Re: [Vo]:Why spammers claim to be Nigerian when they are not
Rossi was able to convince "technicians in the field, scientists and important institutions" because the technology was real. There is in fact a gasification technology in existence today that can turn waste into "Synthesis Gas" which can be made into Biofuel and mixed with Gasoline. A few years back, I was asked to invest in such a technology and I asssure you, it works. When you start seeing trash being gasified into synthesis gas, you will believe. The question for me at that time was whether I considered the process economical enough to invest in it. I decided not to invest as I had other things I was considering investing in. Jojo - Original Message - From: "Robert" To: Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 11:14 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Why spammers claim to be Nigerian when they are not In discussing Rossi's "prey", it may be germaine to look back at this statement, from a PetrolDragon contemporary, in "The Magic of Mr. Rossi": Acerbi: “In the years where he was working here, he didn’t produce a single drop of oil, as far as we know. What he did was creating just a media event. He was able to persuade – in a way that I cannot explain – a good portion of public opinion, and that’s exactly what is hard for me to explain. He persuaded technicians in the field, scientists and important institutions, the region of Lombardia, that he was able to do magic.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzL3RIlcwbY
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Guenter, once again I believe you missed the point. I thought I did a good job in explaining in the last post, but apparently I did not. So let me try again. You only have the 400C recrystallization issue or the Curie Point issue or any other temp-limiting issue if your NAE is Nickel Lattice or some other transistion metal (with the exception of possibly Tungsten). If your NAE is cracks, or patches, or unusual geometry on the Nickel lattice, then you have this temp limitation and higher temps will destroy these environments. But if your NAE is Carbon Nanostructures, you do not have an NAE that is easily destroyed by temperatures. Carbon Nanostructures like nanotubes and graphene can easily resist higher temperatures without its structure being destroyed. You can host higher temps on Carbon Nanostructures NAE. Carbon Nanostructures have demonstrated higher temperature resistance. Jojo - Original Message - From: Guenter Wildgruber To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 12:19 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Jojo, Maybe, maybe not. Count me in the doubter's camp. As I tried to explain: 400++ degC is a domain where recrystallization occurs. this is not your comfortable home-temperature. See 'the laws of recrystallization', subtopic -- Laws of recrystallization -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recrystallization_(metallurgy) It is ONE thing to question ONE law, but a different thing to question quite a bunch of them simultaneously,. As an engineer with some philosophical leanings (quite rare) I tell You that I am not quite ready to put Rossi into the alltime hall of fame of the likes of Plato, Aristoteles or Einstein. My guess is, that he is more like a Karl May character, who pretended to have visited distant lands, without ever experiencing them, or messing things up, doing a disservice to us all. Sorry. Guenter Von: Jojo Jaro An: Vortex Gesendet: 17:31 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Yes, 600c seems like an overstretch only because we do not understand what's going on. Just like how Huzienga and Parks would think of Cold Fusion. They don't understand it, so it is an overstretch. However, Axil seems to have done a good job in stitching together a probable explanation that can easily explain this 600C. This result is entirely probable in the context of Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR. Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR can be more consistent and controllable so I do not see a problem with 600C, or even 1000C reaction temps. Many seems to have recognized the possibility of Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR paradigm, most notable of which may include both Ed Storms and W&L. I have speculated repeatedly in the past that one of the reason why Rossi changed to a flat design was due to the need to deliver more consistent Sparking/arc discharge. Now, evidence is mounting that such an environment is consistent with Carbon Nanosturcture-based LENR, as these Carbon Nanostructures are easily created in such an electric discharge environment. In fact, I would go one step further and speculate that I believe Rossi's new flat design may be a hybrid Arc Discharge/CVD reactor that creates abundant Carbon Nanostructures that appear to be critical to increased power density. We know that Carbon Nanotubes are good NAE candidates. In Lou's post of W&L slides, W&L presents compelling evidence of the possibility of Graphene as a possible NAE. Both of these Nanosturcutures appear to be good platforms for the Nuclear Active Environment. If one recognizes the possibility of these Carbon Nanostructures as the NAE, one will not have too much problems believing the Rossi 600C stable operating temps. Jojo - Original Message - From: Guenter Wildgruber To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Rossi, the sparrow does a good job of concealing his hand, in poker speech. And endlessly promises. Bids up his hand to 600degC, knowing that 1000degC would give him a good laugh, even from the most friendly of his friends. What I tried to do, is argue, that 600degC is already an overstretch of the poker-hand from both sides: Rossi AND DGT. Maybe I am wrong. Actually I hope so, because the planet would be safe for another couple of hundred years, and could heal from human folly. Guenter Guenter -- Von: Jojo Jaro An: Vortex Gesendet: 15:25 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations ...The assumption undergriding a pseudo-skepti
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
I wrote: I would be surprised if the answer to the second question [Is it possible > under any circumstance for an NiH system to operate at or above 600 C?] were > unequivocally negative; it is possible to think up scenarios in which the > nuclear active environment rarely reaches the melting point of nickel, even > with a low-grade reaction proceeding. > I just happened upon a writeup by Stan Szpak, from SPAWAR, and others, concerning the PdD co-deposition process he pioneered, in which palladium is electroplated on a gold or copper or similar base. The SPAWAR video I have referred to elsewhere, which shows a number of bright hot spots rapidly appearing and disappearing against a red and blue background, is of one of these assemblies. What the authors have to say about it sounds similar to what Guenter guessed might be going on, where a small region destructively melts, or, in their words, explodes: The ‘hot spots’ observed in the infrared imaging experiments are suggestive of ‘miniexplosions’ (Figure 1b). To verify this, the Ag electrode on a piezoelectric transducer was used as the substrate for the Pd/D co-deposition. If a mini-explosion occurred, the resulting shock wave would compress the crystal. The shock wave would be followed by a heat pulse that would cause the crystal to expand. In these experiments, sharp downward spikes followed by broader upward spikes were observed in the piezoelectric crystal response. The downward spikes were indicative of crystal compression while the broader upward spikes are attributed to the heat pulse and the consequent crystal expansion following the explosion. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSlenrresear.pdf So there may be no reason to try to think up a nuclear active environment that is long-lived; it is possible that the NAE (if things can be generalized, here) typically explodes and goes away, with the reaction continuing on elsewhere in the substrate. Eric
vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Jed said:* ** *He also got himself into enormous trouble several times. He takes great risks, sometimes for no reason it seems to me. Such as when he made the 1 MW reactor. I cannot understand him! He is the most baffling person I have ever encountered.* ** *Axil said:* So soon you forget. His first customer absolutely required the 1 MW power factor. As I posted in the past, a 1 MW thermal reactor is the ideal reactor size for a drone with a 100 HP electric engine operating with a thermal to electric conversion ratio of 15%. Now that the Rossi core operates at 600C, the thermodynamic efficiency is up to 45%. And these playing card pack size 10 KW cores, numbered at about 100 cores, this new drone LENR power supply can be packaged in a volume that is less than that occupied by a current drone engine. This saves the volume now reserved for long duration sized fuel storage tanks. Such a LENR drone can take off from the us and get to the patrol zone anywhere in the world in just a few days saving the hassle of field support and fuel logistics, stay on station for a year and return back to its base in the US for a quick refueling and be back on station in less than a week. Cheers: Axil On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Chemical Engineer wrote: > > >> At this point I will agree with "inventor". I am anxiously waiting to >> see independent results of what has been invented and whether I will be >> impressed with his business and technical acumen. >> > > In his previous ventures he showed a lot of business and technical acumen. > Not much lately. > > He also got himself into enormous trouble several times. He takes great > risks, sometimes for no reason it seems to me. Such as when he made the 1 > MW reactor. I cannot understand him! He is the most baffling person I have > ever encountered. > > > >> I do credit him with taking a world-changing concept and moving it >> forward in his own unique way... >> > > Yup. I wish he would use more conventional methods. > > The one thing I have learned is that you should not underestimate him. It > is easy to make fun of him or dismiss some of his outlandish claims, such > as the one about making monoisotopic Ni cheaply. His statements are often > contradictory so they cannot all be true. It is all too easy to dismiss him > as a nut or a con-man. > > As with Steve Jobs you have to "low-pass filter his input." Sometimes > people such as Jobs say all kinds of crazy, deluded or manipulative things. > Sift through this, filter out the garbage, and you may find great ideas > worth billions of dollars. Say what you like about Jobs, he was one of the > most brilliant businessmen in U.S. history. He had a wonderful feel for > design. He was like Charles Freer; not a great artist himself but one who > recognized and collected great art with an unfailing eye. > > When dealing with people it is essential you learn to forgive their faults > and embrace their contributions. > > - Jed > >
RE: [Vo]:Why spammers claim to be Nigerian when they are not
