing how much there is does not give you an accurate picture
of how much risk it presents. Unless the dose is so high it causes
immediate damage or death, it is hard to estimate how much damage it
will cause. Biology is complex and unpredictable.

  Or do you think animals are used to verify that
  conventional nuclear  power plants are safe?   Maybe they use
  canaries?

They use a variety of species. I doubt that includes canaries.

The standards for things like a safe level of human exposure are
mostly educated guesses. Actual ill health varies a great deal from
one person to another. Some people can be exposed to high levels
without ill effects. Children are much more vulnerable than adults.
There are exact levels of allowed radiation written into laws, but
the science is murky. The standards had to be raised in Japan in
response to Fukushima disaster. Otherwise they would not run out of
skilled workers to fix the reactor.

There has been a great deal of coverage of this in the Japanese
press, and I discussed it with some Japanese scientists.

At the National Plasma Fusion Science Lab in Nagoya, they exposed
fish and other species to tritium at levels much higher than
national standards allows. (Standards in Japan, the U.S. and Europe
are pretty much the same, I gather.) They saw no ill effects.
Tritium is a lot safer than people think. That's good because I
believe tritium is the most common radioactive product from cold
fusion, and it is difficult to contain.

- Jed

[Vo]:The biological effects of radiation are difficult to quantify


Mary Yugo wrote:


  And by the way, it's expensive.


It is much cheaper than inadvertently irradiating hundreds of
thousands of people.


What's wrong with ordinary radiation detectors?


You can measure radioactivity with instruments but you cannot predict 
what effect it will have on different species. Different power levels, 
the overall dose, and different types of radioactivity have different 
effects. You have to first measure the radioactivity a cold fusion 
reactor produces (if any) and then subject various species to that level 
and type of radiation for extended periods. Just knowing how much there 
is does not give you an accurate picture of how much risk it presents. 
Unless the dose is so high it causes immediate damage or death, it is 
hard to estimate how much damage it will cause. Biology is complex and 
unpredictable.



  Or do you think animals are used to verify that conventional 
nuclear  power plants are safe?   Maybe they use canaries?


They use a variety of species. I doubt that includes canaries.

The standards for things like a safe level of human exposure are mostly 
educated guesses. Actual ill health varies a great deal from one person 
to another. Some people can be exposed to high levels without ill 
effects. Children are much more vulnerable than adults. There are exact 
levels of allowed radiation written into laws, but the science is murky. 
The standards had to be raised in Japan in response to Fukushima 
disaster. Otherwise they would not run out of skilled workers to fix the 
reactor.


There has been a great deal of coverage of this in the Japanese press, 
and I discussed it with some Japanese scientists.


At the National Plasma Fusion Science Lab in Nagoya, they exposed fish 
and other species to tritium at levels much higher than national 
standards allows. (Standards in Japan, the U.S. and Europe are pretty 
much the same, I gather.) They saw no ill effects. Tritium is a lot 
safer than people think. That's good because I believe tritium is the 
most common radioactive product from cold fusion, and it is difficult to 
contain.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:OpEdNews article on LENR, includes LENR powered space plane

Mary Yugo  wrote:

> Which liquid water test are you referring to?  Rossi's October 6 was
> objected to in multiple ways, including thermocouple placement, lack of
> blank calibration, and possibly hidden sources of heat.
>

Sure, but these objections are nonsense. Anyone can "object" but that does
not make the objection valid, as you see in the 9/11 denier campaign, for
example.

  Levi's experiment was undocumented or improperly documented . . .
>

It was not documented at all. If it were not for Lewan, me and a few
others, you would not have heard about it. Rossi and Levi would have
preferred that.

. . . and he refused multiple requests to repeat it even though such a
> repeat would have been easy and cheap for him.
>

Yup. And he has good reasons for doing that, too. Political, not scientific.

Which tests were liquid phase and did not have other problems, please?
>

The 18 hour test had no actual problems, only imaginary ones. Several other
private tests were with liquid water.

> I don't know about you but I never believe trade show demonstrations
> unless they have definitive proof either there or elsewhere.
>

Yes, but that does not make them "suspicious." A product brochure or
specification such as the ones at Defkalion are not proof anything either,
but they are not suspicious. They are informative. No one says they should
be trusted in lieu of an independent test. That would be absurd.

> Please do not claim that Ampernergo's tests were not independent. . . .
>>
>

> It's not just frustrating.  It's also non-determinative of anything and
> not credible in the slightest.  That is because Ampenergo has no known
> factory, and no known staff except the people who provide a single
> interview, it's web site is nothing but a single uninformative page . . .
>

I do not find any of
these characteristics suspicious or "non-determinative." This is a start up
company. That is what a start-up company looks like.

I think you are suspicious because you do not know much about business.

, and they have never shown anything to anyone who talked about it except
> maybe you and you're vague and reluctant about it.
>

> They are as credible as Defkalion which is not in the least.
>

That is a matter of opinion. It depends on how much you know about
Defkalion. That is, how much so-called "reliable inside information" you
have. Granted, that term is often an oxymoron, there are some details about
Defkalion, such as the ones I described last month, that do give them
considerable credibility. It seems unlikely to me that they are running a
gigantic fraud staffed by a bunch of people who appear to be top-notch
scientists. I doubt they have found a group of actors who are so good they
can spend a week fooling professionals into to thinking they are
scientists. I do not take such scenarios seriously.

I understand some of the reasons Defkalion on is keeping a low profile. I
think it is too low. It causes problems. It causes you to think they have
no credibility, but that is not a problem for them. They don't care you
think. They care a little about what I think, which is why they authorized
the discussion I had last month.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Nickel nanoantennas... its all about resonances.

Thanks Jones and Nigel for raising the SNR. even if only for a nanosec!

Thanks for the link. I was not reading vortex daily back then, so I'll go
have a looksee.

J

-mi

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 1:20 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nickel nanoantennas... its all about resonances.

 

This kind of near-coherent resonance was a frequent topic on this forum 4-5
years ago. Several messages in the archives refer to either Preperata or
Dicke or both. The acronym DPSR = Dicke-Preparata Super-radiance has been
used.

 

"Cooperative radiation" is another term, as is Ahern's 'energy localization'
and all are the precursor to the kind of pure coherence seen in the laser
and so forth, not confined to atomic or quantum systems and most often seen
as a surface effect at nanoscale. Here is one post in a thread.

 

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg22649.html

 

The "impure form" of coherence is a kind of bunching effect, a sharp spike
in the slope of a chart. The name super-radiance is somewhat
self-explanatory, but it is a bit of a surprise that until Preperata, the
relevance to LENR was not appreciated.

 

Examples of super-radiance are found in nature at all geometric scales where
waves exist, and the large example is important to force comprehension of
what may difficult to imagine as natural (not commonplace but not rare
either) - the "rogue wave" is always out there somewhere: 

 

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=701

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

 

Jones

 

From: Nigel Dyer 

 

I recently had a quick glance through the chapters on Cold Fusion in
Preperata's "QED coherence in matter", and the results in the Nickel
Nanoattenas paper seem to be in much the same area as the ideas in the Cold
Fusion chapter.

 

Nigel Dyer

 

  _  

From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 

More evidence that we are dealing with oscillations and need to look at
whether there are any harmonic relationships within the H-loaded Ni lattice,
plasmons, deflated H, inverse Rydbergs, magnetic effects, etc.

 

-Mark Iverson

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion‏" - Revisited

Stephen stated:

“Same old Mark.  He hasn't changed.  If you're skeptical, you get ad hominems.”
Not true Stephen… 

 

Both your and Mary’s whole argument against my chastising the repetition (by 
one person) is based on the premise that I don’t like skepticism.  You 
obviously did not see or read my recent comment back to Mary destroying that 
assumption:

1) There are several others who are just as skeptical as Mary, and I have not 
chastised them because they do not continuously state their position.

2) I was the one who brought up the criticism about the thermocouple possibly 
being too close to the steam inlet on one of the demos, so I have significantly 
CONTRIBUTED to the skepticism.  The diff is that I, and all other skeptics on 
this list, don’t continually remind the forum that the evidence is inconclusive.

 

So your assumption that I attack skepticism is blatantly false!!  I am simply 
chastising the endless repetition that constantly comes out of one person… I 
seriously doubt if there is anyone on this forum who doesn’t know what MY’s 
position is.

 

Please provide a link to the posting where I referred to you as ‘pathetic’, and 
if I did not apologize, then I will do so.

 

-Mark

 

From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 12:52 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's assessment of 
Defkalion‏" - Revisited

 



On 12-01-04 01:35 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: 

 

2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 

Mary Yugo stated, for the millionth time,

“A much better theory is that, as Rossi says, they have nothing to show.”

 Same old tired repetition, despite numerous requests that you avoid it.  You 
just never learn…

Is there really a brain behind the name or is it just a very poor 
implementation of Artificial Intelligence responding to vortex posts?  If AI, 
then the programmer forgot to #include 

-Mark

Same response to the same repetition of absolute nonsense about Rossi and 
Defkalion.  You always seem to object to my response but not to the inanity 
that spawned it.  Why do you think that is? 


Same old Mark.  He hasn't changed.  If you're skeptical, you get ad hominems.

I've been filtering out his messages ever since he responded to a comment of 
mine regarding Naudin's results with a not particularly incisive argument to 
the effect that I was "pathetic".

Mary, regardless of whether you're a woman, a man, or a chatterbot (or, for 
that matter, somebody's pet chinchilla which has learned how to type, as well 
as how to do calorimetry), you're very probably wasting your time by arguing 
with Mark.  (The last two seem pretty unlikely, of course.)

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>   And by the way, it's expensive.
>>
>
> It is much cheaper than inadvertently irradiating hundreds of thousands of
> people.
>

What's wrong with ordinary radiation detectors?  Or do you think animals
are used to verify that conventional nuclear  power plants are safe?
Maybe they use canaries?


>
>> If the devices really work as stated, I would think the risk would be
>> from some sort of thermal runaway and meltdown . . .
>>
>
> There are many potential risks. They must all be addressed. This is not
> 1812 or 1912. We do not allow new, unknown, unproven technology to be
> widely used without first subjecting it to extensive testing. That is not
> how the world works anymore. There are advantages and disadvantages to our
> modern way of doing things, but you cannot turn back the clock. It is
> wishful thinking to suppose that cold fusion can be deployed without
> extensive testing, or that these machines will ever be made by pioneering
> people on their own, "unshackled from centralized governance." That is like
> thinking people will make their own NiCad batteries or cell phones. Cold
> fusion reactors are high-tech devices. They are extremely difficult to
> replicate and they always will be. They require precision manufacturing and
> computerized control systems.
>


So you don't think Rossi will sell a million E-cats this year through Home
Depot?  That puts you at odds with lots of believers, LOL!

