Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:31 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: That patent #7,983,414 should be #7,893,414. I see. It's easy to accidentally mis-transcribe a large number like that. However, do any Ni + neutron -- Cu decays produce gammas? There appear to be a number of Ni(n,g)Ni gamma decays. I'm not sure how strong the gammas are. After this there would be the beta decay, I think. Eric
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
Thank you Eric! I hope this is not a new sign of my Alzheimer progressing. I have made the correction. it seems the W-L theory has value and a role in the real LENR story. Peter On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:31 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: That patent #7,983,414 should be #7,893,414. I see. It's easy to accidentally mis-transcribe a large number like that. However, do any Ni + neutron -- Cu decays produce gammas? There appear to be a number of Ni(n,g)Ni gamma decays. I'm not sure how strong the gammas are. After this there would be the beta decay, I think. Eric -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
Dear Jojo, Please do not say offending things- nobody is using me for nothing; I have asked DGTG, it was my initiative to publish two writings (till now) about them and I take full responsibility for what I say. If you will read ALL my NEW ENERGY papers on the blog Ego Out you will learn how I have developed my understanding of the field - see e.g. the Metaphor Story of LENR. For the time given I still can think alone. Why should DGTG need an intermediate for example to get in touch with Widom Larsen? Lew Larsen is a very friendly and open scientist- I had many pleasant discussions with him at ICCF Marseille and good correspondence after. I think his theory has to be taken very seriously. Peter On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Well, it's seems obvious to me; so that they are insulated from mistakes. If major mistakes are found later on, they can deny that was ever what they had. For example: DGT is using Peter to send out feelers as to their theory being compatible with WL. Now, you have smart people like Jones pointing out that their theory is more compatible with CQM than with WL. It seems they want to insulate themselves from such amatuerish mistakes and they've chosen a very eager fall guy. (Not to disparage Peter, cause I would have done the same thing.) If they had published this on their own in their web site, people would point out these amatuerish mistakes and affect their credibility. Now, they can simply deny it and blame it on somebody else. You've got to start thinking more conspiratorially Terry :-) Cause conspiracies are probably happening more often in every day life than we are aware of. That Xanthoulis guy leaves a bad taste on my mouth from the first time I read his interview. He practically confessed to stealing Rossi's catalyst from the ash analysis results. And having known what the catalyst was, it would have been a straightforward thing to deduce its function. Hence, they could have come up with a better catalyst and claim it as their own innovation. Yes, DGT may have a better reactor, but only because they ripped off Rossi's technology and built on it. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, July 17, 2012 9:07 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Peter maybe being set up for a fall. And their reason would be? T -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: From hundreds of watts to kilowatts, do not worry, please. Peter: Did Defkalion provide you with data collected by independent observers showing watts and kilowatts of anomalous heat? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Melvin Miles on Calorimetry video posted
Several researchers have tried zeolites over the years, with varying success. I do not think many papers have been published, but they talked about it in conferences. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
Mainly their own data, but why are you asking- do you think only independent data = good? DGTG has reciprocal NDA with independent observers. in the next paper you will receive these data- I also have a very strict NDA with them. Peter On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: From hundreds of watts to kilowatts, do not worry, please. Peter: Did Defkalion provide you with data collected by independent observers showing watts and kilowatts of anomalous heat? - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
Mainly their own data, but why are you asking- do you think only independent data = good? DGTG has reciprocal NDA with independent observers. in the next paper you will receive these data- I also have a very strict NDA with them. Hi Peter, I assume the biggest complaint that will be raised on this matter is the fact that not having at our disposal sufficient independent data to collaborate Defkalion's claims reduces the authenticity of such claims. Skeptics will immediately focus on such issues, as is their right to do so. If we don't have independent data how do we go about assessing the merits of whether Defkalion's claims are accurate? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
Dear Steven, This could be significant only if DGTG is in some trouble, however they will demonstrate their Hyperions, get them on the market and that's all. Almost equally interesting is their contribution to understanding of LENR Then they will publish more data, independent ones included. Their strategy is their strategy and that's not a tautology. Their responsibility is not toward people who are just curious and unpatient. Peter On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:32 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Mainly their own data, but why are you asking- do you think only independent data = good? DGTG has reciprocal NDA with independent observers. in the next paper you will receive these data- I also have a very strict NDA with them. Hi Peter, I assume the biggest complaint that will be raised on this matter is the fact that not having at our disposal sufficient independent data to collaborate Defkalion's claims reduces the authenticity of such claims. Skeptics will immediately focus on such issues, as is their right to do so. If we don't have independent data how do we go about assessing the merits of whether Defkalion's claims are accurate? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Their responsibility is not toward people who are just curious and unpatient. I think it is irresponsible for anyone to make claims of this nature without at the same time presenting independent confirmation. If this were an ordinary industrial process there would be no need for independent confirmation, but no one has ever seen cold fusion reactions on such a large scale. Rossi, for all his faults, has presented semi-independent evaluations by various observers such as EK. They are not independent enough for my taste, but better than nothing. If Defkalion does not wish to present independent data, in my opinion it would be best for them to say nothing and present nothing. Frankly, if I were you, and I did not have independent data, I would say nothing -- nothing positive or negative. That standard does not apply to laboratory-scale claims of a few watts. They have to be published before anyone can evaluate them. A cold fusion reaction of 250 mW is itself a replication of earlier claims from other labs, so it does not need to be independently verified. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
This could be significant only if DGTG is in some trouble, however they will demonstrate their Hyperions, get them on the market and that's all. Almost equally interesting is their contribution to understanding of LENR Then they will publish more data, independent ones included. Their strategy is their strategy and that's not a tautology. Their responsibility is not toward people who are just curious and unpatient. I fully appreciate the fact that commercializing the hyperon product trumps the need to generate independent verification. My only concern is one of personal interpretation, which I fully admit is based on a considerable amount of rampant speculation on my part. I'm inclined to speculate that the hyperon product line, as well as Rossi's ecats, while impressively more robust than any other CF device that has been brought fourth into the public domain, are not yet stable and/or reliable enough to make commercialization feasible. IOW, a lot more RD is needed. I suspect that is the quandary for which both DGT and Rossi are currently grappling with. They might need a lot more capital. But in order to get more RD Dollars Euros they will have to generate a few more dog-and-pony shows, which I gather neither party particularly enthusiastic about doing. Producing more dog-and-pony shoes risks alerting potential competition. Neither party wants that to happen. IMHO, Rossi DGT should stop squabbling, patch up their differences, and team up again. I think both entities would be stronger collaborating together. They would be better equipped to withstand what is sure to be an onslaught of competition. That said, I'm looking forward to having my speculations on the above matters disproven. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
Peter, when someone has a technology that is as revolutionary as Commercial-level LENR as DGT has, they cease to have this implied protection anymore. LENR is a symbol and icon of hope for many many people. DGT has a social and ethical responsibility to address people's concern about it. If DGT does not feel it is their responsibility; then they should stop danggling a carrot in front of a hungry world. A world hungry for LENR technology. It is cruel and unethical to danggle food in front of hungry orphans. A sane and reasonable man would not do this, and yet both DGT and Rossi feel that this is their right. If they do not want to have to explain their technology, then stop teasing people with it. DGT and Rossi has been the recipient of people's ire because of this. And you, having participated in this, will receive people's ire. You can not do this and expect people would reciprocate you with respect. You get what your actions dictate; the same respect one gets when one danggle food in front of hungry orphans. I stand by my original assessement. DGT is a company of crooks headed by a person who practically admitted to stealing another's IP and come out with a straight face. Unbelievable how you think this company deserves our continuing adoration and attention. Jojo - Original Message - From: Peter Gluck To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 9:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology Dear Steven, This could be significant only if DGTG is in some trouble, however they will demonstrate their Hyperions, get them on the market and that's all. Almost equally interesting is their contribution to understanding of LENR Then they will publish more data, independent ones included. Their strategy is their strategy and that's not a tautology. Their responsibility is not toward people who are just curious and unpatient. Peter On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:32 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Mainly their own data, but why are you asking- do you think only independent data = good? DGTG has reciprocal NDA with independent observers. in the next paper you will receive these data- I also have a very strict NDA with them. Hi Peter, I assume the biggest complaint that will be raised on this matter is the fact that not having at our disposal sufficient independent data to collaborate Defkalion's claims reduces the authenticity of such claims. Skeptics will immediately focus on such issues, as is their right to do so. If we don't have independent data how do we go about assessing the merits of whether Defkalion's claims are accurate? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
The worst thing Rossi can do right now is to team up with these crooks again. They'll just steal his IP and turn around and stab him in the back again. Jojo - Original Message - From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology IMHO, Rossi DGT should stop squabbling, patch up their differences, and team up again. I think both entities would be stronger collaborating together. They would be better equipped to withstand what is sure to be an onslaught of competition.