In discussing Rossi's "prey", it may be germaine to look back at this statement, from a PetrolDragon contemporary, in "The Magic of Mr. Rossi": Acerbi: “In the years where he was working here, he didn’t produce a single drop of oil, as far as we know. What he did was creating just a media event. He was able to persuade – in a way that I cannot explain – a good portion of public opinion, and that’s exactly what is hard for me to explain. He persuaded technicians in the field, scientists and important institutions, the region of Lombardia, that he was able to do magic.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzL3RIlcwbY
RE: [Vo]:Why spammers claim to be Nigerian when they are not
Jed sed: ... > When I read this, I could not at first think of why it > bothered me. Then I realized. I have often said that Rossi > could not be a con-man because he inspires no confidence. > On the contrary, he makes most people I know want to run > for the exits. Now I wonder . . . could it be that he is > a con-man, and he is using a predation strategy similar > to these fake Nigerians. If we could ever locate the individual who allegedly purchased Rossi's initial 1 MW reactor from last October, maybe we'd know the answer to your conundrum. ;-) PS: What was a really good article on Nigerian scammery strategy. Thanks Jed. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
vortex-l@eskimo.com
I guess those previous successes were pre-petroldragan and those thermo electric generators from Leonardo since I would not consider those wildly successful ventures. What I would like to believe about Rossi is that through his previous losses he realized they can take it all away but you still have your own inner strength and experience to create something useful for the world. This will make a great story for the history books. What I do not want to believe is that he just took some scientist's publishings and slapped together a contraption and has made grandiose claims. That MW e-cat took alot of time to fabricate and pipe together. I just wish he did not have that 300-500 kW generator parked beside it. There were no water pumps or instrumentation that would have required that much power. Steve Jobs tried to make the personal computer "personal". Many more people bought PCs. I believe he has finally succeeded with the Iphone and Apple's bottom line reflects this. I just dropped mine and broke the glass but it is still working! I tell people it is my screen saver. On Sunday, July 8, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Chemical Engineer 'cheme...@gmail.com');>> wrote: > > >> At this point I will agree with "inventor". I am anxiously waiting to >> see independent results of what has been invented and whether I will be >> impressed with his business and technical acumen. >> > > In his previous ventures he showed a lot of business and technical acumen. > Not much lately. > > He also got himself into enormous trouble several times. He takes great > risks, sometimes for no reason it seems to me. Such as when he made the 1 > MW reactor. I cannot understand him! He is the most baffling person I have > ever encountered. > > > >> I do credit him with taking a world-changing concept and moving it >> forward in his own unique way... >> > > Yup. I wish he would use more conventional methods. > > The one thing I have learned is that you should not underestimate him. It > is easy to make fun of him or dismiss some of his outlandish claims, such > as the one about making monoisotopic Ni cheaply. His statements are often > contradictory so they cannot all be true. It is all too easy to dismiss him > as a nut or a con-man. > > As with Steve Jobs you have to "low-pass filter his input." Sometimes > people such as Jobs say all kinds of crazy, deluded or manipulative things. > Sift through this, filter out the garbage, and you may find great ideas > worth billions of dollars. Say what you like about Jobs, he was one of the > most brilliant businessmen in U.S. history. He had a wonderful feel for > design. He was like Charles Freer; not a great artist himself but one who > recognized and collected great art with an unfailing eye. > > When dealing with people it is essential you learn to forgive their faults > and embrace their contributions. > > - Jed > >
[Vo]:Why spammers claim to be Nigerian when they are not
I read a fascinating article and paper recently: "Research Reveals Why Spammers Claim They're Nigerian A new paper claims obvious spam email is used to weed out all but the most gullible people online." http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/06/20/nigerian_spam_email_why_spam_email_is_so_obvious_.html This is about a Microsoft research paper: http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/167719/WhyFromNigeria.pdf This is a brilliant analysis. I have never heard of the idea before. The gist of it is in the headline: Internet scammers living in the U.S. often claim to be Nigerian bankers, and they make up the most outrageous, hackneyed and unbelievable stories. They want to eliminate all but the most gullible potential victims. Here is the title and abstract from Microsoft: "Why do Nigerian Scammers Say They are from Nigeria? ABSTRACT False positives cause many promising detection technologies to be unworkable in practice. Attackers, we show, face this problem too. In deciding who to attack true positives are targets successfully attacked, while false positives are those that are attacked but yield nothing. This allows us to view the attacker’s problem as a binary classification. The most profitable strategy requires accurately distinguishing viable from non-viable users, and balancing the relative costs of true and false positives. We show that as victim density decreases the fraction of viable users than can be profitably attacked drops dramatically. For example, a 10× reduction in density can produce a 1000× reduction in the number of victims found. At very low victim densities the attacker faces a seemingly intractable Catch-22: unless he can distinguish viable from non-viable users with great accuracy the attacker cannot find enough victims to be profitable. However, only by finding large numbers of victims can he learn how to accurately distinguish the two. Finally, this approach suggests an answer to the question in the title. Far-fetched tales of West African riches strike most as comical. Our analysis suggests that is an advantage to the attacker, not a disadvantage. Since his attack has a low density of victims the Nigerian scammer has an over-riding need to reduce false positives. By sending an email that repels all but the most gullible the scammer gets the most promising marks to self-select, and tilts the true to false positive ratio in his favor." I expect similar predation strategies exist in nature. A gray hawk nests close to my house. She often flies just above the trees, in a straight line, making an ungodly noise that every prey animal for a mile around knows that only a hawk will make. It is as if she is announcing her presence, speed and vector. It is the opposite of the stealthy sneak-up-and-grab technique of a cat. It is more like what a pack of wolves will do. I assumed this was flush out animals and birds that panic. Maybe not. Maybe it is form of the Nigerian scam strategy. The hawk drives off the fast prey animals, leaving only slow, immature, sick or old animals lagging behind, which are the preferred targets for any predator. To bring this discussion on topic -- When I read this, I could not at first think of why it bothered me. Then I realized. I have often said that Rossi could not be a con-man because he inspires no confidence. On the contrary, he makes most people I know want to run for the exits. Now I wonder . . . could it be that he *is* a con-man, and he is using a predation strategy similar to these fake Nigerians. - Jed
vortex-l@eskimo.com
Chemical Engineer wrote: > At this point I will agree with "inventor". I am anxiously waiting to see > independent results of what has been invented and whether I will be > impressed with his business and technical acumen. > In his previous ventures he showed a lot of business and technical acumen. Not much lately. He also got himself into enormous trouble several times. He takes great risks, sometimes for no reason it seems to me. Such as when he made the 1 MW reactor. I cannot understand him! He is the most baffling person I have ever encountered. > I do credit him with taking a world-changing concept and moving it forward > in his own unique way... > Yup. I wish he would use more conventional methods. The one thing I have learned is that you should not underestimate him. It is easy to make fun of him or dismiss some of his outlandish claims, such as the one about making monoisotopic Ni cheaply. His statements are often contradictory so they cannot all be true. It is all too easy to dismiss him as a nut or a con-man. As with Steve Jobs you have to "low-pass filter his input." Sometimes people such as Jobs say all kinds of crazy, deluded or manipulative things. Sift through this, filter out the garbage, and you may find great ideas worth billions of dollars. Say what you like about Jobs, he was one of the most brilliant businessmen in U.S. history. He had a wonderful feel for design. He was like Charles Freer; not a great artist himself but one who recognized and collected great art with an unfailing eye. When dealing with people it is essential you learn to forgive their faults and embrace their contributions. - Jed
vortex-l@eskimo.com
"He is an impressive businessman and a brilliant engineer and inventor". At this point I will agree with "inventor". I am anxiously waiting to see independent results of what has been invented and whether I will be impressed with his business and technical acumen. I do credit him with taking a world-changing concept and moving it forward in his own unique way... On Sunday, July 8, 2012, Harry Veeder wrote: > In a business setting I would say the operative word is ally rather than > friend. > > Harry > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Jed Rothwell > > > wrote: > > OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson > > wrote: > > > >> > >> > Since you [Jed] know him so well, please explain this dichotomy > >> > in rossi's relationships with people; what makes a person > >> > a snake and a clown and what makes a person a valuable friend. > >> > >> A razor's edge. > > > > > > Exactly! > > > > It might also be compared to quantum entanglement. All of us who try to > > deal with Rossi play the role of Shrodinger's cat. It is impossible to > know > > -- even in principle -- whether you are presently alive or dead to him. > > After a while you stop caring, which is why, for example, I am typing > this > > message. Or . . . am I?!? > > > > See also: Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field -- > > > > http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Reality_Distortion_Field.txt > > > > "A reality distortion field. In [Job's] presence, reality is malleable. > He > > can convince anyone of practically anything. It wears off when he's not > > around . . . > > > > ". . . [J]ust because he tells you that something is awful or great, it > > doesn't necessarily mean he'll feel that way tomorrow. You have to > low-pass > > filter his input. And then, he's really funny about ideas. If you tell > him a > > new idea, he'll usually tell you that he thinks it's stupid. But then, > if he > > actually likes it, exactly one week later, he'll come back to you and > > propose your idea to you, as if he thought of it." > > > > This is the mark of genius and also of a sociopath. Jobs was both. > > > > - Jed > > > >