Re: [Vo]:OpEdNews article on LENR, includes LENR powered space plane

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>  Mary Yugo wrote:
>
> All the essential parts of the method for measuring power input and
> enthalpy were provided entirely by Rossi.   It's true that some
> thermometers and in a few instances AC power meters were provided by the
> visitors.  Those devices were a trivial part of the methodology.
>
>
> What does this mean? For the liquid water tests, those devices plus the
> flow measurement are the entire method. That's all there is. There are are
> only three parameters.
>

Which liquid water test are you referring to?  Rossi's October 6 was
objected to in multiple ways, including thermocouple placement, lack of
blank calibration, and possibly hidden sources of heat.  Levi's experiment
was undocumented or improperly documented and he refused multiple requests
to repeat it even though such a repeat would have been easy and cheap for
him.

  Nobody could reasonably suggest that Rossi would have cheated with those
> measurements.  It would have been too high risk.
>
>
> In that case cheating is ruled out.
>

Of course not.  The whole method of using heat of evaporation as a
measurement of enthalpy is fraught with the opportunity of error-- ALL of
it in Rossi's favor.

> But the erroneous method of evaporation of water was used for those
> demonstrations to measure enthalpy.
>
>
> You think it is erroneous, but I do not know any experts who agree. In any
> case, with other tests the water was in liquid state.
>

Which tests were liquid phase and did not have other problems, please?  I
only know of two for which information (and it's pretty bad information) is
available at all.   For the vapor phase experiments it's your experts
against Krivit's and I know which I believe.  And his were partly cited by
name and detailed input.  Your?  Not so much if I remember right.

> [The megawatt test] was so suspicious that AP's reporter never even
> published a report!
>
>
> I would call it "inconclusive" or "unrevealing" rather than "suspicious."
> If this was suspicious so is every trade-show demonstration.
>

I don't know about you but I never believe trade show demonstrations unless
they have definitive proof either there or elsewhere.  Many are simply
silly hype and believing them gets people burned later on.

Here's an example of a trade show demo (at the Seventh Annual California
Safety and Security Conference in Anaheim, CA in 2006):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlKpEo3_TRY&feature=player_embedded

The rest of the story is here:  http://sniffextest.blogspot.com/

I've never been able to figure out why the company did those tests with the
guy who video'd them.  If they had stopped with their demo, it would have
been convincing to many and typical of trade show demos.  The guy insisted
on a double blind test and that was their downfall at the show.  BTW, the
company's officials and attorneys went on to investigation by the FBI and
SEC resulting in a conviction for stock fraud.

The point that needs to be made is that Rossi's E-cat has NEVER been
> properly and independently tested.
>
>
> Actually it has been independently tested several times, by Ampenergo and
> others, but these tests have not been published.
>
> Please do not claim that Ampernergo's tests were not independent. They
> were made before Ampenergo decided to invest. Rossi only allows independent
> tests by people who want to invest in the company or buy equipment. This is
> a reasonable policy from a business point of view. It is frustrating for
> the rest of us who are not doing business with him.
>

It's not just frustrating.  It's also non-determinative of anything and not
credible in the slightest.  That is because Ampenergo has no known factory,
and no known staff except the people who provide a single interview, it's
web site is nothing but a single uninformative page, and they have never
shown anything to anyone who talked about it except maybe you and you're
vague and reluctant about it.   They are as credible as Defkalion which is
not in the least.   Also there is some sort of incest between them,
Leonardo Corp and Rossi -- I am not sure what and to what extent but it's
quite suspicious.

The point is, everyone who tests ends up in some sort of business
> relationship, as an investor or customer, except when the machine does not
> work, as in the NASA tests. So if you eliminate people who did not have a
> relationship *before* the test, you eliminate everyone but the people who
> went there and saw it do nothing.
>

Who exactly is "everyone"?  Other than Ampenergo who are related to Rossi
and Rossi's friends at the very least, and some perhaps mythical anonymous
"customer" alleged to be the U. S. military?!   Apparently, Quantum was
another invitee who saw nothing along with NASA and Krivit.   Yet Rossi's
machines always worked for Lewan, K and E, Levi and Focardi and somehow
they were shy when someone wanted to do more careful testing than those
worthies were able to?  Not lik

RE: [Vo]:Nickel nanoantennas... its all about resonances.

2012-01-04 Thread Jones Beene

This kind of near-coherent resonance was a frequent topic on this forum 4-5
years ago. Several messages in the archives refer to either Preperata or
Dicke or both. The acronym DPSR = Dicke-Preparata Super-radiance has been
used.

 

"Cooperative radiation" is another term, as is Ahern's 'energy localization'
and all are the precursor to the kind of pure coherence seen in the laser
and so forth, not confined to atomic or quantum systems and most often seen
as a surface effect at nanoscale. Here is one post in a thread.

 

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg22649.html

 

The "impure form" of coherence is a kind of bunching effect, a sharp spike
in the slope of a chart. The name super-radiance is somewhat
self-explanatory, but it is a bit of a surprise that until Preperata, the
relevance to LENR was not appreciated.

 

Examples of super-radiance are found in nature at all geometric scales where
waves exist, and the large example is important to force comprehension of
what may difficult to imagine as natural (not commonplace but not rare
either) - the "rogue wave" is always out there somewhere: 

 

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=701

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

 

Jones

 

From: Nigel Dyer 

 

I recently had a quick glance through the chapters on Cold Fusion in
Preperata's "QED coherence in matter", and the results in the Nickel
Nanoattenas paper seem to be in much the same area as the ideas in the Cold
Fusion chapter.

 

Nigel Dyer

 

  _  

From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 

More evidence that we are dealing with oscillations and need to look at
whether there are any harmonic relationships within the H-loaded Ni lattice,
plasmons, deflated H, inverse Rydbergs, magnetic effects, etc.

 

-Mark Iverson

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

2012-01-04 Thread Jay Caplan

Exactly. The engineering/science delay in getting this to market will be 
dwarfed by the NRC regulatory delays, and if there are (any) neutrons released, 
it will never be a mass market product, confined to govt regulated utilities 
and similar large industrial uses. 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Robert Leguillon 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 2:03 PM
  Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

  If LENR reactions are sufficiently branded as "dangerous", they could easily 
be banned from personal use.  We cannot legally build a homemade fission 
reactor (even removing Americium from smoke detectors is regulated by the US 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission). Likewise, activities involving neutron emission 
from a metal lattice could be banned in kind. Sure, it wouldn't serve to stop 
some "backyard fusioneers" from home development, but it could preclude 
mainstream distribution. 

  Whether you call it health-and-welfare or you raise the curtain of "national 
security", it would be easy to assign it to a regulatory body.
  Public utilities would then be the only candidates for proper licensing, and 
could retrofit existing plants with LENR technology.  They would quickly be 
mandated to make the changeover, for the environment's sake (just like banning 
incandescent bulbs and switching to CFLs).  As the changeover occurs, they 
could even ask for an INCREASE in utility rates to absorb equipment costs.
  After the public utilities are providing nearly 100% of domestic electricity, 
hybrid/electric cars may be the next mandate by the green lobby.  As any 
competing energy sources fall like dominoes, the sole energy source remaining 
will be government-electricity.

  Though viable LENR could be used to free and unshackle, it could also be used 
as a method to unify human needs into further reliance on a centralized 
governance.

--

  Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:05:25 -0500
  From: francis.x.roa...@lmco.com
  Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

  Dave,

  You are not alone in “wanting” true energy independence but I 
am sure home brew reactors will only be allowed in remote locations for “safety 
concerns” and politicians will work with big business to legislate and license 
these energy sources making them illegal for home owners in residential 
communities to tamper with. The only real savings we can expect to reap 
initially will be the procurement and transport of combustible carbons and the 
reduction in green house gases. Even this is a hard sell because the supply and 
refinement of oil will die off and many jobs will be lost compared to those few 
jobs gained in nano nickel processing – It is going to take competitive 
pressure from risk taking first adopters without certifications to force the 
new business model into place. Even military applications will displace 
existing power source suppliers and start this ball rolling.

  Fran

  From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 1:32 PM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

  They key word you used is "meter".  I think that it will be a big uphill run 
for us to finally become free of the energy producers.  Anything that does not 
generate a cash stream reliably to those groups will find it difficult to get 
past the regulations.  Even Rossi and Defkalion like the idea of recharging 
your unit every 6 months which is very similar to other forms of metering.

  We the consumers need to battle hard to obtain true independence or in the 
worst case the ability to recharge our own units by buying new cores from 
competitive sources.  I want to determine when to spend my hard earned money 
and not be persuaded by the "power company".

  Let Rossi or Defkalion or whoever build safe reliable units, but then allow 
me to choose when and by whom It is charged.  Forget the radio link back to 
home base as that is too expensive and intrusive.  How difficult would it be to 
have an indicator built in that demonstrates the remaining level of 
performance?  I can easily picture an LCD display that lets me know when I need 
to consider recharging.

  Am I alone in wanting to have true independence?

  Dave

  -Original Message-
  From: Roarty, Francis X 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Wed, Jan 4, 2012 11:10 am
  Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

  E-L,

  I think Europe will precede the US but it will actually be 
smaller,  poorer nations that first scramble to certify and demonstrate the 
worth of any residential system by Rossi, Defkallion or other entity. The 
poorest nations are least controlled by big business and have now a sudden 
opportunity to rapidly escape poverty – I can see these nations trying to 
rapidly industrialize a

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

Mary Yugo  wrote:

> They might actually be dangerous. I do not think extensive tests have been
>> performed with rats and other species.
>>
>
> What are you describing here?  There is no need for animal experiments
> unless some sort of radiation is discovered to be emanating from the
> reactions.
>

Mild radiation has been measured from many cold fusion reactors.
Radioactive products such as tritium have been measured. This reactor
produced a large burst of radiation measured by Celani in January. It was
enough to saturate both of his instruments. If it had continued for a few
seconds they would all have been killed.

In any case, there is always a need for animal experiments with new
technology. Even things like cell phones held close to the ear may cause
health problems, so they should be tested extensively. This adds little to
the cost of the machine. This is the 21st Century. We have high standards
for safety, as we should. We can afford testing, and we should do it.

Until the nature of cold fusion is well understand, and a robust theory is
developed, such that we know exactly what kind of radiation and
transmutations it produces in different circumstances, I think it would be
wise to restrict the use of it.