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
Dear Jed, Have you read the interview with Defkalion re their business strategy? If yes you can see to which people they have responsibilities. Let's be serious, we here are kind of electronic paper tigers with no impact, no real influence, no capital, no fame; can we change, improve or stop something? Peter On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Their responsibility is not toward people who are just curious and unpatient. I think it is irresponsible for anyone to make claims of this nature without at the same time presenting independent confirmation. If this were an ordinary industrial process there would be no need for independent confirmation, but no one has ever seen cold fusion reactions on such a large scale. Rossi, for all his faults, has presented semi-independent evaluations by various observers such as EK. They are not independent enough for my taste, but better than nothing. If Defkalion does not wish to present independent data, in my opinion it would be best for them to say nothing and present nothing. Frankly, if I were you, and I did not have independent data, I would say nothing -- nothing positive or negative. That standard does not apply to laboratory-scale claims of a few watts. They have to be published before anyone can evaluate them. A cold fusion reaction of 250 mW is itself a replication of earlier claims from other labs, so it does not need to be independently verified. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
Peter, I look forward to seeing the data that you have from the DGTG testing. Please post it as soon as is possible. Dave -Original Message- From: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 17, 2012 9:22 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology Mainly their own data, but why are you asking- do you think only independent data = good? DGTG has reciprocal NDA with independent observers. in the next paper you will receive these data- I also have a very strict NDA with them. Peter On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: From hundreds of watts to kilowatts, do not worry, please. Peter: Did Defkalion provide you with data collected by independent observers showing watts and kilowatts of anomalous heat? - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
Steven, You make a good point as usual but at the moment some of us are starved for any data that may come our way! We can quibble over the information when it is obtained. Dave -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 17, 2012 9:32 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology Mainly their own data, but why are you asking- do you think only independent data = good? DGTG has reciprocal NDA with independent observers. in the next paper you will receive these data- I also have a very strict NDA with them. Hi Peter, I assume the biggest complaint that will be raised on this matter is he fact that not having at our disposal sufficient independent data o collaborate Defkalion's claims reduces the authenticity of such laims. Skeptics will immediately focus on such issues, as is their right to do so. If we don't have independent data how do we go about assessing the erits of whether Defkalion's claims are accurate? Regards teven Vincent Johnson ww.OrionWorks.com ww.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
On 2012-07-17 15:22, Peter Gluck wrote: Mainly their own data, but why are you asking- do you think only independent data = good? DGTG has reciprocal NDA with independent observers. in the next paper you will receive these data- I also have a very strict NDA with them. - DGTG has reciprocal NDAs with independent observers - Peter Gluck has a NDA with DGTG Should we interpret this as Peter Gluck is an independent observer ? Anyway, no matter the answer, I'll patiently wait for more information. S.A.
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
I understand your position Jed. You point is well taken about the need for verification of the data by independent organizations but I feel that any data at this time is better than none. I plan to operate under the assumption that the data is accurate and that the proof will be forthcoming fairly soon. DGTG will be placed in a difficult position if they supply data that turns out to be fabricated and not reflective of the performance that they have achieved. My main fear is that the information will have major items missing that will be intentionally left out to keep our theories untenable. I consider this similar to what Rossi has done in the past. There is still a great deal of uncertainty as to the nuclear ash that his device generates. Perhaps no one, including the active parties, really understands what is happening within their LENR devices but the sooner the true processes are uncovered the sooner major improvements will occur. For these reasons I request that we be fed the important information as soon as possible but I request that they please leave out the misinformation. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 17, 2012 10:11 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Their responsibility is not toward people who are just curious and unpatient. I think it is irresponsible for anyone to make claims of this nature without at the same time presenting independent confirmation. If this were an ordinary industrial process there would be no need for independent confirmation, but no one has ever seen cold fusion reactions on such a large scale. Rossi, for all his faults, has presented semi-independent evaluations by various observers such as EK. They are not independent enough for my taste, but better than nothing. If Defkalion does not wish to present independent data, in my opinion it would be best for them to say nothing and present nothing. Frankly, if I were you, and I did not have independent data, I would say nothing -- nothing positive or negative. That standard does not apply to laboratory-scale claims of a few watts. They have to be published before anyone can evaluate them. A cold fusion reaction of 250 mW is itself a replication of earlier claims from other labs, so it does not need to be independently verified. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
Dear Jojo, The medical doctors who will perform the dissection of democracy wll think a lot about if people had a right to have an opinion, with or without basing this opinion on information and facts. LENR, unfortunately cannot be developed in the Salk vaccine style. Despite my suggestion some people are not able to grasp the difficulty of the task. I have never met you, have no idea who you are and what is essential, do you have hands-on, brains in experience in industrial development of any kind, mechanical, electric, chemical IT whatever? D o you think that the formula without understanding its functionality- what it is doing actually- is of great value? I think the formula is some 10% maximum of the entire development work till the first prototype. Without a holistic and holographic understanding of the LENR+ theory- actually a combination of more theories no progress is possible. The DGTG people are simply better than Rossi and the Divorce took place because Rossi could not solve some basic development problems; do you think it was moral to abandon the problem and let Rossi continue. Have no idea where are you living- but can you empathise with the Greek people? I can. The company cannot use your adoration or your hatred- the problem is could it use your expertise? You have seen they were hiring, what are your chances to be hired based on your CV? And please- again- if you are speaking about my role, have the the kindness to ask me first. i appreciate your creativity and ideas but with some filters. Peter On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Peter, when someone has a technology that is as revolutionary as Commercial-level LENR as DGT has, they cease to have this implied protection anymore. LENR is a symbol and icon of hope for many many people. DGT has a social and ethical responsibility to address people's concern about it. If DGT does not feel it is their responsibility; then they should stop danggling a carrot in front of a hungry world. A world hungry for LENR technology. It is cruel and unethical to danggle food in front of hungry orphans. A sane and reasonable man would not do this, and yet both DGT and Rossi feel that this is their right. If they do not want to have to explain their technology, then stop teasing people with it. DGT and Rossi has been the recipient of people's ire because of this. And you, having participated in this, will receive people's ire. You can not do this and expect people would reciprocate you with respect. You get what your actions dictate; the same respect one gets when one danggle food in front of hungry orphans. I stand by my original assessement. DGT is a company of crooks headed by a person who practically admitted to stealing another's IP and come out with a straight face. Unbelievable how you think this company deserves our continuing adoration and attention. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, July 17, 2012 9:48 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology Dear Steven, This could be significant only if DGTG is in some trouble, however they will demonstrate their Hyperions, get them on the market and that's all. Almost equally interesting is their contribution to understanding of LENR Then they will publish more data, independent ones included. Their strategy is their strategy and that's not a tautology. Their responsibility is not toward people who are just curious and unpatient. Peter On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:32 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Mainly their own data, but why are you asking- do you think only independent data = good? DGTG has reciprocal NDA with independent observers. in the next paper you will receive these data- I also have a very strict NDA with them. Hi Peter, I assume the biggest complaint that will be raised on this matter is the fact that not having at our disposal sufficient independent data to collaborate Defkalion's claims reduces the authenticity of such claims. Skeptics will immediately focus on such issues, as is their right to do so. If we don't have independent data how do we go about assessing the merits of whether Defkalion's claims are accurate? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
On 2012-07-17 02:58, Jojo Jaro wrote: Like many here, I am sick and tired of waiting, both for Rossi and DGT. I give 70% chance DGT will withdraw from ICCS17 at the last minute, 10% chance the data presented will be incomplete and 10% chance the data they will present will disappoint (poor COP, performance, output, etc.) and 10% chance they will do what they promised us a long time ago. At this stage I seriously doubt that DGT will withdraw from ICCF17. After hinting so much that important information will be disclosed during this event, doing that would be a commercial and scientific suicide in my opinion. To me it's more likely that the data presented will be both incomplete *and* disappointing, especially for the mainstream skeptical opinion, but still good enough for the most dedicated followers. Part of this would be because they are probably not ready yet for the market. Just my speculation, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
From Akira: Should we interpret this as Peter Gluck is an independent observer ? I would like to go on record saying that if Peter really IS acting as an independent observer, and he opines that as far as he can determine DGT's hyperon data IS valid, I certainly would be far less inclined to dismiss DGT's claims. Peter's assessment would hold weight, as far as I'm concerned. Let me put it this way: It's better than nothing. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
Dear Akira, More precisely I am an independent friend of the DGTG guys, just look what I have written about them. I am an old engineer and I have discovered that they an me- we are thinking similarly in technical and other problems. Somewhere in 1992 I have elaborated kind of understanding of Cold Fusion including, topology, nature and mechanism- more theories have to be combined. It was ignored. Piantelli's theory is a wonderful scientific creation based on such an idea and on genuine scientific research. Then I had seen with great satisfaction DGTG has a superior understanding of the field. (poetically the idea of multiple barriers from the paper). Therefore i am grateful to my Greek friends. i hope to publish other interesting things soon, the greatest value is their mode of LENR thinking. I am unfortunately much too old to visit them' by the way yesterday were 43 C in Athens. Peter On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: On 2012-07-17 15:22, Peter Gluck wrote: Mainly their own data, but why are you asking- do you think only independent data = good? DGTG has reciprocal NDA with independent observers. in the next paper you will receive these data- I also have a very strict NDA with them. - DGTG has reciprocal NDAs with independent observers - Peter Gluck has a NDA with DGTG Should we interpret this as Peter Gluck is an independent observer ? Anyway, no matter the answer, I'll patiently wait for more information. S.A. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
Jojo, you are entitled to your opinions of the parties involved in this shaky afair. I feel that DGT should be given a bit of respect since they seem to have moved forward a major distance in their design . Do you feel that you stole Rossi's design and are just making improvements upon what he has initiated? I believe that most important discoveries of the past have been followed closely by new patents offering improvements that make the final device more useful. Of course we all know that Rossi himself is standing upon the shoulders of all of those before him as the saying goes. I believe that Rossi deserves to make a modest fortune for his championship of the LENR field in the recent past and it is important to reward him and others who have worked so hard to bring forward this important technology that is so world changing. I do not believe that these people deserve to have total control over the fortunes of the rest of mankind by defeating the competition with legal authority. Let competition determine their rewards to the major extent and may the best products prevail. DGT is not a company of crooks as far as I can determine. Neither is Rossi or the other researchers trying to cash in on these products. We should reserve judgement until the facts become clear and they are entitled to that level of respect. Later, we might agree to hold them in contempt, but for now lets cheer them on. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 17, 2012 10:15 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology Peter, when someone has a technology that is as revolutionary as Commercial-level LENR as DGT has, they cease to have this implied protection anymore. LENR is a symbol and icon of hope for many many people. DGT has a social and ethical responsibility to address people's concern about it. If DGT does not feel it is their responsibility; then they should stop danggling a carrot in front of a hungry world. A world hungry for LENR technology. It is cruel and unethical to danggle food in front of hungry orphans. A sane and reasonable man would not do this, and yet both DGT and Rossi feel that this is their right. If they do not want to have to explain their technology, then stop teasing people with it. DGT and Rossi has been the recipient of people's ire because of this. And you, having participated in this, will receive people's ire. You can not do this and expect people would reciprocate you with respect. You get what your actions dictate; the same respect one gets when one danggle food in front of hungry orphans. I stand by my original assessement. DGT is a company of crooks headed by a person who practically admitted to stealing another's IP and come out with a straight face. Unbelievable how you think this company deserves our continuing adoration and attention. Jojo - Original Message - From: Peter Gluck To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 9:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology Dear Steven, This could be significant only if DGTG is in some trouble, however they will demonstrate their Hyperions, get them on the market and that's all. Almost equally interesting is their contribution to understanding of LENR Then they will publish more data, independent ones included. Their strategy is their strategy and that's not a tautology. Their responsibility is not toward people who are just curious and unpatient. Peter On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:32 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Mainly their own data, but why are you asking- do you think only independent data = good? DGTG has reciprocal NDA with independent observers. in the next paper you will receive these data- I also have a very strict NDA with them. Hi Peter, I assume the biggest complaint that will be raised on this matter is the fact that not having at our disposal sufficient independent data to collaborate Defkalion's claims reduces the authenticity of such claims. Skeptics will immediately focus on such issues, as is their right to do so. If we don't have independent data how do we go about assessing the merits of whether Defkalion's claims are accurate? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Asymmetric Magnetism and Cold Fusion- Brian Ahern
Greetings Vortex, Not sure IF this was posted before: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/07/brian-ahern-to-announce-nanonickel-breakthrough-is-product-of-asymmetric-magnetism/ Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex I hope that Ahern raises funds from the NYC New Energy Angel Meeting.