vortex-l@eskimo.com
In a business setting I would say the operative word is ally rather than friend. Harry On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: > >> >> > Since you [Jed] know him so well, please explain this dichotomy >> > in rossi's relationships with people; what makes a person >> > a snake and a clown and what makes a person a valuable friend. >> >> A razor's edge. > > > Exactly! > > It might also be compared to quantum entanglement. All of us who try to > deal with Rossi play the role of Shrodinger's cat. It is impossible to know > -- even in principle -- whether you are presently alive or dead to him. > After a while you stop caring, which is why, for example, I am typing this > message. Or . . . am I?!? > > See also: Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field -- > > http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Reality_Distortion_Field.txt > > "A reality distortion field. In [Job's] presence, reality is malleable. He > can convince anyone of practically anything. It wears off when he's not > around . . . > > ". . . [J]ust because he tells you that something is awful or great, it > doesn't necessarily mean he'll feel that way tomorrow. You have to low-pass > filter his input. And then, he's really funny about ideas. If you tell him a > new idea, he'll usually tell you that he thinks it's stupid. But then, if he > actually likes it, exactly one week later, he'll come back to you and > propose your idea to you, as if he thought of it." > > This is the mark of genius and also of a sociopath. Jobs was both. > > - Jed >
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Guenter Wildgruber wrote: As I tried to explain: 400++ degC is a domain where recrystallization > occurs. this is not your comfortable home-temperature. > See 'the laws of recrystallization', subtopic -- Laws of > recrystallization -- > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recrystallization_(metallurgy) > In this discussion I think it's important to separate three related but distinct questions: - Does Andrea Rossi's new model operate at or above 600 C? - Is it possible under any circumstance for an NiH system to operate at or above 600 C? - Is an Ni + H reaction the main one responsible for heat in an NiH system? I have no strong opinions on any of these questions. I will be anxious to see independent confirmation of a positive answer to the first one if such becomes possible in the near term. I would be surprised if the answer to the second question were unequivocally negative; it is possible to think up scenarios in which the nuclear active environment rarely reaches the melting point of nickel, even with a low-grade reaction proceeding. Eric
vortex-l@eskimo.com
OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: > > Since you [Jed] know him so well, please explain this dichotomy > > in rossi's relationships with people; what makes a person > > a snake and a clown and what makes a person a valuable friend. > > A razor's edge. > Exactly! It might also be compared to quantum entanglement. All of us who try to deal with Rossi play the role of Shrodinger's cat. It is impossible to know -- even in principle -- whether you are presently alive or dead to him. After a while you stop caring, which is why, for example, I am typing this message. Or . . . am I?!? See also: Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field -- http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Reality_Distortion_Field.txt "A reality distortion field. In [Job's] presence, reality is malleable. He can convince anyone of practically anything. It wears off when he's not around . . . ". . . [J]ust because he tells you that something is awful or great, it doesn't necessarily mean he'll feel that way tomorrow. You have to low-pass filter his input. And then, he's really funny about ideas. If you tell him a new idea, he'll usually tell you that he thinks it's stupid. But then, if he actually likes it, exactly one week later, he'll come back to you and propose your idea to you, as if he thought of it." This is the mark of genius and also of a sociopath. Jobs was both. - Jed
vortex-l@eskimo.com
Axil Axil wrote: > And yet Brillouin Energy‘s President and Chief Technical Officer Robert E. > Godes has selflessly posted critical help on Rossi's web site that has > enabled Rossi to develop his latest reaction approach; and Rossi was > grateful for it. The same is true for the advice he got from NI and his > first government based customer. > Yup. He is sincere about expressing thanks and giving credit to others. Effusive, even. Also, unlike many self-made inventors, he is open to ideas and suggestions from other people. He does not suffer from the "not invented here" syndrome. One person who knows him better than I do said he reads everything and he will ask for help from anyone, if he thinks that will contribute to reaching his goals. I have heard he learned a great deal from NI and there might still be a fruitful relationship between them. I would not mind being a vendor to Rossi such as NI. That could be a very fruitful relationship. I would not want to be a business partner or investor. As far as I know he has been quite open and fair with people such as Levi, Essen and Kulander. They are not business partners. They have not complained about him, and they have nothing to complain about. He never followed through on his proposed research contract with U. Bologna, but that is his prerogative. A businessman can decide that a contract is not in his best interests and cancel before the final commitment deadline. That's a normal and legit thing to do. He is an impressive businessman and a brilliant engineer and inventor. Unfortunately, he has serious faults, such as being sloppy with equipment, and thin-skinned. As I said, he could not bring himself to admit that the people from NASA were right and he was wrong, and the test failed. That was pure egomania. It was an idiotic, self-destructive fit of pique. He should have apologized, fixed the problem, and called them back in. They offered to come. This was the test described by Krivit, in a report that is correct as far as I know. Krivit often gets things right, and I am always willing to give him credit. I cited him in my recent paper. He has the same problem Rossi has: he often gets it right, but sometimes his ego causes him to make drastic mistakes, and you never tell whether you are dealing with Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde. Since you know him so well, please explain this dichotomy in rossi's > relationships with people; what makes a person a snake and a clown and what > makes a person a valuable friend. > In my personal experience it varies from day to day, or from hour to hour, like the weather in Pennsylvania. * I personally have been in his favor in the morning, on the outs by afternoon, and back in his good graces the next day. It depends on his mood. If he reads this message I am sure to be in the doghouse tomorrow. He has difficulty knowing friends from enemies. In my opinion he has difficulty judging other people's intentions and capabilities. This is unimportant example, but he rejected a visit by me because I insisted on bringing my own instruments, and he welcomed a visit by Krivit who set no such conditions. Some people who knew this was happening at the time warned him that Krivit sometimes makes trouble. I think I would have done a better job. I might have found the same result that Krivit did: no evidence of heat. But at least I would have measured this objectively with outside instruments leaving no doubt in anyone's mind about the result. That is better than trying to prove the issue by guess and by golly and by making fun of Rossi's ability to speak English as a second language. Rossi does not want anyone to use outside instruments to establish a clear claim one way or the other. As he says, "no tests!" That is what he told me, which is why I did not go. Most people assume that he says this because he is a fraud and he is hiding the truth. That assumption is entirely reasonable. If I knew nothing about him, and I had not seen data from his long suffering supporters, I would assume this. I think the situation is more complicated. I agree with Mike McKubre who says Rossi wants most people to think he has nothing, because he does not want serious competition. Ed Storms says that if he were Rossi, with the technology in hand, he would say nothing to anyone except investors under NDAs. He would keep it strictly confidential. That would be a legitimate business strategy. What Rossi is doing is kind of like that, with the added strategy of spreading confusion and rumors that the machines do not work. That is * not* a legitimate business strategy. It is borderline unethical. While it is okay to say nothing, it is not okay to circulate misleading information. Granted, this kind of deception is quite common, and has been used by mainstream organizations such as IBM since forever. If you are going to engage is such practices, you cannot complain when people say you are untrustworthy or you appear to be con-man. Rossi has no right to be u
vortex-l@eskimo.com
>From Axil: ... > Since you [Jed] know him so well, please explain this dichotomy > in rossi's relationships with people; what makes a person > a snake and a clown and what makes a person a valuable friend. A razor's edge. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
At 10:13 AM 7/8/2012, Guenter Wildgruber wrote:
To repeat: I think, as a matter of fact, that LENR is real, but not
nearly as far to commercial application as Rossi/DGT claim.
Two entirely separate issues here, though, of course, the second
depends on the first.
LENR is real, there is practically no room for rational doubt about
that, but those who are not familiar with the publication record may,
of course, remain unconvinced or even sure that LENR is unreal. It's
a piece of work to become familiar.
Those who think that a peer-reviewed review in a major journal might
be a clue could read "Status of cold fusion (2010)," by Edmund
Storms, Naturwissenschaften.
To head off some common objections:
1. Ed Storms is a believer. As if someone professionaly competent
would become a world-class expert on a topic, doing real research
with it, while not accepting the reality of the topic. What is
significant about this review is not the author, who already wrote a
monograph on the topic, published by World Scientific in 2007 ("The
Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions"), but the publisher,
Springer-Verlag, which is one of the two largest scientific
publishers in the world.