  And even then, the effects can be predicted from what is already known
> about radiation exposure.
>

The radiation effects have to be measured first, in thousands of hours of
rigorous testing. Assuming there is any radiation.

> The purported devices don't leak nickel or nickel and copper compounds.
> What's the concern if they make, as advertised, no external radiation?
>

The concern is that the advertisements are wrong. Regulators and insurance
companies never trust a corporation's advertisement about matters relating
to safety. That would be crazy.

  How would animal testing be of any value?
>

You have to do the testing to find out whether it is of value or not. You
cannot know a priori. Biology is much too complicated.

>   And by the way, it's expensive.
>

It is much cheaper than inadvertently irradiating hundreds of thousands of
people.

> If the devices really work as stated, I would think the risk would be from
> some sort of thermal runaway and meltdown . . .
>

There are many potential risks. They must all be addressed. This is not
1812 or 1912. We do not allow new, unknown, unproven technology to be
widely used without first subjecting it to extensive testing. That is not
how the world works anymore. There are advantages and disadvantages to our
modern way of doing things, but you cannot turn back the clock. It is
wishful thinking to suppose that cold fusion can be deployed without
extensive testing, or that these machines will ever be made by pioneering
people on their own, "unshackled from centralized governance." That is like
thinking people will make their own NiCad batteries or cell phones. Cold
fusion reactors are high-tech devices. They are extremely difficult to
replicate and they always will be. They require precision manufacturing and
computerized control systems.

- Jed

[Vo]:David Niebauer non-profit organization to advance cold fusion

As some of you are aware from a vortex post, he met Rossi last year.

This is his New Year's Resolution - published yesterday.

http://www.cleantechblog.com/2012/01/new-years-resolution-commercialize-free-energy-technology.html

He has developed a non-profit organization to try a truly unique approach to 
advancing the technology: www.fusioncatalyst.org

Mark

Mark Goldes
Co-founder, Chava Energy
CEO, Aesop Institute

www.chavaenergy.com
www.aesopinstitute.org

707 861-9070
707 497-3551 fax

[Vo]:David Niebauer non-profit organization to advance cold fusion

As some of you are aware from a vortex post, he met Rossi last year.


This is his New Year's Resolution - published yesterday.


http://www.cleantechblog.com/2012/01/new-years-resolution-commercialize-free-energy-technology.html

He has developed a non-profit organization to try a truly unique approach to 
advancing the technology: www.fusioncatalyst.org

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

This assumes Rossi has a nuclear reaction. There is reason to believe he might 
not. Should that be proven, there may be little danger or delay.

 From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

Robert Leguillon  wrote:

If LENR reactions are sufficiently branded as "dangerous", they could easily be 
banned from personal use.

They might actually be dangerous. I do not think extensive tests have been 
performed with rats and other species.

I doubt they are anywhere near as dangerous as fission reactions or even 
burning coal, but it might not be prudent to allow them in houses. I sure 
wouldn't want one!

If extensive tests reveal the reaction is safe, reactors may still be banned 
for a while because of public perceptions shaped by propaganda from rival 
energy producers. I do not think this ban will last for long. After a few 
years, consumers will demand the laws be changed.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion‏" - Revisited

2012-01-04 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence




On 12-01-04 01:35 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:



2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint >


Mary Yugo stated, for the millionth time,

“A much better theory is that, as Rossi says, they have nothing to
show.”

Same old tired repetition, despite numerous requests that you
avoid it.  You just never learn…

Is there really a brain behind the name or is it just a very poor
implementation of Artificial Intelligence responding to vortex
posts?  If AI, then the programmer forgot to #include 

-Mark


Same response to the same repetition of absolute nonsense about Rossi 
and Defkalion.  You always seem to object to my response but not to 
the inanity that spawned it.  Why do you think that is?


Same old Mark.  He hasn't changed.  If you're skeptical, you get ad 
hominems.


I've been filtering out his messages ever since he responded to a 
comment of mine regarding Naudin's results with a not particularly 
incisive argument to the effect that I was "pathetic".


Mary, regardless of whether you're a woman, a man, or a chatterbot (or, 
for that matter, somebody's pet chinchilla which has learned how to 
type, as well as how to do calorimetry), you're very probably wasting 
your time by arguing with Mark.  (The last two seem pretty unlikely, of 
course.)

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Robert Leguillon  wrote:
>
>  If LENR reactions are sufficiently branded as "dangerous", they could
>> easily be banned from personal use.
>>
>
> They might actually be dangerous. I do not think extensive tests have been
> performed with rats and other species.
>

What are you describing here?  There is no need for animal experiments
unless some sort of radiation is discovered to be emanating from the
reactions.  And even then, the effects can be predicted from what is
already known about radiation exposure.  The purported devices don't leak
nickel or nickel and copper compounds.  What's the concern if they make, as
advertised, no external radiation?  How would animal testing be of any
value?  And by the way, it's expensive.

If the devices really work as stated, I would think the risk would be from
some sort of thermal runaway and meltdown, steam explosions and the like,
spreading the core materials and shrapnel from the metal housing out with
force.  That, I'd worry a lot about from the looks of the crude devices
Rossi has thus far produced.

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

This assumes Rossi has a nuclear reaction. There is reason to believe he might 
not. Should that be proven, there may be little danger or delay.

 From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

Robert Leguillon  wrote:

If LENR reactions are sufficiently branded as "dangerous", they could easily be 
banned from personal use.

They might actually be dangerous. I do not think extensive tests have been 
performed with rats and other species.

I doubt they are anywhere near as dangerous as fission reactions or even 
burning coal, but it might not be prudent to allow them in houses. I sure 
wouldn't want one!

If extensive tests reveal the reaction is safe, reactors may still be banned 
for a while because of public perceptions shaped by propaganda from rival 
energy producers. I do not think this ban will last for long. After a few 
years, consumers will demand the laws be changed.

- Jed

[Vo]:David Niebauer non-profit organization to advance cold fusion

As some of you are aware from a vortex post, he met Rossi last year.

This is his New Year's Resolution - published yesterday.


http://www.cleantechblog.com/2012/01/new-years-resolution-commercialize-free-energy-technology.html

He has developed a non-profit organization to try a truly unique approach to 
advancing the technology: www.fusioncatalyst.org

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

Robert Leguillon  wrote:

 If LENR reactions are sufficiently branded as "dangerous", they could
> easily be banned from personal use.
>

They might actually be dangerous. I do not think extensive tests have been
performed with rats and other species.

I doubt they are anywhere near as dangerous as fission reactions or even
burning coal, but it might not be prudent to allow them in houses. I sure
wouldn't want one!

If extensive tests reveal the reaction is safe, reactors may still be
banned for a while because of public perceptions shaped by propaganda from
rival energy producers. I do not think this ban will last for long. After a
few years, consumers will demand the laws be changed.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:FYI: elements to understand rossi's behavior/problems...

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

>
>
> 2012/1/4 Mary Yugo 
>
>> What opinion is that?
>
> yours, with respect.
>

Hi Alan,

Sorry but I didn't understand the significance of the second comment and
link.  Perhaps you can restate or expand on it?  Thanks.

Re: [Vo]:FYI: elements to understand rossi's behavior/problems...

2012/1/4 Mary Yugo 

> What opinion is that?

yours, with respect.

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion‏" - Revisited

2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 

> Others have registered their skepticism, and I don’t chastise them because
> they don’t do it hundreds of times a month!
>
A tiny bit of hyperbole perhaps?  I respond to others so I only do "it" a
hundred times a month if they do "it" the same or more.  But you don't
object to them is my point.


>  Vortex-l is not a website where people only visit once, read the comments
> and get some impression, never likely to return.  Nearly all the
> contributors read this forum daily, and are therefore well aware of the
> HISTORY of people’s opinions.  Thus, there is no need to continually state
> your own; or correct what YOU PERCEIVE as the wrong conclusions.
>
Then there is also no need to restate the alleged and erroneous problems
with the patenting process, there is no need to restate Rossi's ridiculous
claims over and over, and since everyone can read his misnamed blog, there
is no need to parrot every grandiose claim he writes on it, is there?   But
you never seem to complain about THAT.  You only complain when I RESPOND to
it.  That's what I find very strange and grossly inappropriate, not to
mention the *ad hominem* attacks.


> Do not treat this forum as you would the comment section of some website;
> it is primarily for technical discussions.  I asked once before, how many
> of your 750+ postings in only three months have any significant technical
> content?  Any calculations?  I’m not about to go back and count, but in the
> postings of yours that I have read, I don’t remember ANY calculations.
>
My math prowess stopped at intermediate calculus, intermediate statistics
and introduction to vector analysis.   And I've forgotten a lot of it.
Most of the traffic here that I respond to has nothing to do with
calculations.  When it does, I do my best.  For example, I connected up
David R. with an individual who performed a detailed mathematical
simulation of Rossi's October 6 experiment which suggests that the results
were wrongly interpreted.  Initially, I helped the person with translating
the discussion to more conventional English and I relayed both sides to the
email list.   Eventually, that got tiring so I succeeded in connecting them
up privately and anonymously.  David said he would forward the results of
those ongoing discussions when they are available.

Not everyone who can contribute has to be a math genius such as you
consider yourself to be.  Contributions can also be made in many other
ways.  I follow quite a bit of the math-- but I readily admit that computer
modeling and complex calculations of heat transfer and fluid flow
particulars are not my forte though I do understand the basic principles
involved and can perform the simpler ones.

Others conduct discussions of the non-mathematical aspects of Rossi and
Defkalion extensively here.  You only seem to find my input objectionable.
It's opposed to credulous belief in Rossi and Defkalion claims.  Strange
you limit your objections to that.

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion‏" - Revisited

2012-01-04 Thread Terry Blanton

2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint :
> Sorry Terry, Mary... just had some spare time and wanted to read something
> interesting and all I saw was the usual tired repetition... back to the salt
> mines!

Go read Embassytown by China Mieville.  Possibly the most bizarre
scifi I have ever read.

T

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion‏" - Revisited

Sorry Terry, Mary... just had some spare time and wanted to read something
interesting and all I saw was the usual tired repetition... back to the salt
mines!
-Mark

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 12:13 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's assessment of
Defkalion‏" - Revisited

2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint :
> Mary Yugo stated, for the millionth time,
>
> “A much better theory is that, as Rossi says, they have nothing to show.”
>
>
>
> Same old tired repetition, despite numerous requests that you avoid 
> it.  You just never learn…
>
> Is there really a brain behind the name or is it just a very poor 
> implementation of Artificial Intelligence responding to vortex posts?  
> If AI, then the programmer forgot to #include 

Now, now, Mark . . .  no ad hominem attacks.