Re: [Vo]:OT: TIME Magazine - Roswell Really Happened, Says Former CIA Agent
In the '1980 (?) Documentary UFO's Are Real (by Stanton Freidman) it was said by Jesse Marcel (the 1st commanding officer to visit the site) that some of the material retrieved had unbelievable properties. It was about the thickness of the foil in a Pack of Cigarettes, and was very light-weight strong. He also stated that they tried, but it could not be burned or cut. So, lets see now, what do we have here?... The Roswell Crash did not likely involve a weather balloon, because a weather balloon is most likely 'not' capable of innerstellar flight, SO, it was indeed a 'relatively' highly developed civilization of say, oh, maybe 10 million yrs or so ahead of us, of which, obviously possesses the ability to travel the vast distances of innerstellar space, but, simply had not yet worked-out all of the bugs, or imperfections. Well, all I can say about it is... give'm a few more million years and whatever problem it was that forced that craft into the ground, will absolutely be completely resolved. Likely, it was a design-flaw in the spec's, or maybe an unwanted molecule or spec of dust had somehow found it's as the Craft was being constructed. Maybe it just made it, from all the way from it's own star system for the first time way, and crash landed. Maybe this incident can serve as a lesson to all those would-be space-travelers that think an event like this can't happen. Maybe Our civilization someday in the not too distant future will run into this very same situation, when we had finally accomplished innerstellar flight only to crash-land on an earthtype planet w/ a civilization much like ours is now, far back in time in the beginning of RD the technology that will make it all happen! Sadly, somehow we can't seem to know this, and is of course a very sad story,,, so, we should seriously consider by-passing the next million years or so of 'only' getting to the point of 'conceiving' of the technology that will enable the one only truly mind boggling journey thru space time, like we never really fully imagined as opposed to say 'Never'! . I say, why wait for Time to leave 'our' world far behind, when we could be traveling the stars w/o trouble or fail. You snooze, you lose, because there is a 'future' unlike anything we might otherwise ever even hope to know, let alone actually be apart of. Communication via Radio transmitting receiving, along with this natural world that 'we' of this perfectly natural world are committed-to and/or attempting to outdo, has long since been done away with by highly advanced civilizations... and, I'd say 'them' are the hard cold facts. For me personally, I had more than an immense amount of trouble accepting these facts, But Now, it's all in the distant past. Amazingly enough, with the life that I have lived, I'm still here and dealing with a whole other Reality on a level I never dreamt I would in a million lifetimes (or, maybe I did). I now see the world around me for what it was, and that 'other' world of pure technological being that's currently operating up in the space above us, that we know next to absolutely nothing about,,, IS simply so very far beyond us, that we can only wonder about it, IF we're lucky we got a lot of work to do,,, before,,, it actually works for us/HTML
Re: [Vo]:Asymmetric Magnetism and Cold Fusion- Brian Ahern
On 2012-07-17 17:56, Ron Kita wrote: Not sure IF this was posted before: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/07/brian-ahern-to-announce-nanonickel-breakthrough-is-product-of-asymmetric-magnetism/ No, this wasn't posted before. To tell the truth, I was aware of this news, but the lack of detailed information from the event website [1], the apparent unwillingness of mr.Ahern to share more details about his participation to the event or the event itself, and that last year he backed out of a similar one in NYC without plausible explanations made me unsure whether to post it on Vortex-l or not. It appears he will unveil a new theory to explain the mechanism of LENR phenomena, according to which they are not based on nuclear effects, but rather on an asymmetrical magnetism effect (whatever this really means). To be honest, if he's getting significant, repeatable and controllable amounts of excess heat as reported (21 watts), an independent, thorough and undeniable validation of these results alone would already be an extraordinary breakthrough. We're not speaking of sub-watt or milliwatt-level excess heat! This is already something that could be commercially useful (assuming that input energy is a fraction of the output). That Brian Ahern expects the public to take these results for granted and embrace instead yet another theory that should explain for once and for all why LENRs occur... it's a bit of a put off for me to be honest. This is not what we need right now. Just my 2c. Cheers, S.A. [1] http://neny.org/neny/Events/2012NESymposium.aspx
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
Dave, I appreciate your comments. My opinion of DGT was heavily influenced by one of the earlier Xanthoulis interviews where he admitted to have gained access, by subterfuge, the identity of Rossi's catalyst. The guy practically admitted he stole Rossi's Intellectual Property. Now, after having stolen the idea, they are claiming that their process is their own innovation. Yes, they have better reactors, but only because they have a lot of engineers working at these control issues. But make no mistake about this. DGT reactor technology was stolen from Rossi. This was the seed for my negative feelings about DGT, and everything they have done to date has only served to reinforce that feeling. And until they can prove otherwise, their behavior is worthy of contempt. To add insult to injury, they now compete with Rossi. Even Stremmenos seems upset at DGT's behavior, and being an insider, he is in a position to know the truth. This gives credence to his assessment of DGT; heavily influencing my opinion of that company. When one of the insiders, a member of the board, openly criticizes your companies' behavior, there has got to be something to it. Otherwise, you just can't explain Stremmenos' behavior any other logical and consistent way. And to me, Stremmenos has infinitely more credibility than Xanthoulis. When a board member essentially says, it's a company of crooks (hyperbole and overemphasis is used liberally here.), I tend to believe it. Who knows if DGT even had the original intention to ever work with Rossi. Me Thinks, they just partnered with Rossi until they can discover the secret catalyst. And based on my understanding of the timeline (someone correct me.), the divorce occured shortly after Rossi submitted his ash for spectral analysis. This little fact seems to strengthen my original thesis. Respect for DGT will come when they start acting and doing things that will earn them respect. Like behave honestly, for a change. Why do I despise DGT so much? Because I despise dishonesty and dishonest men. Is Rossi right to call these folks snakes and clowns? ... you betcha. Is Rossi acting dishonestly also? You betcha. But at least Rossi did not steal anyone's ideas or stabbed anyone in the back. Rossi is just acting to protect his interest. And he has provided proof, albeit not the proof that pseudo-skeptics would like. Jojo PS. 70% chance they will withdraw from ICCF17. And by this, I don't necessarily mean physically withdraw from the conference. This could include withdrawal of essential data that would essentially render their participation a mockery of the process and the goals people are trying to achieve in that conference. In other words, severely incomplete and censored data. In other words, they are simply using ICCF17 to advance their own agenda like they did with Rossi. Anyone willing to bet a steak lunch over this? - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 11:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology Jojo, you are entitled to your opinions of the parties involved in this shaky afair. I feel that DGT should be given a bit of respect since they seem to have moved forward a major distance in their design . Do you feel that you stole Rossi's design and are just making improvements upon what he has initiated? I believe that most important discoveries of the past have been followed closely by new patents offering improvements that make the final device more useful. Of course we all know that Rossi himself is standing upon the shoulders of all of those before him as the saying goes. I believe that Rossi deserves to make a modest fortune for his championship of the LENR field in the recent past and it is important to reward him and others who have worked so hard to bring forward this important technology that is so world changing. I do not believe that these people deserve to have total control over the fortunes of the rest of mankind by defeating the competition with legal authority. Let competition determine their rewards to the major extent and may the best products prevail. DGT is not a company of crooks as far as I can determine. Neither is Rossi or the other researchers trying to cash in on these products. We should reserve judgement until the facts become clear and they are entitled to that level of respect. Later, we might agree to hold them in contempt, but for now lets cheer them on. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 17, 2012 10:15 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology Peter, when someone has a technology that is as revolutionary as Commercial-level LENR as DGT has, they cease to have this implied protection anymore. LENR is a symbol and icon of hope for many many
[Vo]:Rossi catalyst-fuel speculation