2. Naturwissenschaften is a life sciences journal. This is based on
two facts: NW is Springer-Verlag's "flagship multidisciplinary
journal" (their description). SV has organized its vast array of
journals into administrative units. It doesn't have a pile of
"multidisciplinary journals," and, perhaps because NW does publish a
lot of articles related to the life sciences (most of them are in
some way), the Life Sciences division makes sense. However, the "life
sciences journal" issue is raised to imply that NW would not have
access to physics-competent peer review. That is completely false.
3. This paper has not been cited in other peer-reviewed papers.
That's true. *It is not controversial,* the conclusions are
well-established, and for many years now, other papers on cold
fusion, some published in peer-reviewed journals, simply assume what
is clearly stated in this review, that the Fleischmann-Pons Heat
Effect is due to some process that fuses deuterium to helium,
mechanism unknown. The paper does not make controversial claims. The
summary in the abstract hasn't seen contradiction in the
peer-reviewed literature for many years.
4. The paper (allegedly) still shows that most experiments to confirm
the FPHE came up empty. Well, no, but there is a chart that can be
interpreted that way. It's also quite possible that the "most
experiments" claim is true, because many negative results have not
been published. However, claiming that this is negative as to the
reality of cold fusion would be like claiming that there are no fish
in a lake, because most fishers who try to catch one fail. The
experimental evidence, from early on, showed clearly that the FPHE
was difficult to reproduce, that it depended on poorly understood
conditions and, while recent research tends to be more reliable, it
is still true that the effect is "unreliable." I.e. that the
conditions are poorly controlled, generally depending on catalyst
nanostructure, and, given that the mechanism is not understood,
still, improving design is hit-or-miss.
(We know, however, that the effect is real because the ash has been
identified (helium) and it has been shown to be highly correlated
with the reported anomalous heat. That would not happen with
non-existent heat, a result of error in calorimetry, nor would it
happen with leaked helium, the usual objections.)
In 1989 and 2004, U.S. Department of Energy panels recommended
further research. Those reviews have often been presented as if they
concluded there was no effect. That's not so. In 1989, it's true, the
large majority of the panel might have been prepapred to make such a
statement, but they did not, due to the influence -- and threat to
resign -- of a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who was co-chair. In
2004, it's apparent, the recommendation for continued research to
resolve basic questions was a genuine consensus, the summarizing
bureaucrat says it was unanimous. In spite of continued "popular
opinion" among physicists, particularly, that "cold fusion" was
"impossible," evidenced in some of the individual reviewer reports,
the panel was evenly split on the reality of the heat effect, and
one-third considered evidence for the nuclear origin of the heat to
be at least "somewhat convincing."
A careful reading of the DoE review paper, and the review, shows that
some of the panel and the bureaucrat misread the paper and especially
the evidence for helium as the ash (which Storms covers well in his
2010 Review). What is, objectively, very strong evidence for
heat/helium correlation, was misstated by a reviewer and the
bureaucrat as if it were an anti-correlation. Simple error. Made easy
by the speed of the review, there was a one-day meeting, with very
little
vortex-l@eskimo.com
And yet Brillouin Energy‘s President and Chief Technical Officer Robert E. Godes has selflessly posted critical help on Rossi's web site that has enabled Rossi to develop his latest reaction approach; and Rossi was grateful for it. The same is true for the advice he got from NI and his first government based customer. Since you know him so well, please explain this dichotomy in rossi's relationships with people; what makes a person a snake and a clown and what makes a person a valuable friend. Cheers: Axil On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > The 1 MW plant is on the market. If you want data, you need money. >> > > You need $1.5 million. That is an absurd sum of money, and the 1 MW > reactor is an absurd machine. A single unit from it would suffice. > > If I had $1.5 million I could probably try to replicate Rossi from > scratch, the way Defkalion now claims they did. I might not get the same > high performance Rossi has, but it would probably be high enough to attract > enough real money to finish the job. Several groups are trying to do that, > with mixed results. > > Whatever it costs to replicate independently, it would be better than > trying to deal with Rossi directly. He is a great inventor in many ways, > but as a businessman he is impossible to deal with. He is a control freak. > The way he treated the people from NASA was outrageous. It was > unspeakable! They talked about it at W&M. Rossi might have gotten millions > of dollars in funding practically overnight. Instead, he threw them out and > he thew away the opportunity in a momentary fit of pique. Just because he > could not bring himself to admit the outlet pipe was plugged up with crud. > This is idiotic, self-defeating egomania. It is very sad. > > Heck, the way he treated *me* was outrageous. He and Krivit deserve one > another, like two scorpions in a bottle. > > Rossi is personally nice. He is a lot more honest and forthright than you > might think based on his blog postings. He blabs and blusters a lot, but > his core claims are all correct as far as I know. Most have been been > independently verified by his collaborators, who are a long-suffering group > of stalwart people. They have done much for him and in return he has often > given them a sharp kick in the . . . genitals. (I want to maintain the > proper academic decorum.) > > Rossi deserves a huge amount of credit for pushing this field along, using > techniques pioneered by himself, Arata and Piantelli. He deserves billions > of dollars -- if that's what he wants. But his temper and periodic fits of > pique make him impossible to do business with. (A "fit of pique" is an old > expression meaning "acting badly because your pride is hurt.") > > Rossi is his own worst enemy. He suffers from the "inventor's disease" > that has defeated so many others in cold fusion and in other fields > throughout history. People try to help him but he blows them away, and > mistrusts them, because he has had so many bad experiences in the post. > Most of his bad experiences in the last few years have been entirely his > own fault. > > - Jed > >
vortex-l@eskimo.com
Yep, this seems like a benign description of what is going on. I hypothesize that Rossi inhabits his own world, which is in conflict with ours. As such it is backed by its own 'reality', which maybe coexists with ours. Or not. See eg Philip K Dick, who believed in a world where time is nonexistent. Everythhing happens at the same time. Why? Because of that he could manage his inner world, where exactly that happened. But this does not pass the smell-test of intersubjectivity. Now Rossi's ambitions seem distinctly different from Karl May or PKD, in that he aims to directly alter our physical reality, not only our imagination. As such, I find him interesting. As an inventor, well , he is on the level of PKD in the best case. Take my word. Guenter Von: Jed Rothwell An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 19:42 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:ILENRS-12 at W&M ... Rossi is his own worst enemy. He suffers from the "inventor's disease" that has defeated so many others in cold fusion and in other fields throughout history. ...