Wait!  If she really is a skeptibot, then it's not ad hominem.  I guess it's
ad machina.

Hey, Bill, could we get a ruling on ad machina attacks?

T (dazed and confused)

[Vo]:Edmund Storms to Discuss LENR-CANR on "thespaceshow.com" (01/08/2012)

2012-01-04 Thread Robert Leguillon


Sunday, January 8, 2012, 12-1:30 PM PST (20-21:30 GMT)

Dr. Edmund Storms comes to the program to discuss the latest regarding LERN, 
Cold Fusion/CANR.

Edmund Storms obtained a Ph.D. in radiochemistry from Washington University 
(St. Louis) and is retired from the Los Alamos National Laboratory after 
thirty-four years of service. His work there involved basic research in the 
field of high temperature chemistry as applied to materials used in nuclear 
power and propulsion reactors, including studies of the “cold fusion” effect. 
Over seventy reviewed publications and monographs resulted from this work as 
well as several books, all describing an assortment of material properties. 
After retiring from the LANL in 1991, he moved to Santa Fe, NM were he built a 
home and laboratory in which he has studied the subject. These studies have 
resulted in eighteen presentations to various conferences including the ACS and 
APS.  In addition, twenty-three papers have been published including four 
complete scientific reviews of the field, one published in 1991, another in 
1996 and 1998, and in 2000 (www.LENR.org), with the latest in 2010 
(Naturwissenschaften).  In May 1993, he was invited to testify before a 
congressional committee about the “cold fusion” effect.  In 1998, Wired 
magazine honored him as one of the 25 people who is making a significant 
contribution to new ideas. Based on his experimental experience and a complete 
library of the literature on the subject, he wrote a book about low energy 
nuclear reaction that was published by World Scientific Publishing in 
September, 2007. He continues to study the phenomenon in his laboratory in 
Santa Fe.
 
You can listen to the shows under www.TheSpaceShow.com

Source and copyright by The Space Show.

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion‏" - Revisited

Mary states,

“I am not responding to your repetition.  I didn't allege that you repeat
yourself.  I am responding to other people who make the same specious claims
and assumptions over and over again.  You don't seem to mind THEIR
repetitions.  Obviously, what bothers you the most is people who make cogent
arguments that Rossi and Defkalion may be lying and scamming.”

 

My position has been for close to 10 months now, that there has always been
some elements of the demos that results in INCONCLUSIVE results.  Thus, all
the speculations, for or against, including yours, are pretty much wasted
bandwidth.  This will play out however it does and nothing you write is
going to change that.  I prefer truth, and feel perfectly fine when that
truth goes against what I might want.  In fact, I was the one who brought up
one of the major criticisms of the 1MW demo in my vortex posting on
10/7/2011 11:05PM:

 

---

“The Tout thermocouple being within an inch or two of the hot steam flow
into the heat exchanger does not sit well w/me... 

 

>From watching Lewan's video again, the external heat exchanger (XHX) was
operated in counter-current flow, where the steam from the primary circuit
flowed opposite to the water flow in the secondary circuit. Yeah, yeah, we
don't really know how that XHX is constructed, but let's just look at the
inlet/outlet physical locations on both sides of it.  The steam entered the
same side of the XHX as did the out-flowing heated water from the secondary
side.  So we are assuming that the metal fitting to which the thermocouple
was attached, was at the temperature of the water flowing inside and was not
influenced by the 120+C steam that was entering only an inch or two away
from the thermocouple???  Just doesn't sit well w/me...

 

...now I can go to bed.

-m

---

 

Others have registered their skepticism, and I don’t chastise them because
they don’t do it hundreds of times a month!

 

The difference between you and I, is that you feel some OVERWHELMING, ALMOST
PATHOLOGICAL NEED to make sure that some newbie on this list doesn’t go away
with a skewed impression.  I could care less… If someone is so mildly
interested in this topic that they only come here once or twice, who cares
what kind of impression they go away with?  I don’t.  Why should you?That is
not the PURPOSE of this forum.  I have explained this before… get the wax
out of your ears.  Vortex-l is not a website where people only visit once,
read the comments and get some impression, never likely to return.  Nearly
all the contributors read this forum daily, and are therefore well aware of
the HISTORY of people’s opinions.  Thus, there is no need to continually
state your own; or correct what YOU PERCEIVE as the wrong conclusions.  

 

Do not treat this forum as you would the comment section of some website; it
is primarily for technical discussions.  I asked once before, how many of
your 750+ postings in only three months have any significant technical
content?  Any calculations?  I’m not about to go back and count, but in the
postings of yours that I have read, I don’t remember ANY calculations.

 

-Mark

 

From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 11:24 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's
assessment of Defkalion‏" - Revisited

 

 

2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 

Mary Yugo stated/asked,

“Same response to the same repetition of absolute nonsense about Rossi and
Defkalion.  You always seem to object to my response but not to the inanity
that spawned it.  Why do you think that is?”

 

That’s easy… and I’ve explained it to you before.

I have stated my reservations (more than once) about the whole affair 6
months ago;  and because I try to abide by the guidelines of this forum, I
don’t want to repeat what I have already stated.  What part of that don’t
you understand?


I am not responding to your repetition.  I didn't allege that you repeat
yourself.  I am responding to other people who make the same specious claims
and assumptions over and over again.  You don't seem to mind THEIR
repetitions.  Obviously, what bothers you the most is people who make cogent
arguments that Rossi and Defkalion may be lying and scamming.

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion‏" - Revisited

2012-01-04 Thread Terry Blanton

2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint :
> Mary Yugo stated, for the millionth time,
>
> “A much better theory is that, as Rossi says, they have nothing to show.”
>
>
>
> Same old tired repetition, despite numerous requests that you avoid it.  You
> just never learn…
>
> Is there really a brain behind the name or is it just a very poor
> implementation of Artificial Intelligence responding to vortex posts?  If
> AI, then the programmer forgot to #include 

Now, now, Mark . . .  no ad hominem attacks.

Wait!  If she really is a skeptibot, then it's not ad hominem.  I
guess it's ad machina.

Hey, Bill, could we get a ruling on ad machina attacks?

T (dazed and confused)

Re: [Vo]:OpEdNews article on LENR, includes LENR powered space plane


Mary Yugo wrote:

All the essential parts of the method for measuring power input and 
enthalpy were provided entirely by Rossi.   It's true that some 
thermometers and in a few instances AC power meters were provided by 
the visitors.  Those devices were a trivial part of the methodology.


What does this mean? For the liquid water tests, those devices plus the 
flow measurement are the entire method. That's all there is. There are 
are only three parameters.



  Nobody could reasonably suggest that Rossi would have cheated with 
those measurements.  It would have been too high risk.


In that case cheating is ruled out.


But the erroneous method of evaporation of water was used for those 
demonstrations to measure enthalpy.


You think it is erroneous, but I do not know any experts who agree. In 
any case, with other tests the water was in liquid state.



[The megawatt test] was so suspicious that AP's reporter never even 
published a report!


I would call it "inconclusive" or "unrevealing" rather than 
"suspicious." If this was suspicious so is every trade-show demonstration



The point that needs to be made is that Rossi's E-cat has NEVER been 
properly and independently tested.


Actually it has been independently tested several times, by Ampenergo 
and others, but these tests have not been published.


Please do not claim that Ampernergo's tests were not independent. They 
were made before Ampenergo decided to invest. Rossi only allows 
independent tests by people who want to invest in the company or buy 
equipment. This is a reasonable policy from a business point of view. It 
is frustrating for the rest of us who are not doing business with him.


The point is, everyone who tests ends up in some sort of business 
relationship, as an investor or customer, except when the machine does 
not work, as in the NASA tests. So if you eliminate people who did not 
have a relationship _before_ the test, you eliminate everyone but the 
people who went there and saw it do nothing.


As I said before, the fact that it did not work in several tests 
indicates that it is probably not fraud. If it was fake, why not not 
make it appear to work every time? The people who saw it work are no 
less technically capable as the NASA observers. They are likely to 
detect fraud as anyone. Some of them went several times, and saw it fail 
repeatedly before it finally worked.


- Jed

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

2012-01-04 Thread Robert Leguillon


If LENR reactions are sufficiently branded as "dangerous", they could easily be 
banned from personal use.  We cannot legally build a homemade fission reactor 
(even removing Americium from smoke detectors is regulated by the US Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission). Likewise, activities involving neutron emission from a 
metal lattice could be banned in kind. Sure, it wouldn't serve to stop some 
"backyard fusioneers" from home development, but it could preclude mainstream 
distribution. 
 
Whether you call it health-and-welfare or you raise the curtain of "national 
security", it would be easy to assign it to a regulatory body.
Public utilities would then be the only candidates for proper licensing, and 
could retrofit existing plants with LENR technology.  They would quickly be 
mandated to make the changeover, for the environment's sake (just like banning 
incandescent bulbs and switching to CFLs).  As the changeover occurs, they 
could even ask for an INCREASE in utility rates to absorb equipment costs.
After the public utilities are providing nearly 100% of domestic electricity, 
hybrid/electric cars may be the next mandate by the green lobby.  As any 
competing energy sources fall like dominoes, the sole energy source remaining 
will be government-electricity.
 
Though viable LENR could be used to free and unshackle, it could also be used 
as a method to unify human needs into further reliance on a centralized 
governance.
 





Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:05:25 -0500
From: francis.x.roa...@lmco.com
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com








Dave,
You are not alone in “wanting” true energy independence but I 
am sure home brew reactors will only be allowed in remote locations for “safety 
concerns” and politicians will work with big business to legislate and license 
these energy sources making them illegal for home owners in residential 
communities to tamper with. The only real savings we can expect to reap 
initially will be the procurement and transport of combustible carbons and the 
reduction in green house gases. Even this is a hard sell because the supply and 
refinement of oil will die off and many jobs will be lost compared to those few 
jobs gained in nano nickel processing – It is going to take competitive 
pressure from risk taking first adopters without certifications to force the 
new business model into place. Even military applications will displace 
existing power source suppliers and start this ball rolling.
Fran
 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 1:32 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
 

They key word you used is "meter".  I think that it will be a big uphill run 
for us to finally become free of the energy producers.  Anything that does not 
generate a cash stream reliably to those groups will find it difficult to get 
past the regulations.  Even Rossi and Defkalion like the idea of recharging 
your unit every 6 months which is very similar to other forms of metering.

 

We the consumers need to battle hard to obtain true independence or in the 
worst case the ability to recharge our own units by buying new cores from 
competitive sources.  I want to determine when to spend my hard earned money 
and not be persuaded by the "power company".