Since Rossi’s public display of his reactor and subsequent discussions of his technology, I have been anxious to reproduce his results – primarily just to know that it is a real phenomenon. I listen to the excellent exchanges on Vortex and have learned much from the posts here. As I continue down the path of trying to understand what Rossi, and potentially DGT have done, several people have asked me what I believe to be the catalyst-fuel that is used in Rossi’s and DGT reactors. To further stimulate open thought and development of a Rossi/DGT reproduction, I would like to share my thoughts on the catalyst fuel with Vortex and ask for your constructive feedback. Further, if you should try this and find excess heat, in the same spirit, please share your results with the rest of us. Some of this is re-hash of what has been previously posted on Vortex and some is my speculation of what Rossi has done. Just to be clear – I am speculating about Mr. Rossi’s invention and I salute his ingenuity and engineering. Clearly the bulk of the material is a NICKEL powder. I hear some speculations that the catalyst-fuel may be nickel nanopower – I believe this is clearly not Rossi’s catalyst-fuel. Rossi has said that the nickel powder has micro-dimensions, not nano-dimensions. Rossi says that Raney nickel (high surface area sponge nickel) will not work. I observe that the most likely powder for this application is a nickel powder produced by the reduction of nickel carbonyl (a common process for producing high activity nickel powder). This produces flower-like buds of roughly spherical diameter in the 3-10 micron range with “petals” in the 100 nanometer thickness range. This nickel powder has very high EXTERNAL surface area (as opposed to Raney nickel which has much of its area inside its sponge-like interior). Why the external surface area is important will become clear in a moment. Examples of this type of carbonyl nickel powder are Hunter Chemical’s AH50 ( http://www.hunterchem.com/nickel-powder-carbonyl-process-hydrogen-reduced.html) or Vale T255 ( http://www.vale.com/en-us/o-que-fazemos/mineracao/niquel/produtos/Documents/Nickel%20powders/T255-nickel-powder.pdf). I believe this type of nickel powder is the starting point. Rossi also talks of catalyst additives to the nickel powder. These are widely believed to be a nanopowder additive, but what nanopowder? Rossi states that the catalyst he used is inexpensive. One of the things found by examination of available nanopowders is that metal oxide nanopowders are far less expensive than pure elemental nanopowders. They are also far easier and safer to handle and to mix. Another clue is that partially oxidized (partly reduced) metal oxide nanopowders are good catalysts and will break the H2 molecules into monatomic hydrogen. However, the mean free path of an H1 atom, before recombining to form an H2, is very short. This means that the catalyst should be in direct contact with the nickel. I believe that the catalyst is a simple metal oxide nanopowder that is finely dispersed across the “petals” of the nickel micro-powder “buds” and subsequently thermo-chemically treated. I will go out on a limb and say that I believe the starting point for selecting a metal oxide nanopowder is to begin with Fe2O3 (for example Alfa Aesar 44895 http://www.alfa.com/en/GP100W.pgm?DSSTK=044895rnd=516031653 ). It is inexpensive, and a known catalyst when properly prepared (satisfies the Rossi criteria of being inexpensive). Further, in the Kullander report on a Rossi ash, 11% iron (a lot of iron) is reported from elemental surface analysis. Rossi explains the copper, but provides no explanation for the large amount of iron, perhaps because he knew it was an ingredient and did not want to call attention to that point. The nickel micro-powder is very heavy while the metal oxide nanopowder is very light and fluffy. I mixed an equal volume of nickel micro-powder and nanopowder, placing the nickel first and then the nanopowder on top in equal volume in the tumbling container. After 24 hours of tumbling, only the original volume of nickel powder remained – the nanopowder had found its way onto the nickel micro-powder surface and did not expand the volume. My experiments showed that simple tumbling of DRY nickel micro-powder and metal oxide nanopowder works very well at distributing the nanopowder across the nickel micro-powder surface area (as confirmed by SEM imagery - I have photos). This capability to finely disperse the metal oxide nanopowder across the surface area of the nickel micro-powder is the reason that EXTERNAL surface area is needed in the nickel powder, and is probably why Raney nickel would not work well for Rossi – the nanopowder would not disperse well across the bulk of the Raney (sponge) nickel interior surface area. But, do not believe that the powder is ready to use at this point! The catalyst is not active. Rossi has stated that he
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
I am pretty neutral on this issue, as long as we don't know the details. One scenario (and not a far fetched one IMHO) may be that they learned (where some say: stole) the catalyst or idea from Rossi, only to find out that that catalyst or idea was not Rossi's to begin with. For all we know, Rossi may have found the idea somewhere in existing literature and was lucky enough to strike gold when implementing it, where others hadn't (yet). If that is what happened, and Rossi was asking a large license fee for IP that was not (entirely) his at all, DGTG, with all good intentions that they may have had for this cooperation, must have scratched their heads and weighed their options. Depending on the contracts they had in place with Rossi at that point, in fact, the choice for re-engineering it themselves from that documented point versus signing and paying for an unsound licensing deal may have been the legally better one. Andre On 07/17/2012 12:48 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: Dave, I appreciate your comments. My opinion of DGT was heavily influenced by one of the earlier Xanthoulis interviews where he admitted to have gained access, by subterfuge, the identity of Rossi's catalyst. The guy practically admitted he stole Rossi's Intellectual Property. Now, after having stolen the idea, they are claiming that their process is their own innovation. Yes, they have better reactors, but only because they have a lot of engineers working at these control issues. But make no mistake about this. DGT reactor technology was stolen from Rossi. This was the seed for my negative feelings about DGT, and everything they have done to date has only served to reinforce that feeling. And until they can prove otherwise, their behavior is worthy of contempt. To add insult to injury, they now compete with Rossi. Even Stremmenos seems upset at DGT's behavior, and being an insider, he is in a position to know the truth. This gives credence to his assessment of DGT; heavily influencing my opinion of that company. When one of the insiders, a member of the board, openly criticizes your companies' behavior, there has got to be something to it. Otherwise, you just can't explain Stremmenos' behavior any other logical and consistent way. And to me, Stremmenos has infinitely more credibility than Xanthoulis. When a board member essentially says, it's a company of crooks (hyperbole and overemphasis is used liberally here.), I tend to believe it. Who knows if DGT even had the original intention to ever work with Rossi. Me Thinks, they just partnered with Rossi until they can discover the secret catalyst. And based on my understanding of the timeline (someone correct me.), the divorce occured shortly after Rossi submitted his ash for spectral analysis. This little fact seems to strengthen my original thesis. Respect for DGT will come when they start acting and doing things that will earn them respect. Like behave honestly, for a change. Why do I despise DGT so much? Because I despise dishonesty and dishonest men. Is Rossi right to call these folks snakes and clowns? ... you betcha. Is Rossi acting dishonestly also? You betcha. But at least Rossi did not steal anyone's ideas or stabbed anyone in the back. Rossi is just acting to protect his interest. And he has provided proof, albeit not the proof that pseudo-skeptics would like. Jojo PS. 70% chance they will withdraw from ICCF17. And by this, I don't necessarily mean physically withdraw from the conference. This could include withdrawal of essential data that would essentially render their participation a mockery of the process and the goals people are trying to achieve in that conference. In other words, severely incomplete and censored data. In other words, they are simply using ICCF17 to advance their own agenda like they did with Rossi. Anyone willing to bet a steak lunch over this? - Original Message - *From:* David Roberson mailto:dlrober...@aol.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, July 17, 2012 11:52 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology Jojo, you are entitled to your opinions of the parties involved in this shaky afair. I feel that DGT should be given a bit of respect since they seem to have moved forward a major distance in their design . Do you feel that you stole Rossi's design and are just making improvements upon what he has initiated? I believe that most important discoveries of the past have been followed closely by new patents offering improvements that make the final device more useful. Of course we all know that Rossi himself is standing upon the shoulders of all of those before him as the saying goes. I believe that Rossi deserves to make a modest fortune for his championship of the LENR field in the recent past and it is important to reward him and others who
Re: [Vo]:Rossi catalyst-fuel speculation
Thanks for sharing your process. Interesting. What is your proposed mechanism for the actual fusion? Do you have a hypothesis? I have done a similar process, but different, with no positive news to report. The process I have tried involved the Mircrowave Sintering of Nickel and Copper nanopowders in open air to result in oxidation which was then heated in an H2 atmosphere to reduce the oxides. But frankly, I have not been able to develop this process further as I had to postpone my experiments due to other considerations. When I get back, I will dedicate more time and effort into Carbon nanostructures than this path. It seems Carbon nanostructures are more promising NAEs. But, you might be on to something here. Jojo - Original Message - From: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 1:22 AM Subject: [Vo]:Rossi catalyst-fuel speculation Since Rossi’s public display of his reactor and subsequent discussions of his technology, I have been anxious to reproduce his results – primarily just to know that it is a real phenomenon. I listen to the excellent exchanges on Vortex and have learned much from the posts here. As I continue down the path of trying to understand what Rossi, and potentially DGT have done, several people have asked me what I believe to be the catalyst-fuel that is used in Rossi’s and DGT reactors. To further stimulate open thought and development of a Rossi/DGT reproduction, I would like to share my thoughts on the catalyst fuel with Vortex and ask for your constructive feedback. Further, if you should try this and find excess heat, in the same spirit, please share your results with the rest of us. Some of this is re-hash of what has been previously posted on Vortex and some is my speculation of what Rossi has done. Just to be