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Alain, You again make a categorical error : ...DGT gave strong signal... I do not care about 'signals' unchecked. Only if they are verified by MY or other trustable person's experience, and cross-checked again by my humble common sense. As Korzybski said: "The map is not the territory" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski -- What DGT actually did ,as Rossi repeatedly does, is, that their stated 'map' is somehow correlated to the territory of reality. You can pretend as long as you will, as long as you have a sufficient number of followers to satisfy your ambitions. Any storyteller satisfies that sort of belief. Even Uri Geller. Embarrasment impersonated. Geller proves one thing: how easy it is to get people to believe fairytales like eg the bible. And No: I am NOT maryjugo or whatever this person is calling itself. I am who I am. And:Yes, I think LENR is real. I am just embarrassed by extraordinary claims without sufficient backing. Which makes me angry at times. All the best Guenter Von: Alain Sepeda An: Vortex List Gesendet: 18:54 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations I undesrtand your reasoning, and from that point of view it is right. the claims are claims. but when someone own assets (reputation, investment, clients, ...) claims have a concrete effect that varies depending on the future, in which they have more data than us. Only them know if their claims are right or wrong, but their belief or knowledge have an effect on their strategy, even if they are irrational a little. so when i hear a claim, I translate into commitment, image risk, cornering. they can be self deluded, but , unlike you are supported by a strong group like is the mainstream, the delusion cannot be too far from facts. I have received data from them, and also behavioral data, and competence signals. It is easy to differential a hollywood movie bomb, from a terrorist bomb, and you can even guess their intent, education, culture and competence from the design. DGT gave strong signal about managing details that match a real capacity to sell to public (safety, regulation, green/ROHS). they have made rational choice that mean that when choosing, they choose the standard, simple, recognized alternative (H2 circuit, metal, shape, shielding). They have proposed some key design that mean that they have touched a real complex reactor, and found an uncommon but smart control technique. of course , those evidences are not easy to transfer to third party (maybe you ca read the technical discussion, but part of the evidence is in my experience, yet maybe some other is in someone else and I missed it). finally there is a good reason to lower the standard of proof, it is that reading Celani, Pianteli, Focardi, all of that is SIMPLE to do (for a gang of engineer with budget, i mean like LHC one magnet is easy to build). the only real concern I have is that nobody else in the LENR community (for mainstream they are self-delusioned and won't recognize their mother with a LENR logo T-shirt) seems to have success in making a powerful gas reactor. Maybe short budget, maybe just hiding and preparing for fast sales soon, however alternative are not coherent either. DGT might have problem on longterm usage (the buzz is possible), but their claims, on the horizon of few weeks, and as far as they could test, was correct when done. And latest behaviors show that they were anyway confident, and betting their balls. The same kind of reasoning with Concezzi and NIWeek, make me hugely confident. we should stop being afraid of our shadow. LENr is normal physic, and LENR energy is more rational industry than renewable. I've noticed that behavior of oppressed minorities (like bikes on roads. see http://www.johnforester.com ), that integrate the beliefs of the mainstream, despite the facts that everyday prove the opposite, and even for those who oppose strongly the mainstream. It is very hard not to absorb the mainstream values (I think it is the subject of some cognitive science sector, on which I've read some article), even if you know it is wrong. I see everyday very various pathological science, there are some in LENR who look pathologic, but mainstream is crowded with such too. Without the support of groupthink, LENR is quite easily cleaned from bad science. 2012/7/8 Guenter Wildgruber Alain, >You most probably make an error of judgement. > > >DGT up to now delivered 'facts' which I could assemble on a sunday afternoon >(like today). >Peter Gluck did a good job of briefing them, so at least they are coherent in >WHAT THEY SAY! >What they DO or HAVE is an another matter altogether. >Rossi is telling us that the sun is rising when in fact it is setting. >Beautiful, when he talks to his believers. >Rossi exactly delivered nothing except blabbering about his second generation >of vaporware. >Not far behind is DGT, w
vortex-l@eskimo.com
Axil Axil wrote: The 1 MW plant is on the market. If you want data, you need money. > You need $1.5 million. That is an absurd sum of money, and the 1 MW reactor is an absurd machine. A single unit from it would suffice. If I had $1.5 million I could probably try to replicate Rossi from scratch, the way Defkalion now claims they did. I might not get the same high performance Rossi has, but it would probably be high enough to attract enough real money to finish the job. Several groups are trying to do that, with mixed results. Whatever it costs to replicate independently, it would be better than trying to deal with Rossi directly. He is a great inventor in many ways, but as a businessman he is impossible to deal with. He is a control freak. The way he treated the people from NASA was outrageous. It was unspeakable! They talked about it at W&M. Rossi might have gotten millions of dollars in funding practically overnight. Instead, he threw them out and he thew away the opportunity in a momentary fit of pique. Just because he could not bring himself to admit the outlet pipe was plugged up with crud. This is idiotic, self-defeating egomania. It is very sad. Heck, the way he treated *me* was outrageous. He and Krivit deserve one another, like two scorpions in a bottle. Rossi is personally nice. He is a lot more honest and forthright than you might think based on his blog postings. He blabs and blusters a lot, but his core claims are all correct as far as I know. Most have been been independently verified by his collaborators, who are a long-suffering group of stalwart people. They have done much for him and in return he has often given them a sharp kick in the . . . genitals. (I want to maintain the proper academic decorum.) Rossi deserves a huge amount of credit for pushing this field along, using techniques pioneered by himself, Arata and Piantelli. He deserves billions of dollars -- if that's what he wants. But his temper and periodic fits of pique make him impossible to do business with. (A "fit of pique" is an old expression meaning "acting badly because your pride is hurt.") Rossi is his own worst enemy. He suffers from the "inventor's disease" that has defeated so many others in cold fusion and in other fields throughout history. People try to help him but he blows them away, and mistrusts them, because he has had so many bad experiences in the post. Most of his bad experiences in the last few years have been entirely his own fault. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Popular Science LENR Cold Fusion article and Forbes
Ron Kita wrote: > Also. Where is Mark Gibbs of Forbes? > > When the body of evidence is larger than everWhy is Forbes silent??? > > . . . > There was no evidence presented at this conference, or by Rossi for that matter, that was more convincing than the peer-reviewed published evidence from 1992. What we are seeing today is the same phenomenon on a larger scale with better reprodicability. That is encouraging because it means we are closer to commercialization. But it is not more convincing. The first small scale experiments by the Curies proved that nuclear fission produces far more energy per gram of fuel than any chemical reaction. They proved that as irrefutably as the first nuclear bomb did. The scale makes no difference. As long as you can be sure the calorimetry is correct, you can be sure cold fusion exists. People who doubt the calorimetry published by Fleischmann, McKubre or Miles do not know anything about calorimetry. You can safely ignore everything they say. People who "do not believe" in cold fusion are willfully ignoring widely replicated experimental proof. They are ignoring the scientific method. Gibbs' most recent articles show that he does not understand the scientific method, the difference between theories and hypotheses, and many other junior-high school level concepts. He is ignorant, and proud of his own ignorance. He has no business writing about science or technology. People like him are a lost cause. It is a waste of time trying to teach them. It is best to ignore them. The editors at Sci. Am., Taubes, and Lemonick at Time magazine are also lost causes. I do not understand why science journalism attracts so many people who never learned elementary science. It is surprising how much high level, expensive, bogus, ignorant foolishness is sold on the open market. I once read an expensive "white paper" study on the future of computing published by a leading U.S. consultant. It was published around 1978 and sold to leading U.S. corporations for thousands of bucks, I think. The authors did not understand the functional differences between hard disks, ROM and RAM, or the difference between operating system software and applications. When I was around 13 and learning to program I knew more about computers than these people did. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