 

Let Rossi or Defkalion or whoever build safe reliable units, but then allow me 
to choose when and by whom It is charged.  Forget the radio link back to home 
base as that is too expensive and intrusive.  How difficult would it be to have 
an indicator built in that demonstrates the remaining level of performance?  I 
can easily picture an LCD display that lets me know when I need to consider 
recharging.

 

Am I alone in wanting to have true independence?

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Jan 4, 2012 11:10 am
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE



E-L,

I think Europe will precede the US but it will actually be 
smaller,  poorer nations that first scramble to certify and demonstrate the 
worth of any residential system by Rossi, Defkallion or other entity. The 
poorest nations are least controlled by big business and have now a sudden 
opportunity to rapidly escape poverty – I can see these nations trying to 
rapidly industrialize and leverage their low energy cost into a significant 
Gross national product for export. Big oil has no way to plug all these little 
holes and is probably rethinking their future investment schemes to “join” 
rather than “beat”  LENR and will probably find some way to purchase and meter 
this new resource.

Fran

 



From: Energy Liberator [mailto:energylibera...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:29 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

 

OK, I thought he made mention of a COP 50 somewhere that I missed. I wonder how

[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion‏" - Revisited

Charles Hope said,

“You've already told her to shut up several times, so that's repetitive and 
boring as well.”

 

I have never told her to “shut up”…

I have only requested that she not repeat lengthy explanations; that she should 
simply state that she disagrees and provide the link to previous postings which 
have her comments/explanations.

-m

 

From: Charles Hope [mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 11:01 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's assessment 
of Defkalion‏" - Revisited

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

David Roberson  wrote:

They key word you used is "meter".  I think that it will be a big uphill
> run for us to finally become free of the energy producers.
>

I do not think this will be a problem. There is a significant amount of
unmetered energy already. Many people in the U.S. heat their houses with
firewood. In Japan and elsewhere they use solar water heaters, solar
electricity, and in the countryside they use firewood.

The only problem with metering will be highway taxes which are presently
paid with a gasoline tax. You need to replace that with a tax on miles
driven, with an annual odometer reading.

- Jed

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson  wrote:

> It seems to me that a perfectly legitimate business many fossil
> fuel industries ought to seriously consider would be to "retool"
> into something equivalent to an eCat (or whatever "eCats" evolve
> into) service provider. It would be no different than having a furnace and
> central A/C installed in one's home.

There are already many HVAC service companies. Oil companies cannot compete
with them. They do not know anything about that business. They have no
relevant expertise. Also, the total size of the HVAC market is a small
fraction of the market for oil. An oil company going into mainly into this
business would have to shrink profits, the number of employees, the stock
value, and so on. In a few years it would be a shadow of what it was.

> After one of these energy units was installed, I'd want a 24 hour
> guaranteed service protection plan in place to make sure someone would be
> out to my home in less than an hour to fix any anomalies.

I am sure any company such as this one would be happy to sell you a service
contract like that:

http://www.serviceexperts.com/

They already offer this kind of protection plan for conventional equipment.
Cold fusion powered equipment will not be allowed until it can meet safety
regulations, serviceability, and other standards.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion‏" - Revisited

2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 

> Mary Yugo stated/asked,
>
> “Same response to the same repetition of absolute nonsense about Rossi
> and Defkalion.  You always seem to object to my response but not to the
> inanity that spawned it.  Why do you think that is?”
>
> ** **
>
> That’s easy… and I’ve explained it to you before.
>
> I have stated my reservations (more than once) about the whole affair 6
> months ago;  and because I try to abide by the guidelines of this forum, I
> don’t want to repeat what I have already stated.  What part of that don’t
> you understand?
>

I am not responding to your repetition.  I didn't allege that you repeat
yourself.  I am responding to other people who make the same specious
claims and assumptions over and over again.  You don't seem to mind THEIR
repetitions.  Obviously, what bothers you the most is people who make
cogent arguments that Rossi and Defkalion may be lying and scamming.

Re: [Vo]:OpEdNews article on LENR, includes LENR powered space plane

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint <
zeropo...@charter.net> wrote:

> MaryYugo states with such confidence,
>
> “And while they were technically hands on, all the tests used Rossi's
> gear and his questionable methods so they were not independent.  Failure to
> state that is either dismal incompetence or deliberate bias.”
>
> ** **
>
> Note the statement, “ALL OF THE TESTS USED ROSSI’S GEAR”…
>
> ** **
>
> At least for the first public demo in Jan 2011, some of the scientists
> from UofB brought their own instruments to make measurements; and Mats
> Lewan brought some test instruments.  So your statement is not factually
> accurate… spreading misinformation, Mary?  Applying the same judgement as
> you, are you dismally incompetent or deliberately biased?
>

All the essential parts of the method for measuring power input and
enthalpy were provided entirely by Rossi.   It's true that some
thermometers and in a few instances AC power meters were provided by the
visitors.  Those devices were a trivial part of the methodology.  Nobody
could reasonably suggest that Rossi would have cheated with those
measurements.  It would have been too high risk.

But the erroneous method of evaporation of water was used for those
demonstrations to measure enthalpy.   In later experiments, even more of
the gear, including the heat exchanger and thermocouple placement was all
Rossi's.  In Rossi's final "megawatt" experiment, none of the invited
guests and reporters saw any of the data being collected.   It was so
suspicious that AP's reporter never even published a report!

The point that needs to be made is that Rossi's E-cat has NEVER been
properly and independently tested.  You seem to object to my mentioning
that repeatedly but you have no problem with endless repetition of Rossi's
absurd claims such that he will be offering a million E-cats by next fall.
Or that he now has a COP of 50.  One can claim any COP one wants.  The
issue is never the claim -- it's the evidence and the proof.

All sorts of nonsense about lack of patent protection is endlessly repeated
as rationalization for bizarre statements and actions from Rossi and
Defkalion.  You don't seem to object to endless repetition of those.  The
reality is that Rossi's invention would be highly patentable if he would
submit a proper application revealing how it works.  Such an application
would be enforceable in court and would also protect Rossi (or Defkalion)
from the date of filing.

More nonsense is being repeated about the need for Rossi to create
ambivalence until he can mass produce the devices.  But there is no
evidence he ever will be able to do so.  There is no evidence he or
Defkalion have ever applied for any certification or permits.  If Rossi
wanted to keep a low profile, he would never have given public
demonstrations -- they would all have been private.  Focardi's ill health
has been advanced as a rationalization for the demos.  But far as we know,
his health is fine.  He's been present at more than TEN demos.  And he
could have been present at private demos as well.  So Focardi's age and
condition is also irrelevant.

It seems to me you revel in reading about the positive and optimistic
aspects of this ongoing farce and you vociferously object when someone
points out capably that it's far from a done deal.

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

2012-01-04 Thread Roarty, Francis X

Dave,
You are not alone in “wanting” true energy independence but I 
am sure home brew reactors will only be allowed in remote locations for “safety 
concerns” and politicians will work with big business to legislate and license 
these energy sources making them illegal for home owners in residential 
communities to tamper with. The only real savings we can expect to reap 
initially will be the procurement and transport of combustible carbons and the 
reduction in green house gases. Even this is a hard sell because the supply and 
refinement of oil will die off and many jobs will be lost compared to those few 
jobs gained in nano nickel processing – It is going to take competitive 
pressure from risk taking first adopters without certifications to force the 
new business model into place. Even military applications will displace 
existing power source suppliers and start this ball rolling.
Fran

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 1:32 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

They key word you used is "meter".  I think that it will be a big uphill run 
for us to finally become free of the energy producers.  Anything that does not 
generate a cash stream reliably to those groups will find it difficult to get 
past the regulations.  Even Rossi and Defkalion like the idea of recharging 
your unit every 6 months which is very similar to other forms of metering.

We the consumers need to battle hard to obtain true independence or in the 
worst case the ability to recharge our own units by buying new cores from 
competitive sources.  I want to determine when to spend my hard earned money 
and not be persuaded by the "power company".

Let Rossi or Defkalion or whoever build safe reliable units, but then allow me 
to choose when and by whom It is charged.  Forget the radio link back to home 
base as that is too expensive and intrusive.  How difficult would it be to have 
an indicator built in that demonstrates the remaining level of performance?  I 
can easily picture an LCD display that lets me know when I need to consider 
recharging.

Am I alone in wanting to have true independence?

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X 
mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>>
To: vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>>
Sent: Wed, Jan 4, 2012 11:10 am
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
E-L,
I think Europe will precede the US but it will actually be 
smaller,  poorer nations that first scramble to certify and demonstrate the 
worth of any residential system by Rossi, Defkallion or other entity. The 
poorest nations are least controlled by big business and have now a sudden 
opportunity to rapidly escape poverty – I can see these nations trying to 
rapidly industrialize and leverage their low energy cost into a significant 
Gross national product for export. Big oil has no way to plug all these little 
holes and is probably rethinking their future investment schemes to “join” 
rather than “beat”  LENR and will probably find some way to purchase and meter 
this new resource.
Fran

From: Energy Liberator 
[mailto:energylibera...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:29 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

OK, I thought he made mention of a COP 50 somewhere that I missed. I wonder how 
long after the US certification, it will be for Rossi to get certification for 
Europe and the rest of the World.

On 04/01/12 13:41, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:
COP 6 was for the original Fat Cat E-Cats as used in the 1 MW demo unit. I 
suggest the 10 and 20 kW home units, to be delivered in Sept 2012, will not be 
anything like the Fat Cats and they will run in self sustain mode or very close 
to it. I estimated the control electronics and the primary circuit circulating 
pump would consume 400 Watts. With 20 kW thermal output and 400 Watts 
electrical input, the COP is 50.

AG


On 1/4/2012 11:25 PM, Energy Liberator wrote:
Where did you get a COP of 50 from? I thought it was 6. Rossi said in his 
interview that the running cost would be about 1/6th of a current conventional 
boiler running cost.

On 04/01/ 12 07:52, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:
Based on the recently announced 20 kW thermal home E-Cat costing $1,500 and 
assuming it draws 0.4 kW (400 Watts) from the mains (COP 50), here is the LCOE 
and the individual item cost breakdowns.

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/kLBSLYjhfkssP57d3w1J6dMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink

What I find interesting is annual cost of the fuel and servicing is 4 times the 
Levelized Annual Investment Cost of the E-Cat hardware. Will home E-Cats become 
like ink jet printers that are sold near cost price to get the replacement ink 
business? But with a LCOE cost of $0.00456 / thermal kWh who cares? This is 
just about as close to free energy as you can

Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion‏" - Revisited

2012-01-04 Thread Charles Hope

You've already told her to shut up several times, so that's repetitive and 
boring as well. 