clear – I am speculating about Mr. Rossi’s invention and I salute his ingenuity and engineering. Clearly the bulk of the material is a NICKEL powder. I hear some speculations that the catalyst-fuel may be nickel nanopower – I believe this is clearly not Rossi’s catalyst-fuel. Rossi has said that the nickel powder has micro-dimensions, not nano-dimensions. Rossi says that Raney nickel (high surface area sponge nickel) will not work. I observe that the most likely powder for this application is a nickel powder produced by the reduction of nickel carbonyl (a common process for producing high activity nickel powder). This produces flower-like buds of roughly spherical diameter in the 3-10 micron range with “petals” in the 100 nanometer thickness range. This nickel powder has very high EXTERNAL surface area (as opposed to Raney nickel which has much of its area inside its sponge-like interior). Why the external surface area is important will become clear in a moment. Examples of this type of carbonyl nickel powder are Hunter Chemical’s AH50 (http://www.hunterchem.com/nickel-powder-carbonyl-process-hydrogen-reduced.html ) or Vale T255 (http://www.vale.com/en-us/o-que-fazemos/mineracao/niquel/produtos/Documents/Nickel%20powders/T255-nickel-powder.pdf ). I believe this type of nickel powder is the starting point. Rossi also talks of catalyst additives to the nickel powder. These are widely believed to be a nanopowder additive, but what nanopowder? Rossi states that the catalyst he used is inexpensive. One of the things found by examination of available nanopowders is that metal oxide nanopowders are far less expensive than pure elemental nanopowders. They are also far easier and safer to handle and to mix. Another clue is that partially oxidized (partly reduced) metal oxide nanopowders are good catalysts and will break the H2 molecules into monatomic hydrogen. However, the mean free path of an H1 atom, before recombining to form an H2, is very short. This means that the catalyst should be in direct contact with the nickel. I believe that the catalyst is a simple metal oxide nanopowder that is finely dispersed across the “petals” of the nickel micro-powder “buds” and subsequently thermo-chemically treated. I will go out on a limb and say that I believe the starting point for selecting a metal oxide nanopowder is to begin with Fe2O3 (for example Alfa Aesar 44895 http://www.alfa.com/en/GP100W.pgm?DSSTK=044895rnd=516031653 ). It is inexpensive, and a known catalyst when properly prepared (satisfies the Rossi criteria of being inexpensive). Further, in the Kullander report on a Rossi ash, 11% iron (a lot of iron) is reported from elemental surface analysis. Rossi explains the copper, but provides no explanation for the large amount of iron, perhaps because he knew it was an ingredient and did not want to call attention to that point. The nickel micro-powder is very heavy while the metal oxide nanopowder is very light and fluffy. I mixed an equal volume of nickel micro-powder and nanopowder, placing the nickel
RE: [Vo]:OT: TIME Magazine - Roswell Really Happened, Says Former CIA Agent
I believe there was a pretty intense thunderstorm the evening the 'weather balloon' crashed... -Original Message- From: lorenhe...@aol.com [mailto:lorenhe...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 9:02 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: TIME Magazine - Roswell Really Happened, Says Former CIA Agent snip Well, all I can say about it is... give'm a few more million years and whatever problem it was that forced that craft into the ground, will absolutely be completely resolved. Likely, it was a design-flaw in the spec's, or maybe an unwanted molecule or spec of dust had somehow found it's as the Craft was being constructed. Maybe it just made it, from all the way from it's own star system for the first time way, and crash landed. snip
Re: [Vo]:Rossi catalyst-fuel speculation
Bob, Thanks for sharing. As you know, but other vortexers might not know, I am following roughly the same path. See also fusioncatalyst.org, if you like to join this crowd science approach. In addition to oxidation/reduction/melting cycles I believe carbon may play a role as it is active in oxidation and reduction reactions and reported to work in other LENR experiments (Lesley Case). K2CO3 is also repeatedly reported to be of influence in LENR reports. Elements that are known catalyst in chemistry and hydrogenation reactions are Pt, Pd, Rh, Ru and Ni. Note that catalyzation in chemistry is poorly understood at the microscopic level, possibly similar process play a role in catalyzation as in LENR. Interesting in this regard is hydrogen embrittlement, the effect that some stainless steels, especially Ni rich ones, sometimes fail to contain high pressure hydrogen. An unsolved mystery in 'normal' science. Cheers, Bastiaan. www.FusionCatalyst.org On 7/17/12, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Thanks for sharing your process. Interesting. What is your proposed mechanism for the actual fusion? Do you have a hypothesis? I have done a similar process, but different, with no positive news to report. The process I have tried involved the Mircrowave Sintering of Nickel and Copper nanopowders in open air to result in oxidation which was then heated in an H2 atmosphere to reduce the oxides. But frankly, I have not been able to develop this process further as I had to postpone my experiments due to other considerations. When I get back, I will dedicate more time and effort into Carbon nanostructures than this path. It seems Carbon nanostructures are more promising NAEs. But, you might be on to something here. Jojo - Original Message - From: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 1:22 AM Subject: [Vo]:Rossi catalyst-fuel speculation Since Rossi’s public display of his reactor and subsequent discussions of his technology, I have been anxious to reproduce his results – primarily just to know that it is a real phenomenon. I listen to the excellent exchanges on Vortex and have learned much from the posts here. As I continue down the path of trying to understand what Rossi, and potentially DGT have done, several people have asked me what I believe to be the catalyst-fuel that is used in Rossi’s and DGT reactors. To further stimulate open thought and development of a Rossi/DGT reproduction, I would like to share my thoughts on the catalyst fuel with Vortex and ask for your constructive feedback. Further, if you should try this and find excess heat, in the same spirit, please share your results with the rest of us. Some of this is re-hash of what has been previously posted on Vortex and some is my speculation of what Rossi has done. Just to be clear – I am speculating about Mr. Rossi’s invention and I salute his ingenuity and engineering. Clearly the bulk of the material is a NICKEL powder. I hear some speculations that the catalyst-fuel may be nickel nanopower – I believe this is clearly not Rossi’s catalyst-fuel. Rossi has said that the nickel powder has micro-dimensions, not nano-dimensions. Rossi says that Raney nickel (high surface area sponge nickel) will not work. I observe that the most likely powder for this application is a nickel powder produced by the reduction of nickel carbonyl (a common process for producing high activity nickel powder). This produces flower-like buds of roughly spherical diameter in the 3-10 micron range with “petals” in the 100 nanometer thickness range. This nickel powder has very high EXTERNAL surface area (as opposed to Raney nickel which has much of its area inside its sponge-like interior). Why the external surface area is important will become clear in a moment. Examples of this type of carbonyl nickel powder are Hunter Chemical’s AH50 (http://www.hunterchem.com/nickel-powder-carbonyl-process-hydrogen-reduced.html ) or Vale T255 (http://www.vale.com/en-us/o-que-fazemos/mineracao/niquel/produtos/Documents/Nickel%20powders/T255-nickel-powder.pdf ). I believe this type of nickel powder is the starting point. Rossi also talks of catalyst additives to the nickel powder. These are widely believed to be a nanopowder additive, but what nanopowder? Rossi states that the catalyst he used is inexpensive. One of the things found by examination of available nanopowders is that metal oxide nanopowders are far less expensive than pure elemental nanopowders. They are also far easier and safer to handle and to mix. Another clue is that partially oxidized (partly reduced) metal oxide nanopowders are good catalysts and will break the H2 molecules into monatomic hydrogen. However, the mean free path of an H1 atom, before recombining to form an H2, is very short. This means that the catalyst should be in direct contact with the nickel. I
Re: [Vo]:Asymmetric Magnetism and Cold Fusion- Brian Ahern
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: No, this wasn't posted before. To tell the truth, I was aware of this news, but the lack of detailed information from the event website [1], the apparent unwillingness of mr.Ahern to share more details about his participation to the event or the event itself, and that last year he backed out of a similar one in NYC without plausible explanations made me unsure whether to post it on Vortex-l or not. I empathize with your consternation. But, at least this one has better sponsors! And, we don't have to wait long. T
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: I fully appreciate the fact that commercializing the hyperon product trumps the need to generate independent verification. I agree. I have no objection whatever if Defkalion wants to keep the results strictly secret. However, they announced that they would reveal independent evaluations in January. They never did. *That* is bad form. That is not how to run a business. In a business, when you announce that you will do this or that, then later you find you cannot follow through, you should explain why. You should issue a statement: we regret that we were unable to do it because . . . blah blah I am very pleased they intend to participate in ICCF17. If they are forced to cancel, I will be disappointed. But that is the way things go in RD. I would not blame them or assume they up to no good because a schedule slips. HOWEVER, once again, if that happens I think they should issue a statement explaining why they could not go and expressing regret. It is unprofessional to keep quiet and act as if nothing happened. It invites suspicion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
Eric, You may be correct, but using data from Wikipedia's Isotopes of nickel page at URL -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_nickel the only naturally occuring stable isotopes of nickel are: 58Ni, 60Ni, 61Ni, 62Ni, 64Ni The only neutron captures that can occur with measurable probability in lab time frame are: 58Ni + n -- 59Ni (59Ni half life = 76,000 years) 59Ni + n -- 60Ni 60Ni + n -- 61Ni 61Ni + n -- 62Ni 62Ni + n -- 63Ni (63Ni half life = 100 years) 63Ni + n -- 64Ni Only 59Ni decays via beta+, but very rarely. Captures after 64Ni result in beta- decays and result in Cu isotopes. Do you suggest that the neutron captures result in gammas, or perhaps that further downstream Cu decays do? or that isomeric decays are responsible for gammas? Thanks, Lou Pagnucco Eric Walker wrote: On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:31 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: That patent #7,983,414 should be #7,893,414. I see. It's easy to accidentally mis-transcribe a large number like that. However, do any Ni + neutron -- Cu decays produce gammas? There appear to be a number of Ni(n,g)Ni gamma decays. I'm not sure how strong the gammas are. After this there would be the beta decay, I think. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi catalyst-fuel speculation
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/04/english-translation-of-build-instructions-for-pirelli-athanor-cell/ I would forget about Rossi because there are too many unknowns. I would start with the Pirelli High school reactor because it is open source, completely documented and produces a COP of 4. But I would modify it to put in the things I love most: high voltage, liquid metal, fountain reactors and of course, tungsten. If you can’t have some fun then what is the use of trying. Mix tungsten powder in with the lithium to make a paste, form two liquid cylindrical flowing liquid columns about 3 cm in diameter and 10 cm apart using a pump. Connect the liquid columns to a 50,000 volt DC source. Covered all by a high pressure hydrogen envelop and make one the anode and the other column, the cathode. Now pass a 50,000 dc voltage pulse of 1 microsecond duration between the two columns at a duty cycle of 1 %. In principle, this is what Robert Godes founder of Brillouin Energy is doing except he uses solid wires. Godes is concerned about burning up his thin wires with high electrical pulse power but when we use liquid wires, they won’t burn out no matter how much pulse power we hit those liquid wires with. In addition at no extra cost and effort, we add some LeClair cavitation in for good measure. The spark will cause cavitation on the surface of the liquid wires. Check for excess heat. Then in the next experiment: add fine carbon powder. Next experiment: Replace carbon powder with fine Calcium oxide powder. Next: try K2CO3 and so on. Cheers: Axil On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote: Since Rossi’s public display of his reactor and subsequent discussions of his technology, I have been anxious to reproduce his results – primarily just to know that it is a real phenomenon. I listen to the excellent exchanges on Vortex and have learned much from the posts here. As I continue down the path of trying to understand what Rossi, and potentially DGT have done, several people have asked me what I believe to be the catalyst-fuel that is used in Rossi’s and DGT reactors. To further stimulate open thought and development of a Rossi/DGT reproduction, I would like to share my thoughts on the catalyst fuel with Vortex and ask for your constructive feedback. Further, if you should try this and find excess heat, in the same spirit, please share your results with the rest of us. Some of this is re-hash of what has been previously posted on Vortex and some is my speculation of what Rossi has done. Just to be clear – I am speculating about Mr. Rossi’s invention and I salute his ingenuity and engineering. Clearly the bulk of the material is a NICKEL powder. I hear some speculations that the catalyst-fuel may be nickel nanopower – I believe this is clearly not Rossi’s catalyst-fuel. Rossi has said that the nickel powder has micro-dimensions, not nano-dimensions. Rossi says that Raney nickel (high surface area sponge nickel) will not work. I observe that the most likely powder for this application is a nickel powder produced by the reduction of nickel carbonyl (a common process for producing high activity nickel powder). This produces flower-like buds of roughly spherical diameter in the 3-10 micron range with “petals” in the 100 nanometer thickness range. This nickel powder has very high EXTERNAL surface area (as opposed to Raney nickel which has much of its area inside its sponge-like interior). Why the external surface area is important will become clear in a moment. Examples of this type of carbonyl nickel powder are Hunter Chemical’s AH50 ( http://www.hunterchem.com/nickel-powder-carbonyl-process-hydrogen-reduced.html) or Vale T255 ( http://www.vale.com/en-us/o-que-fazemos/mineracao/niquel/produtos/Documents/Nickel%20powders/T255-nickel-powder.pdf). I believe this type of nickel powder is the starting point. Rossi also talks of catalyst additives to the nickel powder. These are widely believed to be a nanopowder additive, but what nanopowder? Rossi states that the catalyst he used is inexpensive. One of the things found by examination of available nanopowders is that metal oxide nanopowders are far less expensive than pure elemental nanopowders. They are also far easier and safer to handle and to mix. Another clue is that partially oxidized (partly reduced) metal oxide nanopowders are good catalysts and will break the H2 molecules into monatomic hydrogen. However, the mean free path of an H1 atom, before recombining to form an H2, is very short. This means that the catalyst should be in direct contact with the nickel. I believe that the catalyst is a simple metal oxide nanopowder that is finely dispersed across the “petals” of the nickel micro-powder “buds” and subsequently thermo-chemically treated. I will go out on a limb and say that I believe the starting point for selecting a metal oxide
Re: [Vo]:Rossi catalyst-fuel speculation
This is a Russian Rossi replication using LaNi5 that is generating bursts of X-rays and neutrons. They (Bazhutov and Izmiran http://fireball.izmiran.ru/ ) are looking at the Erzion model of cold nuclear transmutation... Investigation of Thermodynamic and Radiation Effects at Loading Intermetallic LaNi5 by hydrogenhttp://www.iscmns.org/work10/ParkhomovAregistrati.ppt -- http://www.iscmns.org/work10/ParkhomovAregistrati.ppt Anyone have more news on these guys? They did a workshop at the Kurchatov Institute last month, but I didn't see a writeup. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
JoJo I can understand your feelings toward DGT. There have been many questionable actions attributed to them to date, but I am assuming most of these are due to misunderstandings between the parties. If indeed they did milk Rossi for his IP and then rush away to improve upon it and left him standing in the cold, then that would be a serious breech of etiquette. I rather suspect that they truly thought that Rossi was further along in his development than was reality. He has a certain knack for making it appear that everything is proceeding remarkable well when in fact major issues remain to be resolved. If DGT was expecting a stable product from Rossi that would operate for 48 plus hours(?) without interruption then they most likely were let down. It appears that he was not quite there at the time and they decided that they could proceed alone. I can not honestly blame them for following that path if they were making investments and public announcements based upon questionable facts. The basic structure of these devices is fairly simple to manufacture if one uncovers a few key parts. As we know Rossi has been reluctant to reveal his catalyst since he realizes that anyone can build them with the correct knowledge. All of mankind will benefit from LENR products provided that the cost of the devices is not artificially elevated. We must do everything within our capacity to ensure that a few do not dominate this technology at the expense of the many needy people of the world. There will be enough demand for these new products to make many wealthy for many years to come as they compete with each other and keep the cost in check. Exit stage left. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 17, 2012 12:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology Dave, I appreciate your comments. My opinion of DGT was heavily influenced by one of the earlier Xanthoulis interviews where he admitted to have gained access, by subterfuge, the identity of Rossi's catalyst. The guy practically admitted he stole Rossi's Intellectual Property. Now, after having stolen the idea, they are claiming that their process is their own innovation. Yes, they have better reactors, but only because they have a lot of engineers working at these control issues. But make no mistake about this. DGT reactor technology was stolen from Rossi. This was the seed for my negative feelings about DGT, and everything they have done to date has only served to reinforce that feeling. And until they can prove otherwise, their behavior is worthy of contempt. To add insult to injury, they now compete with Rossi. Even Stremmenos seems upset at DGT's behavior, and being an insider, he is in a position to know the truth. This gives credence to his assessment of DGT; heavily influencing my opinion of that company. When one of the insiders, a member of the board, openly criticizes your companies' behavior, there has got to be something to it. Otherwise, you just can't explain Stremmenos' behavior any other logical and consistent way. And to me, Stremmenos has infinitely more credibility than Xanthoulis. When a board member essentially says, it's a company of crooks (hyperbole and overemphasis is used liberally here.), I tend to believe it. Who knows if DGT even had the original intention to ever work with Rossi. Me Thinks, they just partnered with Rossi until they can discover the secret catalyst. And based on my understanding of the timeline (someone correct me.), the divorce occured shortly after Rossi submitted his ash for spectral analysis. This little fact seems to strengthen my original thesis. Respect for DGT will come when they start acting and doing things that will earn them respect. Like behave honestly, for a change. Why do I despise DGT so much? Because I despise dishonesty and dishonest men. Is Rossi right to call these folks snakes and clowns? ... you betcha. Is Rossi acting dishonestly also? You betcha. But at least Rossi did not steal anyone's ideas or stabbed anyone in the back. Rossi is just acting to protect his interest. And he has provided proof, albeit not the proof that pseudo-skeptics would like. Jojo PS. 70% chance they will withdraw from ICCF17. And by this, I don't necessarily mean physically withdraw from the conference. This could include withdrawal of essential data that would essentially render their participation a mockery of the process and the goals people are trying to achieve in that conference. In other words, severely incomplete and censored data. In other words, they are simply using ICCF17 to advance their own agenda like they did with Rossi. Anyone willing to bet a steak lunch over this? - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 11:52 PM
Re: [Vo]:Rossi catalyst-fuel speculation
Lanthanum has a low work function which can be lowered even further if oxygen is added. Lanthanum oxide is now used in welding rods to replace thorium because of its low work function(2.5 eV). The powder used in this experiment may be contaminated with oxygen. This might indicate that low work function is a factor in nickel based LENR. Cheers: Axil On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 2:59 PM, ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: This is a Russian Rossi replication using LaNi5 that is generating bursts of X-rays and neutrons. They (Bazhutov and Izmiran http://fireball.izmiran.ru/ ) are looking at the Erzion model of cold nuclear transmutation... Investigation of Thermodynamic and Radiation Effects at Loading Intermetallic LaNi5 by hydrogenhttp://www.iscmns.org/work10/ParkhomovAregistrati.ppt -- http://www.iscmns.org/work10/ParkhomovAregistrati.ppt Anyone have more news on these guys? They did a workshop at the Kurchatov Institute last month, but I didn't see a writeup. - Brad
RE: [Vo]:Rossi catalyst-fuel speculation
This paper is deceiving . especially if one is interested in nano Ni-H. and it is not in any relevant way comparable to Rossi. There is NO indication of excess heat, even though they use very heavy deuterium enrichment, which probably supplies all of the radiation seen, and even then it is not much in absolute terms. One can see higher radiation count rates from a natural gas fired furnace. I would classify this as almost a joke. There are much better results from Pd-D papers 20 years ago. From: ecat builder This is a Russian Rossi replication using LaNi5 that is generating bursts of X-rays and neutrons. They (Bazhutov and Izmiran http://fireball.izmiran.ru/ ) are looking at the Erzion model of cold nuclear transmutation... Investigation http://www.iscmns.org/work10/ParkhomovAregistrati.ppt of Thermodynamic and Radiation Effects at Loading Intermetallic LaNi5 by hydrogen -- http://www.iscmns.org/work10/ParkhomovAregistrati.ppt Anyone have more news on these guys? They did a workshop at the Kurchatov Institute last month, but I didn't see a writeup. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:OT: TIME Magazine - Roswell Really Happened, Says Former CIA Agent
I have a suspicion that the future will not be without design flaws or Murphy's influence. Very improbable things occur all the time and will continue to plague us. The mere fact that some of these crafts crashed might suggest that there are very many of them flying around. But a counter argument to this alien-human encounter is the question as to why others of their group did not clean up any evidence of the crash before we nabbed it. I maintain an open mind regarding alien crafts visiting earth. I once saw something strange, but did not get an opportunity to look one of the occupants in the eyes. It makes me wonder what level of personal engagement is required before a person can accept a phenomenon such as aliens when the authorities deny it is possible. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 17, 2012 1:52 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: TIME Magazine - Roswell Really Happened, Says Former CIA Agent I believe there was a pretty intense thunderstorm the evening the 'weather alloon' crashed... -Original Message- rom: lorenhe...@aol.com [mailto:lorenhe...@aol.com] ent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 9:02 AM o: vortex-l@eskimo.com ubject: Re: [Vo]:OT: TIME Magazine - Roswell Really Happened, Says Former IA Agent snip Well, all I can say about it is... give'm a few more million years and hatever problem it was that forced that craft into the ground, will bsolutely be completely resolved. Likely, it was a design-flaw in the pec's, or maybe an unwanted molecule or spec of dust had somehow found it's s the Craft was being constructed. Maybe it just made it, from all the way rom it's own star system or the first time way, and crash landed. snip
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:26 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I understand your position Jed. You point is well taken about the need for verification of the data by independent organizations but I feel that any data at this time is better than none. I plan to operate under the assumption that the data is accurate and that the proof will be forthcoming fairly soon. DGTG will be placed in a difficult position if they supply data that turns out to be fabricated and not reflective of the performance that they have achieved. The problem is they won't be left in a *difficult* position. They will just excuse themselves and continue the game. However, business attitudes, ethics and law can be reformed when enough people get fed up with business as usual. It has happened in past and it can happen again in the future. For example there was a time when car companys disregarded public safety. If it wasn't for people like Nader cars would still lack basic safety features we now take for granted. Harry My main fear is that the information will have major items missing that will be intentionally left out to keep our theories untenable. I consider this similar to what Rossi has done in the past. There is still a great deal of uncertainty as to the nuclear ash that his device generates. Perhaps no one, including the active parties, really understands what is happening within their LENR devices but the sooner the true processes are uncovered the sooner major improvements will occur. For these reasons I request that we be fed the important information as soon as possible but I request that they please leave out the misinformation. Dave
[Vo]:Extreme pipes, extreme pumps: Nord Stream
Nord Stream is 1200 km long, 1200 mm wide and transfers 55 billion m^3 of gas per year. At 150 bar that's 10 m/s. And pumping that amount consumes the power 170 MW. The power content of the gas flow compares to 70 GW. Where is all heat going in the compression stage of the gas? The gas (with Cp/Cv=1.3) becomes 660 C hot. How big is the drag in a pipe like that? Here it says 366 MW pumping power and 220 bar. http://urresult.ru/?cat=123 Even worse, but I didn't take the warming of the gas in the pumps into consideration. David David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
[Vo]:More Rosey Piccys
Along with his Behemoth: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=257289961053144set=a.257289254386548.58520.255415831240557type=3permPage=1 http://goo.gl/p4DIl Keep hitting Next. Some good ones of The Engineer. None of The Architect (re: Matrix). Thanks to the moles. T
Re: [Vo]:More Rosey Piccys
This again looks like the exact same container at the exact same spot as from last october. Shouldn't this one have been shipped by now? Wolf Along with his Behemoth: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=257289961053144set=a.257289254386548.58520.255415831240557type=3permPage=1 http://goo.gl/p4DIl Keep hitting Next. Some good ones of The Engineer. None of The Architect (re: Matrix). Thanks to the moles. T
Re: [Vo]:More Rosey Piccys
They're from february... nothing new here. 2012/7/17 Wolf Fischer wolffisc...@gmx.de This again looks like the exact same container at the exact same spot as from last october. Shouldn't this one have been shipped by now? Wolf
Re: [Vo]:More Rosey Piccys
Sorry, my bad. They're from february... nothing new here. 2012/7/17 Wolf Fischer wolffisc...@gmx.de mailto:wolffisc...@gmx.de This again looks like the exact same container at the exact same spot as from last october. Shouldn't this one have been shipped by now? Wolf
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
Well, guys, I am astonished at this sudden outburst of comments on the issue. First, I keep Peter in high regard as a honest person. Second we are ssem to be looking forward to ICCF-17, and what DGTG has to say. Weaseling out could be a) DGT makes a poster-sesson b) to hide behind commercial secrets. We cannot show, because... The simplest thing would be to show a working Hyperion during the two days. not disclosing anything. It would be easy to set up such a demonstration, because their claimed COP is above any doubt, and this is not a milliwatt isue! Just make coffee or tea with the Hyperion... THIS would be a demonstration! Physical! At least the e-cat/hyperion THEN will be a physical device as it is supposed to be, and not an internet chimera. I understand Jojo's bitterness and suspicion. It is also mine. Consider DGTG saying: ...Please excuse, we tried, but S-Korean-import-rules did not allow us to bring the Hyperion... or some similar bullshit. Assign a probablity to that? Anybody's guess. 1% to 99%. Here we are, why we are so excited. Because there is such a vast divergence of probabilities. Peter's assessment (and Peter is not infected by Alzheime'rs disease -he is most reaonable and insigthful, I am sure) makes me a bit more optimistic. We'll see. Guenter Von: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 21:01 Dienstag, 17.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology JoJo I can understand your feelings toward DGT. Exit stage left. Dave ## -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 17, 2012 12:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology Dave, I appreciate your comments. My opinion of DGT was heavily influenced by one of the earlier Xanthoulis interviews Respect for DGT will come when they start acting and doing things that will earn them respect. Like behave honestly, for a change. Why do I despise DGT so much? Because I despise dishonesty and dishonest men. Is Rossi right to call these folks snakes and clowns? ... you betcha. Is Rossi acting dishonestly also? You betcha. But at least Rossi did not steal anyone's ideas or stabbed anyone in the back. Rossi is just acting to protect his interest. And he has provided proof, albeit not the proof that pseudo-skeptics would like. Jojo PS. 70% chance they will withdraw from ICCF17.
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com mailto:gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: The simplest thing would be to show a working Hyperion during the two days. not disclosing anything. It would be easy to set up such a demonstration, because their claimed COP is above any doubt, and this is not a milliwatt isue! Just make coffee or tea with the Hyperion... THIS would be a demonstration! Physical! I do not think any first-world government would allow a demonstration of this nature in a conference hall. I do not think the device has not been tested by the Korean version of UL or by any government safety agency yet. In the modern world, you cannot just run a kilowatt-scale power reactor in front of a group of people in a public space. This is not 1850. This is a nuclear reactor. It will have to be carefully, extensively tested before it can be used in public. It will be tested in fully equipped laboratories first. Even if it was a new kind of combustion reactor you could not set it up and run it in front of a crowd of people without first getting a license and inspection. You can't even run a conventional boiler in an apartment building basement without that! Modern life is filled with red tape. Everywhere you turn there are rules and regulations about every last little thing. Read history, and you will see the wisdom of this. Life is safer and better thanks to all these rules. But the rules are aggravating. Your expectations are highly unrealistic. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Extreme pipes, extreme pumps: Nord Stream
The pumps will be multistage and intercooled to reduce compression costs, the temperature will never get that high. With that size pipe and pressure I can see why pipe breaks are so devastating. On 17 July 2012 20:29, David Jonsson davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com wrote: Nord Stream is 1200 km long, 1200 mm wide and transfers 55 billion m^3 of gas per year. At 150 bar that's 10 m/s. And pumping that amount consumes the power 170 MW. The power content of the gas flow compares to 70 GW. Where is all heat going in the compression stage of the gas? The gas (with Cp/Cv=1.3) becomes 660 C hot. How big is the drag in a pipe like that? Here it says 366 MW pumping power and 220 bar. http://urresult.ru/?cat=123 Even worse, but I didn't take the warming of the gas in the pumps into consideration. David David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
Re: [Vo]:Extreme pipes, extreme pumps: Nord Stream
Huh ? Oh! Couldn't be mm. Meters? Ol' Bab On 7/17/2012 3:29 PM, David Jonsson wrote: Nord Stream is 1200 km long, 1200 mm wide and transfers 55 billion m^3 of gas per year. At 150 bar that's 10 m/s. And pumping that amount consumes the power 170 MW. The power content of the gas flow compares to 70 GW. Where is all heat going in the compression stage of the gas? The gas (with Cp/Cv=1.3) becomes 660 C hot. How big is the drag in a pipe like that? Here it says 366 MW pumping power and 220 bar. http://urresult.ru/?cat=123 Even worse, but I didn't take the warming of the gas in the pumps into consideration. David David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
Eric, Never mind. Entirely my mistake. I totally forgot to include gammas released during the neutron captures. These can be significant. --- Lou Pagnucco I wrote -- Eric, You may be correct, but using data from Wikipedia's Isotopes of nickel page at URL -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_nickel the only naturally occuring stable isotopes of nickel are: 58Ni, 60Ni, 61Ni, 62Ni, 64Ni The only neutron captures that can occur with measurable probability in lab time frame are: 58Ni + n -- 59Ni (59Ni half life = 76,000 years) [...} Do you suggest that the neutron captures result in gammas, or [...]
[Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Robots and LENR could take down China… It doesn’t really matter where those robots are deployed; robots cost the same to install and run because they cost the same no matter where the factory is located especially when the power that drives them is almost free. Cheap labor is no longer a factor in competitive advantage. *Competitive advantage* is defined as the strategic advantage one business entity has over its rival entities within its competitive industry. Achieving competitive advantage strengthens and positions a business better within the business environment. Cheers: Axil
Re: [Vo]:Rossi catalyst-fuel speculation
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Bastiaan Bergman bastiaan.berg...@gmail.com wrote: In addition to oxidation/reduction/melting cycles I believe carbon may play a role as it is active in oxidation and reduction reactions and reported to work in other LENR experiments (Lesley Case). K2CO3 is also repeatedly reported to be of influence in LENR reports. It's exciting to see the number of knowledgeable experimenters here. It seems like the parameter space is large for LENR. If I had the aptitude, time and resources, I would want to proceed very systematically. Otherwise it's easy to imagine ending up wandering through the woods for a long time without getting anywhere. I would probably try to begin with a replication -- any replication -- and use that to assure myself that my lab setup works and that I can clearly and reliably distinguish a blank from a positive result. One simple experiment that has been replicated with success by Michael McKubre at SRI is of Les Case's design (mentioned above). See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CaseLCcatalyticf.pdf If I ever got to the point where I could distinguish a positive result from a negative one, and determine that the positive result was above error, I would come up with a protocol -- a set of numbers to carefully keep track of and a set of steps to follow, and so on. I would repeat the protocol enough times to start hating LENR and keep all of the details for both the good and bad runs in a notebook or a spreadsheet. I would not try to do anything fancy -- just find some result above error, and then proceed from there. Once I had a good set of data for that particular protocol, I would make a small change. Perhaps replace the palladium with nickel, or change the quantity of the palladium or the temperature of the setup. I would only modify one dimension per set of runs, in order to keep careful track of what it is that is influencing the experiment. For the Les Case experiment, I think a good calorimeter, a Geiger-Muller counter, a way to detect x-rays and a way to measure the volume of helium would be good to have. A way to analyze the substrate for transmutations afterwards would be nice as well. I'm sure there are many other things you would want, but these seem like valuable observables for many possible experiments. It would be helpful to try to get measurements of heat and x-rays and any other quantities as the experiment proceeds, so that correlations can be sought out afterwards. A large set of quality data along these lines, made available to the public in raw, undigested form, following well-defined protocols and including information about the statistical error would be invaluable. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
LENR will kill jobs by the millions. The LENR production factory will be completely automated. Only robots will populate these places. The sales of products will be done on Amazon.com. The distribution of product will be highly if not completely automated. If there is a thousand people employed in production, sales and distribution of the E-Cats I will be surprised. Maintenance of the solid state E-Cat will fair no better at creating jobs. This work can be completely automated over the internet with 24/7 monitoring and internet triggered auto reloading every six months. Did you ever think about all the people who make a living in the energy business? All of today’s energy workers: the coal miners, oil workers, gas station attendants, gas drillers, pipeline workers, sycophant government workers…on and on… will be out of a job. The LENR energy industry will support hundreds of energy jobs rather than millions. Big disruptions are ahead. Maybe government leaders don’t want to deal with this new revolution right now. They will put LENR into military systems but that is as far as it will go. Cheers: Axil On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Robots and LENR could take down China… It doesn’t really matter where those robots are deployed; robots cost the same to install and run because they cost the same no matter where the factory is located especially when the power that drives them is almost free. Cheap labor is no longer a factor in competitive advantage. *Competitive advantage* is defined as the strategic advantage one business entity has over its rival entities within its competitive industry. Achieving competitive advantage strengthens and positions a business better within the business environment. Cheers: Axil
Re: [Vo]:Asymmetric Magnetism and Cold Fusion- Brian Ahern
Akira +1 On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: On 2012-07-17 17:56, Ron Kita wrote: Not sure IF this was posted before: http://www.e-catworld.com/**2012/07/brian-ahern-to-**announce-nanonickel- **breakthrough-is-product-of-**asymmetric-magnetism/http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/07/brian-ahern-to-announce-nanonickel-breakthrough-is-product-of-asymmetric-magnetism/ No, this wasn't posted before. To tell the truth, I was aware of this news, but the lack of detailed information from the event website [1], the apparent unwillingness of mr.Ahern to share more details about his participation to the event or the event itself, and that last year he backed out of a similar one in NYC without plausible explanations made me unsure whether to post it on Vortex-l or not. It appears he will unveil a new theory to explain the mechanism of LENR phenomena, according to which they are not based on nuclear effects, but rather on an asymmetrical magnetism effect (whatever this really means). To be honest, if he's getting significant, repeatable and controllable amounts of excess heat as reported (21 watts), an independent, thorough and undeniable validation of these results alone would already be an extraordinary breakthrough. We're not speaking of sub-watt or milliwatt-level excess heat! This is already something that could be commercially useful (assuming that input energy is a fraction of the output). That Brian Ahern expects the public to take these results for granted and embrace instead yet another theory that should explain for once and for all why LENRs occur... it's a bit of a put off for me to be honest. This is not what we need right now. Just my 2c. Cheers, S.A. [1] http://neny.org/neny/Events/**2012NESymposium.aspxhttp://neny.org/neny/Events/2012NESymposium.aspx
Re: [Vo]:Asymmetric Magnetism and Cold Fusion- Brian Ahern
There are other companies presenting LENR systems, such as Vibronic Energy Technology Corp. cnse.albany.edu/download/*Vibronic*_*Energy*_*Technologies*.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Asymmetric Magnetism and Cold Fusion- Brian Ahern
Oh, damn! That`s Brians company! Sorry! 2012/7/18 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com There are other companies presenting LENR systems, such as Vibronic Energy Technology Corp. cnse.albany.edu/download/*Vibronic*_*Energy*_*Technologies*.pdf -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 5:38 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Never mind. Entirely my mistake. I totally forgot to include gammas released during the neutron captures. These can be significant. No worries. I think the neutron capture reactions will result in characteristic radiation that you would be able to detect and trace back to the reactants, assuming the gammas were not halted by some mechanism. I think the lack of expected radiation is the reason for the proposed heavy electron patches, which are understood to intercept gammas. Many people do not like them; I personally don't mind working with the assumption that gammas are present at some point or in some form, although I don't have a strong opinion about what might happen to them -- e.g., whether they are dealt with in the way that Widom and Larsen describe. I also see the possibility of there being no gammas whatsoever. Having no knowledge or expertise in this area, it's obviously not something on which I would try to assert an opinion. I'm personally starting to take a liking to the proton-proton chain as something to explore in connection with LENR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction There are three attractive things about it. First, it is entirely aneutronic. Second, it is not well-understood. To quote the Wikipedia article: Even so, it was unclear how proton–proton fusion might proceed, because the most obvious product, helium-2 (diproton), is unstable and immediately dissociates back into a pair of protons. Obviously it proceeds; it's just that we don't understand how it proceeds. So there are some basic unknowns about the conditions under which it is possible. A third reason that I like it is that it is an important way that fusion occurs in nature; as such, it embodies an energetically optimal way of dealing with the forces involved. Humans up to now have taken some rather ugly approaches to nuclear energy. We have bombarded heavy, radioactive elements with dangerous neutrons. Or we have used a radioactive isotope of hydrogen in order to make possible a form of fusion that will spit out neutrons. Or we have come up with huge contraptions that inject neutrons into a hot plasma that is being irradiated with microwaves of various frequencies. Perhaps we lack imagination of the right kind -- we're thinking that it's impossible to get the combination of temperature and pressure that would be needed for something like the proton-proton chain, so we resort to complex, Rube Goldberg contraptions. We've been trying to brute force our way into fusion. Eric