I undesrtand your reasoning, and from that point of view it is right. the claims are claims. but when someone own assets (reputation, investment, clients, ...) claims have a concrete effect that varies depending on the future, in which they have more data than us. Only them know if their claims are right or wrong, but their belief or knowledge have an effect on their strategy, even if they are irrational a little. so when i hear a claim, I translate into commitment, image risk, cornering. they can be self deluded, but , unlike you are supported by a strong group like is the mainstream, the delusion cannot be too far from facts. I have received data from them, and also behavioral data, and competence signals. It is easy to differential a hollywood movie bomb, from a terrorist bomb, and you can even guess their intent, education, culture and competence from the design. DGT gave strong signal about managing details that match a real capacity to sell to public (safety, regulation, green/ROHS). they have made rational choice that mean that when choosing, they choose the standard, simple, recognized alternative (H2 circuit, metal, shape, shielding). They have proposed some key design that mean that they have touched a real complex reactor, and found an uncommon but smart control technique. of course , those evidences are not easy to transfer to third party (maybe you ca read the technical discussion, but part of the evidence is in my experience, yet maybe some other is in someone else and I missed it). finally there is a good reason to lower the standard of proof, it is that reading Celani, Pianteli, Focardi, all of that is SIMPLE to do (for a gang of engineer with budget, i mean like LHC one magnet is easy to build). the only real concern I have is that nobody else in the LENR community (for mainstream they are self-delusioned and won't recognize their mother with a LENR logo T-shirt) seems to have success in making a powerful gas reactor. Maybe short budget, maybe just hiding and preparing for fast sales soon, however alternative are not coherent either. DGT might have problem on longterm usage (the buzz is possible), but their claims, on the horizon of few weeks, and as far as they could test, was correct when done. And latest behaviors show that they were anyway confident, and betting their balls. The same kind of reasoning with Concezzi and NIWeek, make me hugely confident. we should stop being afraid of our shadow. LENr is normal physic, and LENR energy is more rational industry than renewable. I've noticed that behavior of oppressed minorities (like bikes on roads. see http://www.johnforester.com ), that integrate the beliefs of the mainstream, despite the facts that everyday prove the opposite, and even for those who oppose strongly the mainstream. It is very hard not to absorb the mainstream values (I think it is the subject of some cognitive science sector, on which I've read some article), even if you know it is wrong. I see everyday very various pathological science, there are some in LENR who look pathologic, but mainstream is crowded with such too. Without the support of groupthink, LENR is quite easily cleaned from bad science. 2012/7/8 Guenter Wildgruber > Alain, > You most probably make an error of judgement. > > DGT up to now delivered 'facts' which I could assemble on a sunday > afternoon (like today). > Peter Gluck did a good job of briefing them, so at least they are coherent > in WHAT THEY SAY! > What they DO or HAVE is an another matter altogether. > Rossi is telling us that the sun is rising when in fact it is setting. > Beautiful, when he talks to his believers. > Rossi exactly delivered nothing except blabbering about his second > generation of vaporware. > Not far behind is DGT, which exactly did what? Deliver nothing. > > To repeat: I think, as a matter of fact, that LENR is real, but not nearly > as far to commercial application as Rossi/DGT claim. > > The next two months will show us the evidence. > Please do not be disappointed.. > At least I will not, because it is hard to disappoint a pessimist/cautious > realist (not pathoskeptic). > > Guenter > >-- > *Von:* Alain Sepeda > *An:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Gesendet:* 16:36 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 > > *Betreff:* Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations > > In fact, and it is my own position, and I understand that some disagree, > For DGT I have passed the "I cannot explain". > With my experience, my behavioral analysis of business, and various data > and analysis gathered, I can say that the positive outcome (at a few > details uncertain), is sure beyond the reasonable doubt. > > For Rossi, I'm still uncomfortable, but beside clear lies and probable > lies, and things to check, the key facts seems good, because of others > reaction and claims. > ... > > >
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Jojo, Maybe, maybe not. Count me in the doubter's camp. As I tried to explain: 400++ degC is a domain where recrystallization occurs. this is not your comfortable home-temperature. See 'the laws of recrystallization', subtopic -- Laws of recrystallization -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recrystallization_(metallurgy) It is ONE thing to question ONE law, but a different thing to question quite a bunch of them simultaneously,. As an engineer with some philosophical leanings (quite rare) I tell You that I am not quite ready to put Rossi into the alltime hall of fame of the likes of Plato, Aristoteles or Einstein. My guess is, that he is more like a Karl May character, who pretended to have visited distant lands, without ever experiencing them, or messing things up, doing a disservice to us all. Sorry. Guenter Von: Jojo Jaro An: Vortex Gesendet: 17:31 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Yes, 600c seems like an overstretch only because we do not understand what's going on. Just like how Huzienga and Parks would think of Cold Fusion. They don't understand it, so it is an overstretch. However, Axil seems to have done a good job in stitching together a probable explanation that can easily explain this 600C. This result is entirely probable in the context of Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR. Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR can be more consistent and controllable so I do not see a problem with 600C, or even 1000C reaction temps. Many seems to have recognized the possibility of Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR paradigm, most notable of which may include both Ed Storms and W&L. I have speculated repeatedly in the past that one of the reason why Rossi changed to a flat design was due to the need to deliver more consistent Sparking/arc discharge. Now, evidence is mounting that such an environment is consistent with Carbon Nanosturcture-based LENR, as these Carbon Nanostructures are easily created in such an electric discharge environment. In fact, I would go one step further and speculate that I believe Rossi's new flat design may be a hybrid Arc Discharge/CVD reactor that creates abundant Carbon Nanostructures that appear to be critical to increased power density. We know that Carbon Nanotubes are good NAE candidates. In Lou's post of W&L slides, W&L presents compelling evidence of the possibility of Graphene as a possible NAE. Both of these Nanosturcutures appear to be good platforms for the Nuclear Active Environment. If one recognizes the possibility of these Carbon Nanostructures as the NAE, one will not have too much problems believing the Rossi 600C stable operating temps. Jojo - Original Message - >From: Guenter Wildgruber >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 10:50 PM >Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations > > > > >Rossi, the sparrow does a good job of concealing his hand, in poker speech. >And endlessly promises. Bids up his hand to 600degC, knowing that 1000degC >would give him a good laugh, even from the most friendly of his friends. > > >What I tried to do, is argue, that 600degC is already an overstretch of the >poker-hand from both sides: Rossi AND DGT. >Maybe I am wrong. > >Actually I hope so, because the planet would be safe for another couple of >hundred years, and could heal from human folly. > > >Guenter > > > > > > > > >Guenter > > > > > > Von: Jojo Jaro >An: Vortex >Gesendet: 15:25 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 >Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations > >...The assumption undergriding a pseudo-skeptics attitude is that he understands everything there is to understand about the subject, therefore whatever he does not understand must be false. > >This of course is the sad state of attitude prevailing in modern science >nowadays. >Jojo > > > > > >
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Yes, 600c seems like an overstretch only because we do not understand what's going on. Just like how Huzienga and Parks would think of Cold Fusion. They don't understand it, so it is an overstretch. However, Axil seems to have done a good job in stitching together a probable explanation that can easily explain this 600C. This result is entirely probable in the context of Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR. Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR can be more consistent and controllable so I do not see a problem with 600C, or even 1000C reaction temps. Many seems to have recognized the possibility of Carbon Nanostructure-based LENR paradigm, most notable of which may include both Ed Storms and W&L. I have speculated repeatedly in the past that one of the reason why Rossi changed to a flat design was due to the need to deliver more consistent Sparking/arc discharge. Now, evidence is mounting that such an environment is consistent with Carbon Nanosturcture-based LENR, as these Carbon Nanostructures are easily created in such an electric discharge environment. In fact, I would go one step further and speculate that I believe Rossi's new flat design may be a hybrid Arc Discharge/CVD reactor that creates abundant Carbon Nanostructures that appear to be critical to increased power density. We know that Carbon Nanotubes are good NAE candidates. In Lou's post of W&L slides, W&L presents compelling evidence of the possibility of Graphene as a possible NAE. Both of these Nanosturcutures appear to be good platforms for the Nuclear Active Environment. If one recognizes the possibility of these Carbon Nanostructures as the NAE, one will not have too much problems believing the Rossi 600C stable operating temps. Jojo - Original Message - From: Guenter Wildgruber To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Rossi, the sparrow does a good job of concealing his hand, in poker speech. And endlessly promises. Bids up his hand to 600degC, knowing that 1000degC would give him a good laugh, even from the most friendly of his friends. What I tried to do, is argue, that 600degC is already an overstretch of the poker-hand from both sides: Rossi AND DGT. Maybe I am wrong. Actually I hope so, because the planet would be safe for another couple of hundred years, and could heal from human folly. Guenter Guenter -- Von: Jojo Jaro An: Vortex Gesendet: 15:25 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations ...The assumption undergriding a pseudo-skeptics attitude is that he understands everything there is to understand about the subject, therefore whatever he does not understand must be false. This of course is the sad state of attitude prevailing in modern science nowadays. Jojo
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Alain, You most probably make an error of judgement. DGT up to now delivered 'facts' which I could assemble on a sunday afternoon (like today). Peter Gluck did a good job of briefing them, so at least they are coherent in WHAT THEY SAY! What they DO or HAVE is an another matter altogether. Rossi is telling us that the sun is rising when in fact it is setting. Beautiful, when he talks to his believers. Rossi exactly delivered nothing except blabbering about his second generation of vaporware. Not far behind is DGT, which exactly did what? Deliver nothing. To repeat: I think, as a matter of fact, that LENR is real, but not nearly as far to commercial application as Rossi/DGT claim. The next two months will show us the evidence. Please do not be disappointed.. At least I will not, because it is hard to disappoint a pessimist/cautious realist (not pathoskeptic). Guenter Von: Alain Sepeda An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 16:36 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations In fact, and it is my own position, and I understand that some disagree, For DGT I have passed the "I cannot explain". With my experience, my behavioral analysis of business, and various data and analysis gathered, I can say that the positive outcome (at a few details uncertain), is sure beyond the reasonable doubt. For Rossi, I'm still uncomfortable, but beside clear lies and probable lies, and things to check, the key facts seems good, because of others reaction and claims. ...
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Jojo, rest assured that I deplore pathoskeptizism as much as You do. But this does not make me change flags and join the other side. This is just like in a war. if You recognize that your party is wrong, You have two options: a) change sides b) be a pacifist Pathoskeptics firmly belong to the (a)-camp. I myself am trying to be in the (b)-camp ofcourse, which means: be skeptical wrt BOTH sides. Thhis metaphor has its weaknesses, and I do not want to overstretch it. This would be silly in its own right. Sitting in between, repeating myself ad nauseam, I must say that on the one hand LENR is REAL, on the other hand Rossi/DGT probably overbid their hand, in poker-speech. In other words: They CLAIM to have an elephant, which is more probably than not a midge, or a sparrow, with lots of fleas and lice and other parasites. Did You ever have a sparrow in your hands? I did. You would be surprised! Rossi, the sparrow does a good job of concealing his hand, in poker speech. And endlessly promises. Bids up his hand to 600degC, knowing that 1000degC would give him a good laugh, even from the most friendly of his friends. What I tried to do, is argue, that 600degC is already an overstretch of the poker-hand from both sides: Rossi AND DGT. Maybe I am wrong. Actually I hope so, because the planet would be safe for another couple of hundred years, and could heal from human folly. Guenter Guenter Von: Jojo Jaro An: Vortex Gesendet: 15:25 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations ...The assumption undergriding a pseudo-skeptics attitude is that he understands everything there is to understand about the subject, therefore whatever he does not understand must be false. This of course is the sad state of attitude prevailing in modern science nowadays. Jojo
RE: [Vo]:125 GeV
Going further with the possibility that the Higgs field (HF) and the zero point field (ZPF) are similar if not identical, being other names for 'aether' ... and in the sense of another dimension of space which always interacts (props -up) 3-space to the extent of "seeming to provide mass", we must be prepared to open Pandora's box of possibilities for alternative energy. IOW, there are definite implications for LENR even now, as the story unfolds. In which case, I will agree with Jouni, that some portion of 15 billion spent was worth it. It would have been wiser to peel off some of that for LENR, since the actual value of 125 GeV was predicted long ago, and is not new ... but nevertheless ... what's done is done. Can we benefit from the added certainty that this value is correct ? Mentioned previously are some of the many energy anomalies with elements of mass-energy in the range of 125 GeV (134 amu) including tellurium, iodine and xenon. The value of 134 amu or 125 GeV would represent a rest-mass equivalent, so the interesting isotopes, which could connect most easily to this ZPF/HF "gateway" are up to 7% less in mass-energy than the precise Higgs value, and include the three elements above. Note particularly in all three elements, the physical property of strong "photon sensitivity" such as fluorescence/ phosphorescence. The leader in photovoltaics, First Solar, uses CdTe exclusively - it is not OU of course, but it could mean something in the final analysis. Xenon headlamps are ultra-bright for a reason that may also relate to the HF. Energy "efficiency" in some materials could portend actual gainfulness. Of particular interest to the prime value of 125 GeV are the resonant or fractional-mass elements at one-half and one-quarter of the prime matter-wave. This would include Ni64 or Ni62, of course, but probably not the lower mass nickel isotopes. These two heavy isotopes could be a 'gateway' to mass renormalization into 3-space via the HF/ZPF, due to resonance at the half-wave value. In fact these two isotopes are mentioned specifically by AR, but it is one of those crazy details that most observers in the past have ignored or pooh-poohed ... relegated to Rossi-speak ... since isotopes of nickel are extremely costly, so much so that enrichment does not mesh well with the other claims of low cost. I now think that it is an even bet that longer-term operation of a Ni-H cell will demand enrichment in the HF/ZPF-resonant isotopes. It is also an even bet that that a less expensive enrichment method is Rossi's major breakthrough (over Thermacore). Mentioned before is the strong possibility that this kind of enrichment can be done in one or two passes in a commercial ultracentrifuge, using nickel liquid (such as the chloride) as feedstock. Moving on - there is the all-important quarter-mass resonance value for the HF/ZPF which would be around 32-34 amu. I call it "all important" as this relates to life. It also relates strong to photon sensitivity. This mass-energy level includes sulfur and phosphorus, in the range of 32 amu. Since both of these are vital for biological life, much has been written on them - especially ATP. Adenosine-triphosphate (ATP) is called the "spark of life" since it is the basis of intracellular energy transfer in biology. ATP transports chemical energy within cells for metabolism and is absolutely vital. This makes the Higgs field "personal" at least in this speculation based on resonance in mass energy. ... 'nuf said for now... simply a few more details to consider in appraising the possibility of real and useful aether inter-connections, and finding the HF and ZPF "gateways" at the 125 GeV value and its whole fractional resonances, and the possibility of real-world implications for this LHC information. (even though the value was predicted 10 years ago) - Please forgive speculation based on too little information, and on a story that is just breaking. I do realize that none of the numbers are firm yet, and that I am trying to wedge into the big-picture a few energy anomalies which could be unconnected in the end, and which few in physics believe anyway. However, if there is any remote connection between all of this Higgs-hyperbole and maximizing the output of LENR in Ni-H reactions, then it is worth and early stab. Not to mention that emergent new meme - that the Higgs field = aether = zpe, roughly speaking. After all, we taxpayers need to get out some tiny return out for the billion$ sunk into that particular black (money) hole. Ok first off. Yours truly has been a big proponent for Ni-64 being the active isotope in Ni-H reactions for reasons which are in the archives and will not be repeated.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
In fact, and it is my own position, and I understand that some disagree, For DGT I have passed the "I cannot explain". With my experience, my behavioral analysis of business, and various data and analysis gathered, I can say that the positive outcome (at a few details uncertain), is sure beyond the reasonable doubt. For Rossi, I'm still uncomfortable, but beside clear lies and probable lies, and things to check, the key facts seems good, because of others reaction and claims. note that for me the claims are only action that someone do to expect reactions. I believe in something when the interpreted intent of that action, is only coherent with the positive outcome. to be simple, DGT have gone so far that assuming fraud or delusion, their reaction are neither rational, not even coherent with their psychiatric ( :> ) profile, and others reactions around. Their data, their discussions are coherent and evidence of knowledge linked to a real reactor, and their effort are nonsense is that real react is not mostly working maybe a little erratic, but enough stable to convince to bet your balls). their critics are even supporting their claims. Thanks to stremmenos and Rossi. thanks also to their board of director and their economic profile (anti-Rossi style). For Rossi, in fact his best support for me is DGT. don't laugh. Concezzi too. With my acquired conviction, I jump from a probabilistic conviction of 99.9%, to the translation in normal life : "I'm SURE", more than most of the things that circulate on TV, in news, in science... and believe me, I'm very skeptical in many things, from conspiracy theories to mainstream consensus, even to myself. I say you I'm SURE, but like sur rise in the morning, it have to be checked every morning, in case something have changed. I was criticizing the tendency in LENR community to be overcarefull. There is a moment in real life when you have to bet your ball, or rather stay in your bed and wait for death, which is sure. I'm sure LENR is real, DGT have a reactor not far from said, Rossi have good results. Anyway tomorrow morning, have to check if that have changed. 2012/7/8 Jojo Jaro > ** > A pseudo-skeptic can not explain in his mind the results, therefore, in > his mind, since he can not explain it, must be a fraud. The assumption > undergriding a pseudo-skeptics attitude is that he understands everything > there is to understand about the subject, therefore whatever he does not > understand must be false. > > This of course is the sad state of attitude prevailing in modern science > nowadays. > >
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
What, pray tell, is the chemical that can bend spoons without eating the flesh off your fingers? A quick google of the terms "Geller Spoon Bending Chemical" revealed nothing. Many are so sure that Geller's spoon bending feat is a trick (and I'm not saying that it's not), but they can't say how it's done. The point I am making is simply this: Many people are SO sure that Rossi is a fraud, yet they can not say exactly How Rossi is doing this alleged fraud. (Does this remind you of Mary Yugo?) That is what differentiates a true skeptic from a pseudo-skeptic. You see, a true skeptic can not explain the results he sees so he keeps an open mind. A pseudo-skeptic can not explain in his mind the results, therefore, in his mind, since he can not explain it, must be a fraud. The assumption undergriding a pseudo-skeptics attitude is that he understands everything there is to understand about the subject, therefore whatever he does not understand must be false. This of course is the sad state of attitude prevailing in modern science nowadays. Jojo - Original Message - From: Guenter Wildgruber To: Guenter Wildgruber ; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 7:14 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations A (psycho)analysis of Rossi/DGT or an exercise in the theory and practice of (self-)deception. There is some LENR effect, I am sure. This just as a disclaimer. We all can bend spoons,right?, But Uri Geller did it better. Why? He had a magic sauce. Interestingly enough Feynman met Geller, and had to say this: ... I also looked into extrasensory perception, and PSI phenomena, and the latest craze there was Uri Geller, a man who is supposed to be able to bend keys by rubbing them with his finger. So I went to his hotel room, on his invitation, to see a demonstration of both mindreading and bending keys. He didn't do any mindreading that succeeded; nobody can read my mind, I guess. And my boy held a key and Geller rubbed it, and nothing happened. Then he told us it works better under water, and so you can picture all of us standing in the bathroom with the water turned on and the key under it, and him rubbing the key with his finger. Nothing happened. So I was unable to investigate that phenomenon. ... --> 'Cargo Cult Science' Actually Feynman did not figure out what Geller's trick was, but it was one, which later on was found to be some chemical treatment of his spoons, which Geller did not seem to have at hand when Feynman visited him. Now Geller is still a celebrity in some circles, whereas Feynman is known to some physics geeks and folks eg interested in the analysis of the Challenger-catastropy, where he applied common sense and some basic principles. No quantum magic. Not so spectacular, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster As said. A cautionary tale. Hope I am wrong. Guenter
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Alain, ... nothing is proven. .. yes, ofcourse. this is the doubter's dilemma. You cannot disprove the solipsist position, except applying -- and accepting -- a minimum of common sense. It is the dose, which makes the poison, to cite Paracelsus. wrt ..."exceptional evidence" ... I do not use that term, which is, as you imply, very problematic. It is actually a rewording of Ockham's principle, if you carefully analyze it, and belongs to the set of axioms of our belief system, but only applies to immaterial beliefs, so to say. If I kick You in the butt, so to say, immaterial beliefs stop to work, and Your inner solipsist is deeply challenged to ignore the evidence. All the best Guenter Von: Alain Sepeda An: Vortex List Gesendet: 14:11 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations There are situation where comfortable doubt is just another delusion. If you apply the same standard of proof to normal facts, nothing is proven. LENR is real, so why apply the stupid "exceptional evidence" ?
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
There are situation where comfortable doubt is just another delusion. If you apply the same standard of proof to normal facts, nothing is proven. LENR is real, so why apply the stupid "exceptional evidence" ? good critics don't need "exceptional bias". the behavior of DGT is not coherent with having nothing, nor having low power. however it is coherent with unexpected problems for DGT, or with better more professional public relation management. 2012/7/8 Guenter Wildgruber > A (psycho)analysis of Rossi/DGT or an exercise in the theory and practice > of (self-)deception. > > There is some LENR effect, I am sure. This just as a disclaimer. > > We all can bend spoons,right?, > But Uri Geller did it better. > Why? > He had a magic sauce. > > Interestingly enough Feynman met Geller, and had to say this: > ... > I also looked into extrasensory perception, and PSI phenomena, and the > latest craze there was Uri Geller, a man who is supposed to be able to bend > keys by rubbing them with his finger. So I went to his hotel room, on his > invitation, to see a demonstration of both mindreading and bending keys. He > didn't do any mindreading that succeeded; nobody can read my mind, I guess. > And my boy held a key and Geller rubbed it, and nothing happened. Then he > told us it works better under water, and so you can picture all of us > standing in the bathroom with the water turned on and the key under it, and > him rubbing the key with his finger. Nothing happened. So I was unable to > investigate that phenomenon. > ... > --> 'Cargo Cult Science' > > Actually Feynman did not figure out what Geller's trick was, but it was > one, which later on was found to be some chemical treatment of his spoons, > which Geller did not seem to have at hand when Feynman visited him. > Now Geller is still a celebrity in some circles, whereas Feynman is known > to some physics geeks and folks eg interested in the analysis of the > Challenger-catastropy, where he applied common sense and some basic > principles. No quantum magic. Not so spectacular, right? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster > > As said. > A cautionary tale. > Hope I am wrong. > > Guenter > >
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
A (psycho)analysis of Rossi/DGT or an exercise in the theory and practice of (self-)deception. There is some LENR effect, I am sure. This just as a disclaimer. We all can bend spoons,right?, But Uri Geller did it better. Why? He had a magic sauce. Interestingly enough Feynman met Geller, and had to say this: ... I also looked into extrasensory perception, and PSI phenomena, and the latest craze there was Uri Geller, a man who is supposed to be able to bend keys by rubbing them with his finger. So I went to his hotel room, on his invitation, to see a demonstration of both mindreading and bending keys. He didn't do any mindreading that succeeded; nobody can read my mind, I guess. And my boy held a key and Geller rubbed it, and nothing happened. Then he told us it works better under water, and so you can picture all of us standing in the bathroom with the water turned on and the key under it, and him rubbing the key with his finger. Nothing happened. So I was unable to investigate that phenomenon. ... --> 'Cargo Cult Science' Actually Feynman did not figure out what Geller's trick was, but it was one, which later on was found to be some chemical treatment of his spoons, which Geller did not seem to have at hand when Feynman visited him. Now Geller is still a celebrity in some circles, whereas Feynman is known to some physics geeks and folks eg interested in the analysis of the Challenger-catastropy, where he applied common sense and some basic principles. No quantum magic. Not so spectacular, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster As said. A cautionary tale. Hope I am wrong. Guenter
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
to be clear: a) LENR is a real effect to me. b) What I doubt are the claims of Rossi/DGT. (a) should put the scientific community to shame and reconsider their methods. (b) is a different animal: Pseudo-engineers, companies, speculators, phantasts claiming that a midge is an elephant. No need to elaborate on (a) on this time and place. This is confined to the laboratory and the minds of scientists. But (b) needs careful consideration, because, well, it is potentially earth-shattering in the physical domain of our livelihood. Not Your average Higgs Boson, which is just a mental construct, albeit interesting. We should not fool ourselves wrt (b). I dare to apply some commonsense plus engineering principles plus -ahem- psychology. I explicitly exclude science here, because it is corruptable on several levels. The main being self-deception or bogus theories. Engineering being different, because it has to show some real-world-evidence. There is no proof for (b). Only claims. To keep my sanity, I critically watch the claims, and reject them if they contradict my principles. Those are not hammered in stone, ie I am hopefully able to revise on evidence and reorder my principles. Maybe I even believe in 'God' if he talks to me in a convincing manner. But up to now he did not show up. What I am trying to do, is apply my methods of thinking and acting, therefore I stand where I stand. 600degC claims on an industrial scale for a sufficiently long time without side-effects currently do not pass my smell-test. Watch the caveats, or the fine-print, as it is said! That's it, folks. Guenter
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Mark, You're right, ofcourse, and maybe I just overreacted. Just summarized my argument in a personal mail to Eric, which I reproduce here: Eric, basically I think that LENR needs some crystalline structure of the base-material (Ni, Pd,...) to start and be maintained. This structure weakens with increasing temperature. If the material melts, the process stops. This we know. Now the process is not homogenous, but seems to concentrate on hot spots. wrt this I refer to the electron microscopic analysis of material which has been active for some time, where the material definitely melted at those spots. Now 600degC would not be a problem, because the melting point of eg Ni is far above above that. It even could be a positive thing, because of recrystallization-effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recrystallization_(metallurgy) So my argument critically depends on the inhomogeneity of the process. If eg 10% of the material (I expect much less at a given time) is active, for the whole system to produce an average temperature of 600degC, these active zones would have to be MUCH hotter than that, basically surpassing the melting point, which stops the process. So another zone has to take over. Upon further thinking, this actually could be the case, under some very special conditions, ie one zone melts, then recrystallizes, later on becomes active again. But this critically depends on the zones being quite small -- sub-micrometer -- AND maintaining enough surface for H+ or D+ to enter the crystal again. Here lies my difficulty. But maybe I'm wrong. So maybe I should restate: I would be VERY SURPRISED. Anyway, lets hope the best, expect the worst. Guenter Von: MarkI-ZeroPoint An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 1:23 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 Betreff: RE: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations So Guenter, Why would seriously challenging you worldview worry you? Wouldn’t you prefer the truth, even if it completely decimates your worldview? As a scientist/engineer, I want to know what *IS*, not what happens to agree with my current understanding of what is… -Mark From:Guenter Wildgruber [mailto:gwildgru...@ymail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 3:50 PM To: Peter Gluck Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Peter, somehow I missed that. Anyway. 200 degC would be quite something. 400degC would be disruptive. >600degC earth-shattering. A range where I am having some conceptual difficulties with. Presumably theory also. But this is commonsensical extrapolation from my side,without any firm ground, I must confess. As stated, such a simple parameter like temperature could seriously challenge my worldview, which worries me somehow, but I do not reject it out of hand. We will see. all the best Guenter Von:Peter Gluck An: Guenter Wildgruber CC: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" Gesendet: 20:27 Samstag, 7.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Dear Guenter, Nothing easier- if you make a Google Search for "Defkalion 650C" or a search on their Forum for 650C you will find tens of links. It was also written at Mats's Nyteknik. An example from many: Real news from Defkalion « nickelpower nickelpower.org/2012/03/26/real-news-from-defkalion/ 26 Mar 2012 – Rossi is a “one-man-band” and Defkalion has 27 scientists. they say that they reactor work until 650C (limit of bare rector test) and according . I had a cognitive shock- what they have is a process different from Piantelli's based on preformed nanoclusters. Those clusters are destroyed fast over 400C. There are many implications but I don't think we have to change our world/science views. And now Rossi re-discovers this high temperature process. Progress! Peter On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Guenter Wildgruber wrote: Dear Peter, obviously I missed this one, Could You provide a link? The temperature issue obviously is a very central one, and, I must confess, contradicts my theories of the inner working of the e-cat/Hyperion, which is somewhat like a random heating up on several locations. If this would be the case , those random heat-centers (estimated >>1000degC) would be self-annihilate by melting. Ofcourse we are theoretizing on this issue, but controllability in the 650degC domain would indicate that the process is quite homogenous, and not sporadicly dispersed over say 1-10 um2 heat centers- as I up to now hypothesized, on hopefully realistic grounds. But maybe this is only my worldview, which crumbles. If this would be the case, it would indicate that this is a VERY benign process, and, I must confess, I would -as said- have to rework my entire worldview, which is based on randomness and the universe's indifference to our human desires at large. (hope this is understandable) I am not ready for that. The