On Jan 4, 2012, at 13:48, "Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint"  
wrote:

> Mary Yugo stated/asked,
> “Same response to the same repetition of absolute nonsense about Rossi and 
> Defkalion.  You always seem to object to my response but not to the inanity 
> that spawned it.  Why do you think that is?”
>  
> That’s easy… and I’ve explained it to you before.
> I have stated my reservations (more than once) about the whole affair 6 
> months ago;  and because I try to abide by the guidelines of this forum, I 
> don’t want to repeat what I have already stated.  What part of that don’t you 
> understand?
> -Mark
>  
> From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:36 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's assessment of 
> Defkalion‏" - Revisited
>  
>  
> 
> 2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 
> Mary Yugo stated, for the millionth time,
> “A much better theory is that, as Rossi says, they have nothing to show.”
>  
> Same old tired repetition, despite numerous requests that you avoid it.  You 
> just never learn…
> Is there really a brain behind the name or is it just a very poor 
> implementation of Artificial Intelligence responding to vortex posts?  If AI, 
> then the programmer forgot to #include 
> -Mark
> 
> Same response to the same repetition of absolute nonsense about Rossi and 
> Defkalion.  You always seem to object to my response but not to the inanity 
> that spawned it.  Why do you think that is?
>

[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion‏" - Revisited

Mary Yugo stated/asked,

“Same response to the same repetition of absolute nonsense about Rossi and
Defkalion.  You always seem to object to my response but not to the inanity
that spawned it.  Why do you think that is?”

 

That’s easy… and I’ve explained it to you before.

I have stated my reservations (more than once) about the whole affair 6
months ago;  and because I try to abide by the guidelines of this forum, I
don’t want to repeat what I have already stated.  What part of that don’t
you understand?

-Mark

 

From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:36 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's assessment of
Defkalion‏" - Revisited

 

 

2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 

Mary Yugo stated, for the millionth time,

“A much better theory is that, as Rossi says, they have nothing to show.”

 

Same old tired repetition, despite numerous requests that you avoid it.  You
just never learn…

Is there really a brain behind the name or is it just a very poor
implementation of Artificial Intelligence responding to vortex posts?  If
AI, then the programmer forgot to #include 

-Mark


Same response to the same repetition of absolute nonsense about Rossi and
Defkalion.  You always seem to object to my response but not to the inanity
that spawned it.  Why do you think that is?

RE: [Vo]:OpEdNews article on LENR, includes LENR powered space plane

MaryYugo states with such confidence,

"And while they were technically hands on, all the tests used Rossi's gear
and his questionable methods so they were not independent.  Failure to state
that is either dismal incompetence or deliberate bias."

 

Note the statement, "ALL OF THE TESTS USED ROSSI'S GEAR".

 

At least for the first public demo in Jan 2011, some of the scientists from
UofB brought their own instruments to make measurements; and Mats Lewan
brought some test instruments.  So your statement is not factually accurate.
spreading misinformation, Mary?  Applying the same judgement as you, are you
dismally incompetent or deliberately biased?

 

-Mark

 

From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 9:58 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OpEdNews article on LENR, includes LENR powered space
plane

 

 

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 9:48 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
 wrote:

Titled: What if Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) really works?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/What-if-Low-Energy-Nuclear-by-Christopher-C
alder-120103-869.html


The article is filled with errors such as this:

"Rossi's E-Cat reactors have passed every hands-on test to date by at least
a dozen respected scientists from around the world."

No it hasn't.  Every "respected scientist" has reservations about the tests,
has expressed those reservations, and has asked for independent testing.
And while they were technically hands on, all the tests used Rossi's gear
and his questionable methods so they were not independent.  Failure to state
that is either dismal incompetence or deliberate bias.

The article also rehashes the patent nonsense.  In fact, any obviously
working and powerful reactor like Rossi claims to have would be patentable
with any decent sort of application.  And patent protection extends from the
application date so the reasons for failing to do proper disclosure of the
invention is nonsense.  

There are many other errors as well.

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion‏" - Revisited

2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 

> Mary Yugo stated, for the millionth time,
>
> “A much better theory is that, as Rossi says, they have nothing to show.”*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> Same old tired repetition, despite numerous requests that you avoid it.
> You just never learn…
>
> Is there really a brain behind the name or is it just a very poor
> implementation of Artificial Intelligence responding to vortex posts?  If
> AI, then the programmer forgot to #include 
>
> -Mark
>

Same response to the same repetition of absolute nonsense about Rossi and
Defkalion.  You always seem to object to my response but not to the inanity
that spawned it.  Why do you think that is?

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

2012-01-04 Thread David Roberson


They key word you used is "meter".  I think that it will be a big uphill run 
for us to finally become free of the energy producers.  Anything that does not 
generate a cash stream reliably to those groups will find it difficult to get 
past the regulations.  Even Rossi and Defkalion like the idea of recharging 
your unit every 6 months which is very similar to other forms of metering.

We the consumers need to battle hard to obtain true independence or in the 
worst case the ability to recharge our own units by buying new cores from 
competitive sources.  I want to determine when to spend my hard earned money 
and not be persuaded by the "power company".

Let Rossi or Defkalion or whoever build safe reliable units, but then allow me 
to choose when and by whom It is charged.  Forget the radio link back to home 
base as that is too expensive and intrusive.  How difficult would it be to have 
an indicator built in that demonstrates the remaining level of performance?  I 
can easily picture an LCD display that lets me know when I need to consider 
recharging.

Am I alone in wanting to have true independence?

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Jan 4, 2012 11:10 am
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE



E-L,
I think Europe will precede the US but it will actually be 
smaller,  poorer nations that first scramble to certify and demonstrate the 
worth of any residential system by Rossi, Defkallion or other entity. The 
poorest nations are least controlled by big business and have now a sudden 
opportunity to rapidly escape poverty – I can see these nations trying to 
rapidly industrialize and leverage their low energy cost into a significant 
Gross national product for export. Big oil has no way to plug all these little 
holes and is probably rethinking their future investment schemes to “join” 
rather than “beat”  LENR and will probably find some way to purchase and meter 
this new resource.
Fran
 

From: Energy Liberator [mailto:energylibera...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:29 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

 
OK, I thought he made mention of a COP 50 somewhere that I missed. I wonder how 
long after the US certification, it will be for Rossi to get certification for 
Europe and the rest of the World. 

On 04/01/12 13:41, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: 
COP 6 was for the original Fat Cat E-Cats as used in the 1 MW demo unit. I 
suggest the 10 and 20 kW home units, to be delivered in Sept 2012, will not be 
anything like the Fat Cats and they will run in self sustain mode or very close 
to it. I estimated the control electronics and the primary circuit circulating 
pump would consume 400 Watts. With 20 kW thermal output and 400 Watts 
electrical input, the COP is 50. 

AG 


On 1/4/2012 11:25 PM, Energy Liberator wrote: 


Where did you get a COP of 50 from? I thought it was 6. Rossi said in his 
interview that the running cost would be about 1/6th of a current conventional 
boiler running cost. 

On 04/01/ 12 07:52, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: 


Based on the recently announced 20 kW thermal home E-Cat costing $1,500 and 
assuming it draws 0.4 kW (400 Watts) from the mains (COP 50), here is the LCOE 
and the individual item cost breakdowns. 

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/kLBSLYjhfkssP57d3w1J6dMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink
 

What I find interesting is annual cost of the fuel and servicing is 4 times the 
Levelized Annual Investment Cost of the E-Cat hardware. Will home E-Cats become 
like ink jet printers that are sold near cost price to get the replacement ink 
business? But with a LCOE cost of $0.00456 / thermal kWh who cares? This is 
just about as close to free energy as you can get. No excuse for anybody on 
this planet to be cold again. With the E-Cat's thermal energy being so low 
cost, cleaning up dirty water and desalination of sea / brackish water should 
be low cost as well. 

Well done Andrea Rossi, what a lovely New Years present to the whole planet.

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion‏" - Revisited

Mary Yugo stated, for the millionth time,

“A much better theory is that, as Rossi says, they have nothing to show.”

 

Same old tired repetition, despite numerous requests that you avoid it.  You
just never learn…

Is there really a brain behind the name or is it just a very poor
implementation of Artificial Intelligence responding to vortex posts?  If
AI, then the programmer forgot to #include 

-Mark

 

From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 9:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's assessment of
Defkalion‏" - Revisited

 

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>It is regrettable that things have been kept so confidential in cold
fusion. That is because of politics and the >opposition. I am sorry that I
have to be so vague.


Politics and opposition is a bad theory when it comes to Defkalion's
silence.  A much better theory is that, as Rossi says, they have nothing to
show.

RE: [Vo]:Nickel nanoantennas... its all about resonances.

2012-01-04 Thread Nigel Dyer

I recently had a quick glance through the chapters on Cold Fusion in
Preperata's "QED coherence in matter", and the results in the Nickel
Nanoattenas paper seem to be in much the same area as the ideas in the Cold
Fusion chapter.

 

Nigel Dyer

 

  _  

From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] 
Sent: 03 January 2012 21:27

More evidence that we are dealing with oscillations and need to look at
whether there are any harmonic relationships within the H-loaded Ni lattice,
plasmons, deflated H, inverse Rydbergs, magnetic effects, etc.

 

-Mark Iverson

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

2012-01-04 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson

>From Francis

>Big oil has no way to plug all these
> little holes and is probably rethinking their future investment schemes to
> “join” rather than “beat”  LENR and will probably find some way to purchase
> and meter this new resource.

It seems to me that a perfectly legitimate business many fossil fuel
industries ought to seriously consider would be to "retool" into
something equivalent to an eCat (or whatever "eCats" evolve into)
service provider. It would be no different than having a furnace and
central A/C installed in one's home. After one of these energy units
was installed, I'd want a 24 hour guaranteed service protection plan
in place to make sure someone would be out to my home in less than an
hour to fix any anomalies. If they can't fix it, replace it. No
questions asked. All part of the plan. The plan would also include
routine maintenance and the replacement of parts and spent reactor
cores.

I'd seriously consider paying 20 - 40 bucks a month for peace of mind,
especially if that becomes my combined monthly heating & electric
bill.

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

Re: [Vo]:OpEdNews article on LENR, includes LENR powered space plane

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 9:48 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Titled: What if Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) really works?
>
>
> http://www.opednews.com/articles/What-if-Low-Energy-Nuclear-by-Christopher-Calder-120103-869.html
>

The article is filled with errors such as this:

"Rossi's E-Cat reactors have passed every hands-on test to date by at least
a dozen respected scientists from around the world."

No it hasn't.  Every "respected scientist" has reservations about the
tests, has expressed those reservations, and has asked for independent
testing.   And while they were technically hands on, all the tests used
Rossi's gear and his questionable methods so they were not independent.
Failure to state that is either dismal incompetence or deliberate bias.

The article also rehashes the patent nonsense.  In fact, any obviously
working and powerful reactor like Rossi claims to have would be patentable
with any decent sort of application.  And patent protection extends from
the application date so the reasons for failing to do proper disclosure of
the invention is nonsense.

There are many other errors as well.

Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Energy Liberator
wrote:

>  I wonder how long after the US certification, it will be for Rossi to get
> certification for Europe and the rest of the World.
>

See, what I wonder is how long it will be before either Rossi or Defkalion
prove that they have submitted a device for testing or even an application
to any regulatory agency anywhere.  Who again did you say Rossi had
submitted a certification application to?  For what?  And how do you know?
Same for Defkalion who promised Greek authorities would certify Hyperion by
Q4 2011.  A local newspaper published an inquiry a couple of months ago, by
a Parliament member from Xanthi,  which established that no application
could be found within the government for anything from Defkalion.

Re: [Vo]:FYI: elements to understand rossi's behavior/problems...

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Alain Sepeda  wrote:

> some IMHO interesting article to undestand Rossi's behavior...
>
> 1-
> analysis about why rossi don't prove e-cat so well...
> http://nickelpower.org/2012/01/03/why-should-rossi-prove-it/
>
> this item raise my eyes:
>
>> No matter what demonstration Rossi produces, public or private, it won’t
>> settle the issue like an e-cat for sale at Wal-Mart will.  Remember, nine
>> major scientific institutions have already reproduced the Ni + H reaction,
>> and the world’s response is?  ”Rossi, prove it!”  Why Rossi, why not SRI,
>> MIT, USAF!
>>
>

The reason Rossi should "prove it" is that he claims several orders of
magnitude more power than the others and he claims it is market ready.   Of
course SRI, MIT and the USAF (USAF?) should prove any claims they may be
making as well but the topic of the day is Rossi because his claims are so
large and flamboyant and his performance to date has been so equivocal and
lackluster.

> but other seems good too...
>
> 2-
> in that article
> http://e-catsite.com/2012/01/03/mass-production-next-big-hurdle-for-rossi/
> you have prediction of industrialization problems for e-cat, but also
> explanation of the thermo-electric devices failure often cited as a proof
> Rossi is a scammer, like petroldragon is used too...
> like with petroldragon, it is a credible defense, but also a good
> explanation of todays seemingly strange problems...
>

I have no idea what this is supposed to say.  The Petroldragon and
thermo-electric devices were gross and obvious failures, which, at best,
inspire no confidence in Rossi.  At worst, they were crimes that were not
properly prosecuted.

hope this helps to make opinion.
>

What opinion is that?

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion‏" - Revisited

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> It is regrettable that things have been kept so confidential in cold
> fusion. That is because of politics and the opposition. I am sorry that I
> have to be so vague.
>

Politics and opposition is a bad theory when it comes to Defkalion's
silence.  A much better theory is that, as Rossi says, they have nothing to
show.

Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

2012-01-04 Thread Axil Axil

*“I design and build embedded micro systems. More like $10 for the
electronics ex the sensors.”*

* *

*The controller for a nuclear reactor(E-Cat) would require a high level of
redundancy in both its processing unit and its sensors arrays and actuators
to achieve a failsafe availability at least the same as a modern  oil burner
*

*For comparison, the controller on such an oil burner cost in excess of
$500 retail. The cost of an E-Cat controller would at least double that
since an oil burner does not need to deal with ultra-pressurized hydrogen.*

*Furthermore, I predict that running performance statistics and on-line
maintenance support will be required for a home installation.*

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
wrote:

> I design and build embedded micro systems. More like $10 for the
> electronics ex the sensors.
>
> AG
>
>
> On 1/4/2012 7:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
>>
>> /A $1,500 total price of a E-Cat that includes a NI microprocessor based
>> controls system is hard to believe. I project that the control system will
>> be a major cost component of the E-Cat. Even computerized appliances like
>> refrigerators sell for twice that. When I see that low price…when I can buy
>> at that low price… I will believe it./
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 2:52 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat <
>> aussieguy.e...@gmail.com 
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>Based on the recently announced 20 kW thermal home E-Cat costing
>>$1,500 and assuming it draws 0.4 kW (400 Watts) from the mains
>>(COP 50), here is the LCOE and the individual item cost breakdowns.
>>
>>https://picasaweb.google.com/**lh/photo/**
>> kLBSLYjhfkssP57d3w1J6dMTjNZETY**myPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink
>>
>>
>>What I find interesting is annual cost of the fuel and servicing
>>is 4 times the Levelized Annual Investment Cost of the E-Cat
>>hardware. Will home E-Cats become like ink jet printers that are
>>sold near cost price to get the replacement ink business? But with
>>a LCOE cost of $0.00456 / thermal kWh who cares? This is just
>>about as close to free energy as you can get. No excuse for
>>anybody on this planet to be cold again. With the E-Cat's thermal
>>energy being so low cost, cleaning up dirty water and desalination
>>of sea / brackish water should be low cost as well.
>>
>>Well done Andrea Rossi, what a lovely New Years present to the
>>whole planet.
>>
>>
>

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

2012-01-04 Thread Roarty, Francis X

E-L,
I think Europe will precede the US but it will actually be 
smaller,  poorer nations that first scramble to certify and demonstrate the 
worth of any residential system by Rossi, Defkallion or other entity. The 
poorest nations are least controlled by big business and have now a sudden 
opportunity to rapidly escape poverty - I can see these nations trying to 
rapidly industrialize and leverage their low energy cost into a significant 
Gross national product for export. Big oil has no way to plug all these little 
holes and is probably rethinking their future investment schemes to "join" 
rather than "beat"  LENR and will probably find some way to purchase and meter 
this new resource.
Fran

From: Energy Liberator [mailto:energylibera...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:29 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

OK, I thought he made mention of a COP 50 somewhere that I missed. I wonder how 
long after the US certification, it will be for Rossi to get certification for 
Europe and the rest of the World.

On 04/01/12 13:41, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:
COP 6 was for the original Fat Cat E-Cats as used in the 1 MW demo unit. I 
suggest the 10 and 20 kW home units, to be delivered in Sept 2012, will not be 
anything like the Fat Cats and they will run in self sustain mode or very close 
to it. I estimated the control electronics and the primary circuit circulating 
pump would consume 400 Watts. With 20 kW thermal output and 400 Watts 
electrical input, the COP is 50.

AG


On 1/4/2012 11:25 PM, Energy Liberator wrote:

Where did you get a COP of 50 from? I thought it was 6. Rossi said in his 
interview that the running cost would be about 1/6th of a current conventional 
boiler running cost.

On 04/01/12 07:52, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:

Based on the recently announced 20 kW thermal home E-Cat costing $1,500 and 
assuming it draws 0.4 kW (400 Watts) from the mains (COP 50), here is the LCOE 
and the individual item cost breakdowns.

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/kLBSLYjhfkssP57d3w1J6dMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink

What I find interesting is annual cost of the fuel and servicing is 4 times the 
Levelized Annual Investment Cost of the E-Cat hardware. Will home E-Cats become 
like ink jet printers that are sold near cost price to get the replacement ink 
business? But with a LCOE cost of $0.00456 / thermal kWh who cares? This is 
just about as close to free energy as you can get. No excuse for anybody on 
this planet to be cold again. With the E-Cat's thermal energy being so low 
cost, cleaning up dirty water and desalination of sea / brackish water should 
be low cost as well.

Well done Andrea Rossi, what a lovely New Years present to the whole planet.

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion‏" - Revisited

Robert Leguillon  wrote:

 Now that the holidays are winding to a close, is there any update on the
> Defkalion visit?
> Any rough approximation as to when information may be forthcoming?
>

Hi. Nothing more to report for now. As I said in my original report, the
purpose was to plan a full scale test. It may be weeks or months before
that test can be done. I hope it will be done before ICCF17 in August. They
say they expect they will be free to publish the results, at ICCF17 and
possible before that at LENR-CANR.org and other web sites.

This would be an independent test, but not an "open" or public one, like
some of Rossi's tests have been.

It is regrettable that things have been kept so confidential in cold
fusion. That is because of politics and the opposition. I am sorry that I
have to be so vague.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

2012-01-04 Thread Roarty, Francis X

I agree with [snip] like a car engine or a nuclear reactor it need energy to 
start or restart if stalled.[/snip] and might suggest the Papp engine was such 
a design where
The reaction is similar to dieseling in that all reactants are present in the 
cylinders and the crank shaft modifies the PV/T to regulate these reaction 
chambers - a gaseous form of suppression where critical surface areas of 
Casimir - conductive gases sandwich thin layers of hydrogen gases just like Ni 
nanpowders or Rauney nickel but constantly reforming so impervious to runaway 
damage.
Fran

From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
Alain Sepeda
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 9:06 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

COP=6 is quite conservative, and based on problem of instability of the 
"self-sustain" mode of e-cat, feared by Rossi in November...

Defkalion says that COP is not a good way to analyze performance. there is a 
cost to start the reactor, to regulate a little, but COP can be great if power 
is stable.

huge COP seems logic if you understand that Ni+H reactor simply are critical 
reactors that produce heat when a good temperature, not to hot, not to cool.
with good regulator, it can use it's own heat to maintain the reaction. not so 
different from a nuclear fission critic reactor.

like a car engine or a nuclear reactor it need energy to start or restart if 
stalled.

COP=6 looks more like the minimum guaranteed. just better than heat pump, 
without the complexity.
it looks logic if the reactor is subcritical (like some nuke research have 
proposed with thorium and spallation )
2012/1/4 Energy Liberator 
mailto:energylibera...@gmail.com>>
Where did you get a COP of 50 from? I thought it was 6. Rossi said in his 
interview that the running cost would be about 1/6th of a current conventional 
boiler running cost.

Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

2012-01-04 Thread Energy Liberator

OK, I thought he made
mention of a COP 50 somewhere that I missed. I wonder how
long after the US certification, it will be for Rossi to get
certification for Europe and the rest of the World.

On 04/01/12 13:41, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:
COP 6
was for the original Fat Cat E-Cats as used in the 1 MW demo unit.
I suggest the 10 and 20 kW home units, to be delivered in Sept
2012, will not be anything like the Fat Cats and they will run in
self sustain mode or very close to it. I estimated the control
electronics and the primary circuit circulating pump would consume
400 Watts. With 20 kW thermal output and 400 Watts electrical
input, the COP is 50.

On 1/4/2012 11:25 PM, Energy Liberator wrote:

Where did you get a COP of 50 from? I
thought it was 6. Rossi said in his interview that the running
cost would be about 1/6th of a current conventional boiler
running cost.

On 04/01/12 07:52, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:

Based on the recently announced 20 kW
thermal home E-Cat costing $1,500 and assuming it draws 0.4 kW
(400 Watts) from the mains (COP 50), here is the LCOE and the
individual item cost breakdowns.

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/kLBSLYjhfkssP57d3w1J6dMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink

What I find interesting is annual cost of the fuel and
servicing is 4 times the Levelized Annual Investment Cost of
the E-Cat hardware. Will home E-Cats become like ink jet
printers that are sold near cost price to get the replacement
ink business? But with a LCOE cost of $0.00456 / thermal kWh
who cares? This is just about as close to free energy as you
can get. No excuse for anybody on this planet to be cold
again. With the E-Cat's thermal energy being so low cost,
cleaning up dirty water and desalination of sea / brackish
water should be low cost as well.

Well done Andrea Rossi, what a lovely New Years present to the
whole planet.

Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

COP=6 is quite conservative, and based on problem of instability of the
"self-sustain" mode of e-cat, feared by Rossi in November...

Defkalion says that COP is not a good way to analyze performance. there is
a cost to start the reactor, to regulate a little, but COP can be great if
power is stable.

huge COP seems logic if you understand that Ni+H reactor simply are
critical reactors that produce heat when a good temperature, not to hot,
not to cool.
with good regulator, it can use it's own heat to maintain the reaction. not
so different from a nuclear fission critic reactor.

like a car engine or a nuclear reactor it need energy to start or restart
if stalled.

COP=6 looks more like the minimum guaranteed. just better than heat pump,
without the complexity.
it looks logic if the reactor is subcritical (like some nuke research have
proposed with thorium and *spallation* )

2012/1/4 Energy Liberator 

> Where did you get a COP of 50 from? I thought it was 6. Rossi said in his
> interview that the running cost would be about 1/6th of a current
> conventional boiler running cost.

Re: [Vo]:Government Scientists More Efficient at Splitting Hydrogen

maybe we make mistake in the family,
but according to mum (who was there, kid under the bombs, then near the
tank, but who hear of the war history from local buzz)
Patton decided to head somewhere ahead (not calais; Calais was an earlier
secret service diversion, operation Fortitude, fantastic disinformation
campaign using triple agents, dead body with suitcase, false leaks to
compromised resistance networks)
and did not wait for the "intendance" (fuel,food,munitions) to came,
putting his courageous raid in uncertainty... headquarter did moan, but was
weaker than Patton stone-head.
finally he wins, get faster that the Germans, and slower than the fuel, on
average...

note2:
reading wikipedia, I learned that
- he was the fake general of Calais invasion army, according to Fortitude
diversion
- he was then real general commanding 3rd US army in Normandy, and did a
breakthrough at Avranches, and get short of fuel farther around river
Meuse, where German could fortify Metz and Nancy... they surrender anyway,
but caused losses.

note that after peace, his history is more controversial...
like Churchill's .

thanks for making me understand mum history.

2012/1/4 Terry Blanton 

> Could you expand on this?  I know that Patton created the Calais
> diversion; but, it was intentional.

Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

2012-01-04 Thread Aussie Guy E-Cat

COP 6 was for the original Fat Cat E-Cats as used in the 1 MW demo unit.
I suggest the 10 and 20 kW home units, to be delivered in Sept 2012,
will not be anything like the Fat Cats and they will run in self sustain
mode or very close to it. I estimated the control electronics and the
primary circuit circulating pump would consume 400 Watts. With 20 kW
thermal output and 400 Watts electrical input, the COP is 50.

On 1/4/2012 11:25 PM, Energy Liberator wrote:
Where did you get a COP of 50 from? I thought it was 6. Rossi said in
his interview that the running cost would be about 1/6th of a current
conventional boiler running cost.

On 04/01/12 07:52, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:
Based on the recently announced 20 kW thermal home E-Cat costing
$1,500 and assuming it draws 0.4 kW (400 Watts) from the mains (COP
50), here is the LCOE and the individual item cost breakdowns.

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/kLBSLYjhfkssP57d3w1J6dMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink

What I find interesting is annual cost of the fuel and servicing is 4
times the Levelized Annual Investment Cost of the E-Cat hardware.
Will home E-Cats become like ink jet printers that are sold near cost
price to get the replacement ink business? But with a LCOE cost of
$0.00456 / thermal kWh who cares? This is just about as close to free
energy as you can get. No excuse for anybody on this planet to be
cold again. With the E-Cat's thermal energy being so low cost,
cleaning up dirty water and desalination of sea / brackish water
should be low cost as well.

Well done Andrea Rossi, what a lovely New Years present to the whole
planet.

Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

2012-01-04 Thread Energy Liberator


  
  
Where did you get a COP of
  50 from? I thought it was 6. Rossi said in his interview that the
  running cost would be about 1/6th of a current conventional boiler
  running cost.

On 04/01/12 07:52, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:
Based
  on the recently announced 20 kW thermal home E-Cat costing $1,500
  and assuming it draws 0.4 kW (400 Watts) from the mains (COP 50),
  here is the LCOE and the individual item cost breakdowns.
  
  
  https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/kLBSLYjhfkssP57d3w1J6dMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink
  
  
  What I find interesting is annual cost of the fuel and servicing
  is 4 times the Levelized Annual Investment Cost of the E-Cat
  hardware. Will home E-Cats become like ink jet printers that are
  sold near cost price to get the replacement ink business? But with
  a LCOE cost of $0.00456 / thermal kWh who cares? This is just
  about as close to free energy as you can get. No excuse for
  anybody on this planet to be cold again. With the E-Cat's thermal
  energy being so low cost, cleaning up dirty water and desalination
  of sea / brackish water should be low cost as well.
  
  
  Well done Andrea Rossi, what a lovely New Years present to the
  whole planet.

Re: [Vo]:Government Scientists More Efficient at Splitting Hydrogen

2012-01-04 Thread Terry Blanton

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Alain Sepeda  wrote:
> +1
>
> Make me think about Patton, that make the Normandy debarkation succeed, but
> nearly make it fail because of his lack of professionalism.

Could you expand on this?  I know that Patton created the Calais
diversion; but, it was intentional.

T

[Vo]:FYI: elements to understand rossi's behavior/problems...

some IMHO interesting article to undestand Rossi's behavior...

1-
analysis about why rossi don't prove e-cat so well...
http://nickelpower.org/2012/01/03/why-should-rossi-prove-it/

this item raise my eyes:

> No matter what demonstration Rossi produces, public or private, it won’t
> settle the issue like an e-cat for sale at Wal-Mart will.  Remember, nine
> major scientific institutions have already reproduced the Ni + H reaction,
> and the world’s response is?  ”Rossi, prove it!”  Why Rossi, why not SRI,
> MIT, USAF!
>

but other seems good too...

2-
in that article
http://e-catsite.com/2012/01/03/mass-production-next-big-hurdle-for-rossi/
you have prediction of industrialization problems for e-cat, but also
explanation of the thermo-electric devices failure often cited as a proof
Rossi is a scammer, like petroldragon is used too...
like with petroldragon, it is a credible defense, but also a good
explanation of todays seemingly strange problems...


hope this helps to make opinion.

Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE

2012-01-04 Thread Aussie Guy E-Cat

I design and build embedded micro systems. More like $10 for the
electronics ex the sensors.

On 1/4/2012 7:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

/A $1,500 total price of a E-Cat that includes a NI microprocessor
based controls system is hard to believe. I project that the control
system will be a major cost component of the E-Cat. Even computerized
appliances like refrigerators sell for twice that. When I see that low
price…when I can buy at that low price… I will believe it./

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 2:52 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Based on the recently announced 20 kW thermal home E-Cat costing
$1,500 and assuming it draws 0.4 kW (400 Watts) from the mains
(COP 50), here is the LCOE and the individual item cost breakdowns.

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/kLBSLYjhfkssP57d3w1J6dMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink

What I find interesting is annual cost of the fuel and servicing
is 4 times the Levelized Annual Investment Cost of the E-Cat
hardware. Will home E-Cats become like ink jet printers that are
sold near cost price to get the replacement ink business? But with
a LCOE cost of $0.00456 / thermal kWh who cares? This is just
about as close to free energy as you can get. No excuse for
anybody on this planet to be cold again. With the E-Cat's thermal
energy being so low cost, cleaning up dirty water and desalination
of sea / brackish water should be low cost as well.

Well done Andrea Rossi, what a lovely New Years present to the
whole planet.

[Vo]:FYI: article in www.thehindubusinessline.com

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/article2772029.ece

Cold is back as hot topic on the non-conventional energy front

Italian scientist Andrea Rossi's device E-Cat (short for energy catalyser)
cold fusion is gaining attention.
  Chennai, Jan. 3:

 Will an entirely new source of non-conventional energy come into the
market this year? It looks likely.

Twenty-three years after experiments made by British scientists Martin
Fleischmann and Stanley Pons briefly raised the hopes of the world, ‘cold
fusion' – the holy grail of energy science – seems to be coming back.

...

Re: [Vo]:Government Scientists More Efficient at Splitting Hydrogen

+1

Make me think about Patton, that make the Normandy debarkation succeed, but
nearly make it fail because of his lack of professionalism.
Same for Churchill, who was dangerous in peace but invaluable in war.

sometime you need pathologic personalities to make a breakthrough of fight
hard time...
most often you need more stable people...
this is why in big Corp. you should build a nest of braindamaged (call that
the real R&D dept ), insulated (with a lead and concrete wall) from the
Corp. but todays R&D (if it has survived the restructuring) is simply good
engineers with a stable brain (like Defkalion), who follow consensus and
proved facts...

I can talk of that because I have moved from one to the other...

with all love, respect  and thanks to the brain-damaged guys and girls that
make our world what it is, with fire, agriculture, electricity, mechanic,
nuke, cars, oil, trains and LENR.

anyway, all is a question of proportion...
as someone cite to me
"don't be so *open minded* that your brains *fall* out"
I also repeat often, be moderate with moderation.

2012/1/4 Axil Axil 

> The only equipment that Rossi used in his work was shear stubbornness.

Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE