date:20120830

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:50 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
 “Would that be Russell's Teapot you're referring to?”



 Oh heavens no…

 It’s the Mad Hatter’s (aka, Richard Garwin) teapot, of course.

;-)

T

Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...

I find it extremely difficult to take anything AR says seriously.  His
research seems to be advancing too fast even if he does have
assistance from the NRL, which I doubt would be taking place in a
warehouse in Italy.

Just my opinion.  I could be wrong.

T

Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...

Terry,

His progress seems fast to you because he has figured how to warp time with
his not yet disclosed T-cat device.  To him he has been working on it for
50 years .  That is approx 25:1 time dilation... If you watch his hair grow
closely you can tell. :)

On Thursday, August 30, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote:

 I find it extremely difficult to take anything AR says seriously.  His
 research seems to be advancing too fast even if he does have
 assistance from the NRL, which I doubt would be taking place in a
 warehouse in Italy.

 Just my opinion.  I could be wrong.

 T

Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...

2012-08-30 Thread Alain Sepeda

It does not look so fast if you assume that he work with a corporate team
managed by professional (ie, not him).
Moreover the result are good but not so huge, since the reactor seems still
slow to start, and activated simply by heat. COP limitation, if real, seems
simply related to simple control by stabilization, where there is a risk of
runaway if too hot... (anyway COP at 1200C should be higher ?)...
I'm just doubting of my hypothesis because no corporate boss would allow
such communication (see how DGT react when it get messy)... maybe they
simply let the genious inventor play on internet, or maybe I'm totally
wrong...

anyway, what is sure and confirmed by him, it is that many of his claim are
simply red-herring. Some other seems errors, or lies, or misunderstanding...

What make him credible is other people behavior. If you don't look at
Rossi, it is clear that something great is coming... however no idea about
temperature, COP, size...

2012/8/30 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com

 Terry,

 His progress seems fast to you because he has figured how to warp time
 with his not yet disclosed T-cat device.  To him he has been working on it
 for 50 years .  That is approx 25:1 time dilation... If you watch his hair
 grow closely you can tell. :)


 On Thursday, August 30, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote:

 I find it extremely difficult to take anything AR says seriously.  His
 research seems to be advancing too fast even if he does have
 assistance from the NRL, which I doubt would be taking place in a
 warehouse in Italy.

 Just my opinion.  I could be wrong.

 T

Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...

Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:

It does not look so fast if you assume that he work with a corporate team
 managed by professional (ie, not him).


I would sooner believe that Rossi's device produces 1 MW and it is a time
machine. Rossi will never work with any team, managed by anyone,
professional or amateur. Not gonna happen.

You would have to be crazy to believe these latest claims. And . . . as I
said before, you would have to be even crazier to bet against Rossi.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...

2012-08-30 Thread Daniel Rocha

To bet in what sense? That he has a work able device or that he has
anything at all?

2012/8/30 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

 as I said before, you would have to be even crazier to bet against Rossi.

 - Jed




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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...

Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

To bet in what sense? That he has a work able device or that he has
 anything at all?


Everything that Rossi does  says is in a state of Quantum Indeterminacy.
The act of betting may tilt events one way or the other. It is best not to
go there.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...

Of course I agree with Jed.  This is the same plague that effects all of
these devices.

Uncertainty?  Instability?  Unreliability?   Collapsed matter?  Life
imitating science?  I also worry about health effects unless properly
shielded and isolated.

Stewart
http://wp.me/p26aeb-4

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

 To bet in what sense? That he has a work able device or that he has
 anything at all?


 Everything that Rossi does  says is in a state of Quantum Indeterminacy.
 The act of betting may tilt events one way or the other. It is best not to
 go there.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...

2012-08-30 Thread Michele Comitini

2012/8/30 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

 To bet in what sense? That he has a work able device or that he has
 anything at all?


 Everything that Rossi does  says is in a state of Quantum Indeterminacy.
 The act of betting may tilt events one way or the other. It is best not to
 go there.

Shrodinger's cat had only 2  states once the box was opened: dead or alive.
Rossi's E-cat keeps staying in multiple states because the box can't
be opened.  One may wonder if there's a cat after all...

mic

Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...

Only I think in the case of these devices the cat can also jump thru the
box or consume the box if he/she is large and hungry enough...

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Michele Comitini 
michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote:

 2012/8/30 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
  Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  To bet in what sense? That he has a work able device or that he has
  anything at all?
 
 
  Everything that Rossi does  says is in a state of Quantum Indeterminacy.
  The act of betting may tilt events one way or the other. It is best not
 to
  go there.

 Shrodinger's cat had only 2  states once the box was opened: dead or alive.
 Rossi's E-cat keeps staying in multiple states because the box can't
 be opened.  One may wonder if there's a cat after all...

 mic

Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...

2012-08-30 Thread Teslaalset

The probable reason for Rossi to give feedback on his status is getting
technical suggestions that his small team of developers is not able to
generate on such a short time frame. And he's getting a lot of free usefull
feedback at his blog.
We simply don't know the qualifications of his staff since they will be
bound to communication restrictions by contract, so you won't hear anything
from them.

I bet companies like Shell and Exxon have research people on this as well,
but these multinationals don't require feedback and suggestions by society
via blogs since they have sufficient staff to do this on their own.


On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Michele Comitini 
michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote:

 2012/8/30 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
  Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  To bet in what sense? That he has a work able device or that he has
  anything at all?
 
 
  Everything that Rossi does  says is in a state of Quantum Indeterminacy.
  The act of betting may tilt events one way or the other. It is best not
 to
  go there.

 Shrodinger's cat had only 2  states once the box was opened: dead or alive.
 Rossi's E-cat keeps staying in multiple states because the box can't
 be opened.  One may wonder if there's a cat after all...

 mic

Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...

ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

Of course I agree with Jed.  This is the same plague that effects all of
 these devices.


Well, not the small scale cold fusion devices at places like SRI, thank
goodness. They are established beyond any rational doubt.

If I may be a little more serious about Rossi . . . It is clear to me that
his policy is the same as Patterson's was. He does not want credibility. He
*does not want* people to know for sure that his device is real -- or that
it is fake. (I assume it is real, mainly because there are a growing number
of credible nanoparticle Ni-H results.)

Rossi has repeatedly gone out of his way to prevent people from
independently confirming his claims. People including me. I could have
verified it to a far greater extent than it has been so far. I could have
done this easily in a few hours. He knows I could have. He put his foot
down. Let me repeat with emphasis, and let me make this clear: he told me
and he told several other people that *he will he will never allow
independent public testing*.

I and many others have proposed such tests. We could arrange them in a few
days. He says no tests! He means it. He only allows tests that will
remain secret under NDAs. As I have said here before, I know of some secret
tests. I never publish things without permission. The last thing I need is
to have researchers upset with me. I get in enough trouble with Rossi and
others when I say the sort of thing I am saying here, in this message.

I assume Rossi cultivates this ambiguity for the same reason Patterson did.
I doubt it is because he is trying to cover up a fraud, and I can't think
of any other reasons. Patterson and Reding both told me they wanted most
people to think they were wrong, or crazy, or frauds, because that gave
them 100% market share. I told him Patterson he would end up with 100% of
nothing. Needless to say, he took his technology and his market share to
the grave with him. I predicted he would. I predict Rossi will do the same
thing if he persists with this strategy. There is no chance you can keep
this secret to the extent he is trying to do yet also achieve commercial
success.

Rossi and Patterson also shunned mass media exposure. No kidding. They went
out of their way to make themselves look bad in the mass media. This is a
business strategy, not lunacy. It is a lousy strategy, in my opinion. It
usually fails.

Defkalion has done the same thing, by the way. Last January they said they
wanted tests with the results made public. Apparently they changed their
minds, or they changed the schedule. As far as I know, all tests done since
then have been under restrictive NDAs. I do not know if any of these NDAs
have a time limit. A little information has leaked out despite the NDAs. As
far as I can tell the tests have been unimpressive. But who knows? Until
they publish a complete independent data set, you don't know whether their
claims are valid. I see no point to speculating. It is a waste of time
trying to suss out information people do not want you to have.

Generally speaking, in my experience, the value of a technical claim is
inversely proportional to the level of secrecy applied to it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...


I also performed a comparison that suggests that Rossi will do fine with the 
new design.  I thought about a 1 MW thermal input ICE which should deliver 
around 300 kW of mechanical power on a good day.  At 750 watts to a horse power 
I obtain an estimate of 400 HP for the equivalent internal combustion motor 
rating.  The size of Rossi's drum is greater than the radiator required to cool 
down an engine of this size with air.

I think the drum in quite reasonable with this comparison as a reference.

Dave 


-Original Message-
From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 2:04 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...


OK, correcting this. I think I am mixing up MW electric and MW thermal. A like 
sized region of a commercial fission core is producing about three times this 
much thermal output, ~3MW. Plants of that generation are about 33% efficient so 
the resulting electrical output is ~1MW, which I erroneously used for the 
thermal number in the previous mail.


So I think the thermal density Rossi describes is about 1/3 of an operating 
commercial LWR fission core.


Jeff


On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote:

My back of the envelope scratching suggests that a like-sized three-dimensional 
region of a fuel bundle in a conventional LWR fission core produces just about 
the same amount of energy. That volume would accommodate ~4 linear feet of ~100 
fuel rods which would produce ~1 MW. Note: I am not a nuclear engineer but I'm 
playing one tonight on the interwebs. Ymmv.


Jeff



On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:19 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Jojo, I get 3.77 square meters of area with a quick calculation.  This is the 
entire surface area of the cylinder.  Please check your figures and let me know 
if there is an error.
 
This is very interesting information from Rossi as, if true, his device now 
would fit nicely within a locomotive size tractor.  It is time to do some 
further research into this.
 
Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 6:31 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...


This is incredible power density.  Seems unbelievable how you can pack 1MW 
output from these dimensions.  If true, this is more revolutionary than we 
thought.
 
I did some rough calculations.  With diameter of the cylinder at 1.2 m, the 
area is 1.13 m2.  Assuming that the coolant pipes take up about 50% if this 
area, and fitting remaining area with 100 reactors.   Each reactor would have a 
diameter of 4.2 cm.  Each 4.2 cm dia. reactor would be producing 10KW.
 
Dave, maybe you can do some simulations on if it even is possible to remove 
this much heat from such a reactor.
 
Another thing.  Rossi says he's shocked.  Does this mean that Rossi no longer 
does the main development.  Otherwise, How can he be shocked by something he is 
developing himself?  Or maybe, he is shocked by the extent of his own 
imagination.  
 
 
 
Jojo
 
 
 
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   Patrick   Ellul 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 5:45   AM
  
Subject: [Vo]:Rossi said...
  


  
  
Andrea Rossi
  
August   29th, 2012 at 3:05 AM
  
Dear   Dr Joseph Fine:
You are perfectly right: in fact we are designing the new 1   MW plants, for 
hot temperature, and the dimensions will be those of a cylinder   with a 
diameter of 1.2 m and a lencth od 0.4 m.
Is shocking, I myself are   surprised, but it is so.
Warmest Regards,
A.R.
  
  
Andrea Rossi
  
August   29th, 2012 at 9:45 AM
  
Dear   Franco:
Attention: the dimensions 1.2 x 0.4 is not the surface of the   surface of the 
reactors! Inside this drum of 1.2 x 0.4 m there are 100   reactors , each of 
one having about 1 200 cm^2 of surface !
I talked of the   dimensions of the external container, not of the heat 
exchange surface   !
Warm Regards,
A.R.
  

  


Regards,   
Patrick

Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...

Actually, I hope you are wrong.  We need these systems ASAP.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 7:29 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...

I find it extremely difficult to take anything AR says seriously.  His
research seems to be advancing too fast even if he does have
assistance from the NRL, which I doubt would be taking place in a
warehouse in Italy.

Just my opinion.  I could be wrong.

T

Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...

2012-08-30 Thread Peter Gluck

If Rossi says he is shocked this could mean more things:

a) he is not shocked but knows that some shocks are good in a story,
b) be he is not shocked but wants the reader be shocked;
c) he is sincerely shocked because he has found something unexpected,
surprised,
d) he has now a team working for him and the team indeed has found
something new

No possibility of realist choice here.

Peter

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:17 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Actually, I hope you are wrong.  We need these systems ASAP.

 Dave
  -Original Message-
 From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 7:29 am
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...

  I find it extremely difficult to take anything AR says seriously.  His
 research seems to be advancing too fast even if he does have
 assistance from the NRL, which I doubt would be taking place in a
 warehouse in Italy.

 Just my opinion.  I could be wrong.

 T





-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...


I tend to get bored quickly so the rate of improvements seems in line.  If one 
is developing a new system that has an enormous range for improvement then big 
strides can be made.  Once Rossi and others have achieved performance that 
approaches the limit, then we can expect to see improvements become 
incremental.  We should celebrate the fact that apparently there is much room 
for advancement.

This rate of development should also exist as people push the boundaries toward 
smaller size.  As long as dangerous radiation is not a problem, I think we will 
see remarkable things in the near future.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 7:54 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...


Terry,


His progress seems fast to you because he has figured how to warp time with his 
not yet disclosed T-cat device.  To him he has been working on it for 50 years 
.  That is approx 25:1 time dilation... If you watch his hair grow closely you 
can tell. :)

On Thursday, August 30, 2012, Terry Blanton  wrote:

I find it extremely difficult to take anything AR says seriously.  His
research seems to be advancing too fast even if he does have
assistance from the NRL, which I doubt would be taking place in a
warehouse in Italy.

Just my opinion.  I could be wrong.

T

Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...

I agree, I think Rossi has come upon anomalous heat/energy like many others
including SRI, DGT, etc.

You are right, the smaller the scale, the more the reliability/less
uncertainty.  Nature keeps atoms, electrons and protons small because by
themselves, they are uncertain.  Orbits due to gravity/repulsion maintain
some level of certainty.  Magnify atoms into superatoms and collapsed
matter and you increase uncertainty/unreliability.

Many of the researchers that have passed, some untimely, and have taken
their knowledge with them.  Reding, De Palma, Patterson, Fox, etc.  but the
effect remains.


On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Of course I agree with Jed.  This is the same plague that effects all of
 these devices.


 Well, not the small scale cold fusion devices at places like SRI, thank
 goodness. They are established beyond any rational doubt.

 If I may be a little more serious about Rossi . . . It is clear to me that
 his policy is the same as Patterson's was. He does not want credibility. He
 *does not want* people to know for sure that his device is real -- or
 that it is fake. (I assume it is real, mainly because there are a growing
 number of credible nanoparticle Ni-H results.)

 Rossi has repeatedly gone out of his way to prevent people from
 independently confirming his claims. People including me. I could have
 verified it to a far greater extent than it has been so far. I could have
 done this easily in a few hours. He knows I could have. He put his foot
 down. Let me repeat with emphasis, and let me make this clear: he told me
 and he told several other people that *he will he will never allow
 independent public testing*.

 I and many others have proposed such tests. We could arrange them in a few
 days. He says no tests! He means it. He only allows tests that will
 remain secret under NDAs. As I have said here before, I know of some secret
 tests. I never publish things without permission. The last thing I need is
 to have researchers upset with me. I get in enough trouble with Rossi and
 others when I say the sort of thing I am saying here, in this message.

 I assume Rossi cultivates this ambiguity for the same reason Patterson
 did. I doubt it is because he is trying to cover up a fraud, and I can't
 think of any other reasons. Patterson and Reding both told me they wanted
 most people to think they were wrong, or crazy, or frauds, because that
 gave them 100% market share. I told him Patterson he would end up with
 100% of nothing. Needless to say, he took his technology and his market
 share to the grave with him. I predicted he would. I predict Rossi will do
 the same thing if he persists with this strategy. There is no chance you
 can keep this secret to the extent he is trying to do yet also achieve
 commercial success.

 Rossi and Patterson also shunned mass media exposure. No kidding. They
 went out of their way to make themselves look bad in the mass media. This
 is a business strategy, not lunacy. It is a lousy strategy, in my opinion.
 It usually fails.

 Defkalion has done the same thing, by the way. Last January they said they
 wanted tests with the results made public. Apparently they changed their
 minds, or they changed the schedule. As far as I know, all tests done since
 then have been under restrictive NDAs. I do not know if any of these NDAs
 have a time limit. A little information has leaked out despite the NDAs. As
 far as I can tell the tests have been unimpressive. But who knows? Until
 they publish a complete independent data set, you don't know whether their
 claims are valid. I see no point to speculating. It is a waste of time
 trying to suss out information people do not want you to have.

 Generally speaking, in my experience, the value of a technical claim is
 inversely proportional to the level of secrecy applied to it.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interview with Michael McKubre

http://media.podshow.com/media/1049/episodes/318736/pesn-318736-08-29-2012.mp3

Is a dead link.

Moreover, the link you provided was in error syntactically:

http://m.podshow.com/media/1049/episodes/318736/pesn-318736-08-29-2012.mp3Interview

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 http://m.podshow.com/media/1049/episodes/318736/pesn-318736-08-29-2012.mp3Interview

 Listen

 On August 28, Sterling Allan conducted an interview with Michael McKubre
 as part of the Free Energy Now series.

 It was found in this blog


 http://pesn.com/2012/08/29/9602171_Michael-McKubre_on_Cold-Fusions_Rise_Despite_Political_Academic_Suppression/

Re: [Vo]:Interview with Michael McKubre

This link to the audio works:

http://www.mevio.com/episode/318736/fen.120828

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 http://m.podshow.com/media/1049/episodes/318736/pesn-318736-08-29-2012.mp3Interview

 Listen

 On August 28, Sterling Allan conducted an interview with Michael McKubre
 as part of the Free Energy Now series.

 It was found in this blog


 http://pesn.com/2012/08/29/9602171_Michael-McKubre_on_Cold-Fusions_Rise_Despite_Political_Academic_Suppression/

Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...

2012-08-30 Thread Daniel Rocha

Hmm, a) sounds very realistic

2012/8/30 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com

 If Rossi says he is shocked this could mean more things:

 a) he is not shocked but knows that some shocks are good in a story,
 b) be he is not shocked but wants the reader be shocked;
 c) he is sincerely shocked because he has found something unexpected,
 surprised,
 d) he has now a team working for him and the team indeed has found
 something new

 No possibility of realist choice here.

 Peter

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

Re: [Vo]:Interview with Michael McKubre

At about 10 minutes into the interview, the question that is most relevant
crops up, which is how can one overcome the block on scientific
publication. This is most relevant because it gets to the heart science
itself, and the institutional incompetence currently besetting science.
Yes, I think this is more relevant than is the provision of an energy
revolution because although power is of primary physical importance, the
cultural importance of science gets to the central value of being fully and
completely human: A mind free to pursue the truth of being.

The answers provided by McKubre were an indictment of civilization itself
because they did not address how it is that civilization could concoct such
an incompetent system of scientific publication hence could not address how
to remediate that incompetence. To merely say Well, all's well that ends
well. or There are no utopias. is to skirt responsibility for this
artifact we call civilization. There is clearly a very serious disease of
unknown etiology, of which the failure of scientific publication is merely
a symptom.

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:10 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

This link to the audio works:

http://www.mevio.com/episode/318736/fen.120828

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

http://m.podshow.com/media/1049/episodes/318736/pesn-318736-08-29-2012.mp3Interview

Listen

On August 28, Sterling Allan conducted an interview with Michael McKubre
as part of the Free Energy Now series.

It was found in this blog

http://pesn.com/2012/08/29/9602171_Michael-McKubre_on_Cold-Fusions_Rise_Despite_Political_Academic_Suppression/

Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency


I performed additional analysis and have a couple of items to add to the 
simulation results.  The first one is that it is obvious that the Rossi 
controlled devices operate within the thermal run away region to achieve a COP 
of 6.  In these cases, the positive feedback is responsible for the gain and 
also set the time constants required to keep the units stable with drive.  
Other implicit components that effect the time constant are the thermal 
capacitance of the core and thermal resistance through which the heat energy 
flows.

One consequence of operation within the unstable region is that a strong shock 
is required to force the rising temperature function of the device to reverse 
direction.  Once reversed, the temperature will head toward zero and stable 
operation unless another external positive heating shock occurs at an important 
time.  This behavior might well explain why Rossi continues to insist that he 
can not use the heat  output of an ECAT to drive additional ones.  The slow 
response time of the ECAT driver would not constitute a thermal shock that 
could control the operation of its brothers.  An electric or gas heater can 
respond rapidly enough to achieve the desired results.

Perhaps I sound like a Rossi fan by continuing to support his claims while many 
of the other vorts seem to question them.  I guess my confidence in many of his 
statements is that they tend to be confirmable by my model performance.  If he 
were totally full of *** then why insist upon a COP that is reasonable, but 
low, when claiming a higher value would be advantageous?  How would extending 
this claim make him more of a dud?

Dave




-Original Message-
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 4:50 pm
Subject: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency


Earlier I posted information obtained by simulating the ECAT device.  The last 
version assumed that the ECAT internal LENR energy generation mechanism 
depended upon the core temperature as a second order function.  The latest 
trial runs were obtained by using a model that allowed this temperature 
dependency to be of the third power.  I was curious as to how much more 
critical the system would behave at this higher power and gave it a test run.
 
I was able to obtain a COP of almost 18 if I pushed the operation of the core 
to the brink of critical run away temperature.  This would not be acceptable 
unless an active cooling method was also available that could extract heat 
rapidly from the core if its temperature became too great.  Rossi may have 
something of this nature in his latest design, but it is not evident.  The 
power drive duty cycle was required to be approxiamtely 10% during this test 
run.
 
If I operated the device within a conservative mode where I kept the 
temperature at 90% of the run away value I only obtained a COP of 3.61.  I 
noted that the duty cycle of the drive was 50% which is as Rossi has stated 
within his journal.
 
With these two independent runs available for reference it is clear that I 
could obtain the expected COP of 6 if I carefully chose the peak temperature 
excursion of the device.  In the earlier experiment with the temperature 
dependency of second order the matching seemed to be easier and I achieved a 
good level with the first attempt.  The implication of my modeling is that it 
is likely that Rossi or anyone who has a device that follows this general rule 
would be capable of making the COP of 6.0 if the design contains a reasonable 
geometry and has the internal thermal resistances properly adjusted. 
 
If anyone is aware of the power output-temperature functional relationship of 
Rossi's device please direct me to that data so that I can adjust the model to 
match the real world more closely.  At this point it appears that Rossi is 
playing conservative and safe with his claimed COP of 6.  He may eventually 
raise this level to be more competitive with others and there is room for 
adjustment especially if a good technique is used to actively cool the core.
 
 The usual disclaimer applies to this document.  The model is for educational 
purposes only and may not reflect upon real device operational characteristics.
 
Dave
 
P.S. Contact me directly if you want further details about the model or its 
behavior.

Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:50 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 I guess my confidence in many of his statements is that they tend to be
 confirmable by my model performance.  If he were totally full of *** then
 why insist upon a COP that is reasonable, but low, when claiming a higher
 value would be advantageous?  How would extending this claim make him more
 of a dud?


I had a similar experience with a reactionless drive technology.

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9243cid=576230

When the kook provides you with actual data that you can analyze, and
then infer things about the device that cross-check with reality in a way
that is unlikely to have been confabulated by the kook, it has to make
you take the kook more seriously.

Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency

David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


 Perhaps I sound like a Rossi fan by continuing to support his claims while
 many of the other vorts seem to question them.  I guess my confidence in
 many of his statements is that they tend to be confirmable by my model
 performance. . . .


I hope no one here objects to your speculation. If they do, I object to
their objection! You are not supporting Rossi. Neither am I. We both have
good reasons to think that his claims are probably real. (Although who
knows about the latest claim.)

We all know there are other reasons to doubt these claims. The reasons to
believe are mainly technical. The reasons to doubt are mainly political, or
based on Rossi's appearance or behavior. This forum is mainly devoted to
technical issues, so it seems to me we should devote most of the discussion
to the former.

In a scientific discussion no one who says let's suppose or what if
should be called a supporter. People who say that do not understand the
concepts of open-minded inquiry, or suspending judgement. These things are
essential. Science, technology and progress would not exist without them.
Every single thing discovered since the stone age seemed improbable at
first. Many things seemed miraculous. Imagine how people must have felt
when they first mastered fire. Imagine how people from 1800 would feel
looking around our world. Remember Clarke's 2nd and 3rd laws:

1. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a
little way past them into the impossible.

2. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

- Jed

[Vo]:Important claims are patented or published as quickly as possible

I wrote:


 Generally speaking, in my experience, the value of a technical claim is
 inversely proportional to the level of secrecy applied to it.


I am not being cynical. Well, not completely cynical. In technology, when
you make an important claim you file a patent. A patent must reveal
everything or it is invalid. In pure science, when you make an important
breakthrough you rush to publish it as soon as possible to establish
priority.

Sometimes, foolish people make what they think is an important breakthrough
and they try to keep it secret. These breakthroughs are usually mistakes
or stuff that everyone knows already.

Howard Aiken's dictum applies: Don't worry about people stealing your
ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's
throats.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency

Great stuff Dave.


On the face of it, this Rossi reaction control mechanism seems primitive
and problematic. Do you have additional details?

When the reaction is operating at 1200C, what level of temperature spike is
required to reverse a dropping reaction temperature profile? Does the
maximum level of external temperature spike ever get above 1450C at any
point?  How long does the reaction take to respond to the temperature
spike? What causes the reaction temperature to fall? How long does the
reaction take to regain stability?  How much power does the external
temperature impulse consume in a 10 KW system? How much heat loss from pore
insolation can the reactor tolerate?


Cheers:  Axil

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:50 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 I performed additional analysis and have a couple of items to add to the
 simulation results.  The first one is that it is obvious that the Rossi
 controlled devices operate within the thermal run away region to achieve a
 COP of 6.  In these cases, the positive feedback is responsible for the
 gain and also set the time constants required to keep the units stable with
 drive.  Other implicit components that effect the time constant are the
 thermal capacitance of the core and thermal resistance through which the
 heat energy flows.

 One consequence of operation within the unstable region is that a strong
 shock is required to force the rising temperature function of the device to
 reverse direction.  Once reversed, the temperature will head toward zero
 and stable operation unless another external positive heating shock occurs
 at an important time.  This behavior might well explain why Rossi continues
 to insist that he can not use the heat  output of an ECAT to drive
 additional ones.  The slow response time of the ECAT driver would not
 constitute a thermal shock that could control the operation of its
 brothers.  An electric or gas heater can respond rapidly enough to achieve
 the desired results.

 Perhaps I sound like a Rossi fan by continuing to support his claims while
 many of the other vorts seem to question them.  I guess my confidence in
 many of his statements is that they tend to be confirmable by my model
 performance.  If he were totally full of *** then why insist upon a COP
 that is reasonable, but low, when claiming a higher value would be
 advantageous?  How would extending this claim make him more of a dud?

 Dave


  -Original Message-
 From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 4:50 pm
 Subject: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency

  Earlier I posted information obtained by simulating the ECAT device.
 The last version assumed that the ECAT internal LENR energy generation
 mechanism depended upon the core temperature as a second order function.
 The latest trial runs were obtained by using a model that allowed this
 temperature dependency to be of the third power.  I was curious as to how
 much more critical the system would behave at this higher power and gave it
 a test run.

 I was able to obtain a COP of almost 18 if I pushed the operation of the
 core to the brink of critical run away temperature.  This would not be
 acceptable unless an active cooling method was also available that could
 extract heat rapidly from the core if its temperature became too great.
 Rossi may have something of this nature in his latest design, but it is not
 evident.  The power drive duty cycle was required to be approxiamtely 10%
 during this test run.

 If I operated the device within a conservative mode where I kept the
 temperature at 90% of the run away value I only obtained a COP of 3.61.  I
 noted that the duty cycle of the drive was 50% which is as Rossi has
 stated within his journal.

 With these two independent runs available for reference it is clear that I
 could obtain the expected COP of 6 if I carefully chose the peak
 temperature excursion of the device.  In the earlier experiment with the
 temperature dependency of second order the matching seemed to be easier and
 I achieved a good level with the first attempt.  The implication of
 my modeling is that it is likely that Rossi or anyone who has a device that
 follows this general rule would be capable of making the COP of 6.0 if
 the design contains a reasonable geometry and has the internal thermal
 resistances properly adjusted.

 If anyone is aware of the power output-temperature functional relationship
 of Rossi's device please direct me to that data so that I can adjust the
 model to match the real world more closely.  At this point it appears that
 Rossi is playing conservative and safe with his claimed COP of 6.  He may
 eventually raise this level to be more competitive with others and there is
 room for adjustment especially if a good technique is used to actively cool
 the core.

  The usual disclaimer applies to this document.  The model is for
 educational purposes

Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency

Those are pretty tough questions for a device that is generating fission,
fusion, chemical and possibly some forms of collapsed matter, all with
different reaction kinetics, time constants and instabilities...I would
think it would be very hard to wrestle that pig to the ground (I grew up on
a farm)...

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Great stuff Dave.


 On the face of it, this Rossi reaction control mechanism seems primitive
 and problematic. Do you have additional details?

 When the reaction is operating at 1200C, what level of temperature spike
 is required to reverse a dropping reaction temperature profile? Does the
 maximum level of external temperature spike ever get above 1450C at any
 point?  How long does the reaction take to respond to the temperature
 spike? What causes the reaction temperature to fall? How long does the
 reaction take to regain stability?  How much power does the external
 temperature impulse consume in a 10 KW system? How much heat loss from pore
 insolation can the reactor tolerate?


 Cheers:  Axil

 On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:50 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 I performed additional analysis and have a couple of items to add to the
 simulation results.  The first one is that it is obvious that the Rossi
 controlled devices operate within the thermal run away region to achieve a
 COP of 6.  In these cases, the positive feedback is responsible for the
 gain and also set the time constants required to keep the units stable with
 drive.  Other implicit components that effect the time constant are the
 thermal capacitance of the core and thermal resistance through which the
 heat energy flows.

 One consequence of operation within the unstable region is that a strong
 shock is required to force the rising temperature function of the device to
 reverse direction.  Once reversed, the temperature will head toward zero
 and stable operation unless another external positive heating shock occurs
 at an important time.  This behavior might well explain why Rossi continues
 to insist that he can not use the heat  output of an ECAT to drive
 additional ones.  The slow response time of the ECAT driver would not
 constitute a thermal shock that could control the operation of its
 brothers.  An electric or gas heater can respond rapidly enough to achieve
 the desired results.

 Perhaps I sound like a Rossi fan by continuing to support his claims
 while many of the other vorts seem to question them.  I guess my confidence
 in many of his statements is that they tend to be confirmable by my model
 performance.  If he were totally full of *** then why insist upon a COP
 that is reasonable, but low, when claiming a higher value would be
 advantageous?  How would extending this claim make him more of a dud?

 Dave


  -Original Message-
 From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 4:50 pm
 Subject: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency

  Earlier I posted information obtained by simulating the ECAT device.
 The last version assumed that the ECAT internal LENR energy generation
 mechanism depended upon the core temperature as a second order function.
 The latest trial runs were obtained by using a model that allowed this
 temperature dependency to be of the third power.  I was curious as to how
 much more critical the system would behave at this higher power and gave it
 a test run.

 I was able to obtain a COP of almost 18 if I pushed the operation of the
 core to the brink of critical run away temperature.  This would not be
 acceptable unless an active cooling method was also available that could
 extract heat rapidly from the core if its temperature became too great.
 Rossi may have something of this nature in his latest design, but it is not
 evident.  The power drive duty cycle was required to be approxiamtely 10%
 during this test run.

 If I operated the device within a conservative mode where I kept the
 temperature at 90% of the run away value I only obtained a COP of 3.61.  I
 noted that the duty cycle of the drive was 50% which is as Rossi has
 stated within his journal.

 With these two independent runs available for reference it is clear that
 I could obtain the expected COP of 6 if I carefully chose the peak
 temperature excursion of the device.  In the earlier experiment with the
 temperature dependency of second order the matching seemed to be easier and
 I achieved a good level with the first attempt.  The implication of
 my modeling is that it is likely that Rossi or anyone who has a device that
 follows this general rule would be capable of making the COP of 6.0 if
 the design contains a reasonable geometry and has the internal thermal
 resistances properly adjusted.

 If anyone is aware of the power output-temperature functional
 relationship of Rossi's device please direct me to that data so that I can
 adjust the model to match the

Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency

Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 Does the maximum level of external temperature spike ever get above 1450C
 at any point?

Ah. Google tells me that is the melting point of Ni . . .

Actually, you cannot get close to a melting point without bad stuff
happening. Sintering and local melting. The temperature is not likely to be
uniform.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency

Nanopowder typically melts at lower temperatures than its equivalent solid.

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 Does the maximum level of external temperature spike ever get above 1450C
 at any point?

 Ah. Google tells me that is the melting point of Ni . . .

 Actually, you cannot get close to a melting point without bad stuff
 happening. Sintering and local melting. The temperature is not likely to be
 uniform.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Important claims are patented or published as quickly as possible

Michael McKubre said that the reason he believes completely in the reality
of the Papp engine reaction for the last 14 years is that Papp ran a full
demo of his engine in front of patent examiners to their total satisfaction
using a dynamometer… it worked as advertised. On the strength of this demo,
the patent office was forced to give Papp a patent on his engine.
The Papp engine is the only LENR device that has ever been patented.

Cheers:   Axil



On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I wrote:


 Generally speaking, in my experience, the value of a technical claim is
 inversely proportional to the level of secrecy applied to it.


 I am not being cynical. Well, not completely cynical. In technology, when
 you make an important claim you file a patent. A patent must reveal
 everything or it is invalid. In pure science, when you make an important
 breakthrough you rush to publish it as soon as possible to establish
 priority.

 Sometimes, foolish people make what they think is an important
 breakthrough and they try to keep it secret. These breakthroughs are
 usually mistakes or stuff that everyone knows already.

 Howard Aiken's dictum applies: Don't worry about people stealing your
 ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's
 throats.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Important claims are patented or published as quickly as possible

Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 The Papp engine is the only LENR device that has ever been patented.

What makes you think it is LENR? I guess in the broader sense it probably
is, but I doubt it has anything to do with hydride cold fusion (the F-P
effect).

But, who knows?!

Until it is independently reincarnated and tested I will have little
confidence it is real, even if it convinced the Patent Office. I do not
dismiss it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Important claims are patented or published as quickly as possible

2012-08-30 Thread Alan J Fletcher



At 12:50 PM 8/30/2012, Axil Axil wrote:

Michael McKubre said that the reason
he believes completely in the reality of the Papp engine reaction for the
last 14 years is that Papp ran a full demo of his engine in front of
patent examiners to their total satisfaction using a dynamometer it
worked as advertised. On the strength of this demo, the patent office was
forced to give Papp a patent on his engine.
Is that documented anywhere? (googling doesn't give any quick, definitive
links). Are patent office communications archived?

The Papp engine is the only LENR
device that has ever been patented.
Since it depends on a plasma, I'd call it Hot fusion.

Re: [Vo]:Important claims are patented or published as quickly as possible

I think the Papp engine is electric charge accumulation, magnetic
alignment, compression and collapse followed by an instant energy burst.
 Same thing happening in the voids/cracks of the lattice each pop of DGT's
spark plugs.

I think we saw yesterday that TerraWatt Research LLC also has a patent for
their magnetic motor.  That electric motor is spinning those magnets and
creating a magnetic impulse/alignment and possible compression within the
gap between them at 20 times/sec.  Electric charge also builds in the gap
over time since the burst of matter should release charged particles.

It is all the same effect aided by quantum level gravitational attraction
finishing the collapse.

I am going to continue pounding that thought into everyone's collective
brains.

Stewart
http://wp.me/p26aeb-4


On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 The Papp engine is the only LENR device that has ever been patented.

 What makes you think it is LENR? I guess in the broader sense it probably
 is, but I doubt it has anything to do with hydride cold fusion (the F-P
 effect).

 But, who knows?!

 Until it is independently reincarnated and tested I will have little
 confidence it is real, even if it convinced the Patent Office. I do not
 dismiss it.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency


Axil, the only details that I have are the ones that have been published on 
Rossi's Journal and other public information.  My model is based upon some 
assumptions that I will attempt to explain.  I would like very much for you or 
others to contribute to the simulation if possible.

The first question I can only answer from results of my model which match 
Rossi's discussions.  He states that the drive power is applied at a 50% duty 
cycle and its level is one third of the total output power.  If you take his 
recent typical output power of 10 kW, that means that it has a drive waveform 
of .33 watts with a duty cycle of 50%.   So, it typically takes that much  
power input drop to reverse the rising temperature waveform.  My model agrees 
with this number.  The model suggests that the device has an unstable point at 
a bit more than half of this level of output and that positive feedback is 
causing most of the rise in power output until the reversal.  Once heading 
downward, the temperature curve and associated power output continue until 
again driven by the .33 watt waveform.

The reason for this behavior was murky at first since I did not understand why 
a relatively low drive power would reverse the process.  Further simulations 
pointed to the thermal capacity of the device as the reason.  The loss of this 
amount of drive starved the heat being absorbed by the thermal capacity of the 
unit just enough to force the rising curve to reverse.  This was a very 
interesting result.

The device response timing is unknown in detail unless we can shake it out of 
Rossi.  It must be fast enough to outrun the rising temperature waveform that 
wants to supply the thermal capacity.  I used a convenient value of thermal 
capacity to allow time for the waveforms to be visible in my simulator.  There 
is some really interesting phenomena hidden within this model.

Your question about heat loss causing problems is related to the thermal 
impedance of the device to ambient.  Once a value has been realized, there will 
be a slope of power output versus temperature where the product of the two 
functions is 1.  The temperature associated with this point is where the 
positive feedback takes over.  This is the traditional point where the loop 
gain is 1.

I have some model details to follow soon.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 3:37 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency


Great stuff Dave.
 

On the face of it, this Rossi reaction control mechanismseems primitive and 
problematic. Do you have additional details?
When the reaction is operating at 1200C, what level oftemperature spike is 
required to reverse a dropping reaction temperatureprofile? Does the maximum 
level of external temperature spike ever get above1450C at any point?  How long 
does thereaction take to respond to the temperature spike? What causes the 
reactiontemperature to fall? How long does the reaction take to regain 
stability?  How much power does the external temperature impulseconsume in a 10 
KW system? How much heat loss from pore insolation can thereactor tolerate?
 
Cheers:  Axil


On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:50 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

I performed additional analysis and have a couple of items to add to the 
simulation results.  The first one is that it is obvious that the Rossi 
controlled devices operate within the thermal run away region to achieve a COP 
of 6.  In these cases, the positive feedback is responsible for the gain and 
also set the time constants required to keep the units stable with drive.  
Other implicit components that effect the time constant are the thermal 
capacitance of the core and thermal resistance through which the heat energy 
flows.
 
One consequence of operation within the unstable region is that a strong shock 
is required to force the rising temperature function of the device to reverse 
direction.  Once reversed, the temperature will head toward zero and stable 
operation unless another external positive heating shock occurs at an important 
time.  This behavior might well explain why Rossi continues to insist that he 
can not use the heat  output of an ECAT to drive additional ones.  The slow 
response time of the ECAT driver would not constitute a thermal shock that 
could control the operation of its brothers.  An electric or gas heater can 
respond rapidly enough to achieve the desired results.
 
Perhaps I sound like a Rossi fan by continuing to support his claims while many 
of the other vorts seem to question them.  I guess my confidence in many of his 
statements is that they tend to be confirmable by my model performance.  If he 
were totally full of *** then why insist upon a COP that is reasonable, but 
low, when claiming a higher value would be advantageous?  How would extending 
this claim make him more of a dud?
 
Dave

Re: [Vo]:Important claims are patented or published as quickly as possible

Let’s use some Rothmen logic here. How can plasma be produced if the
temperature of the engine is just warm to the touch? How can 500 HP be
produced sustainably without the presence of huge external electrical feed
that is easily detectable?

Michael McKubre is a man of common sense; according to Mike, the internal
power source is either LENR or derived from the vacuum. All that power
coming from the vacuum would be hard to believe.

How can 500,000 watts come from the vacuum? So most probably LENR is
involved in powering the Papp engine.


Cheers:  Axil

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

  At 12:50 PM 8/30/2012, Axil Axil wrote:

  Michael McKubre said that the reason he believes completely in the
 reality of the Papp engine reaction for the last 14 years is that Papp ran
 a full demo of his engine in front of patent examiners to their total
 satisfaction using a dynamometer… it worked as advertised. On the strength
 of this demo, the patent office was forced to give Papp a patent on his
 engine.


 Is that documented anywhere? (googling doesn't give any quick, definitive
 links). Are patent office communications archived?


  The Papp engine is the only LENR device that has ever been patented.


 Since it depends on a plasma, I'd call it Hot fusion.

[Vo]:[OT] Stellar Wind

In the name of homeland security from the Gray Lady op:

http://www.nytimes.com/video/2012/08/22/opinion/10001733041/the-program.html

T

Re: [Vo]:Important claims are patented or published as quickly as possible

 Correction: Rothmen logic should have been Jed Rothwell logic…
as demonstrated in the touch test by an observer of a hot Rossi reactor to
prove over unity and life after death during late stage of the demo
conducted by Rossi just before the last public October demo/test conducted
by/for the Government. Remember? This man jumped when he burnt his
fingers after he touched a hot reactor surface.
Cheers: Axil





On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Let’s use some Rothmen logic here. How can plasma be produced if the
 temperature of the engine is just warm to the touch? How can 500 HP be
 produced sustainably without the presence of huge external electrical feed
 that is easily detectable?

 Michael McKubre is a man of common sense; according to Mike, the internal
 power source is either LENR or derived from the vacuum. All that power
 coming from the vacuum would be hard to believe.

 How can 500,000 watts come from the vacuum? So most probably LENR is
 involved in powering the Papp engine.


 Cheers:  Axil

 On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

  At 12:50 PM 8/30/2012, Axil Axil wrote:

  Michael McKubre said that the reason he believes completely in the
 reality of the Papp engine reaction for the last 14 years is that Papp ran
 a full demo of his engine in front of patent examiners to their total
 satisfaction using a dynamometer… it worked as advertised. On the strength
 of this demo, the patent office was forced to give Papp a patent on his
 engine.


 Is that documented anywhere? (googling doesn't give any quick, definitive
 links). Are patent office communications archived?


  The Papp engine is the only LENR device that has ever been patented.


 Since it depends on a plasma, I'd call it Hot fusion.

Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
 Those are pretty tough questions for a device that is generating fission,
 fusion, chemical and possibly some forms of collapsed matter, all with
 different reaction kinetics, time constants and instabilities...

Someone is beating you to the draw:

http://www.darksideofgravity.com/DG_neutrinos.pdf

T

Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...

2012-08-30 Thread mixent

In reply to  Akira Shirakawa's message of Thu, 30 Aug 2012 01:32:07 +0200:
Hi,

One drawback I foresee is that by packing them all together in a small
container, he is making it difficult to replace an individual unit on the fly.
IOW it may be difficult to extract a single defective unit while keeping the
rest running. That implies losing the only advantage that exists by ganging
multiple small units together to form a large one.


On 2012-08-30 00:31, Jojo Jaro wrote:

 I did some rough calculations.  With diameter of the cylinder at 1.2 m,
 the area is 1.13 m2.  Assuming that the coolant pipes take up about 50%
 if this area, and fitting remaining area with 100 reactors.   Each
 reactor would have a diameter of 4.2 cm.  Each 4.2 cm dia. reactor would
 be producing 10KW.

I think the diameter of each reactor is supposed to be that of the model 
shown in the leaked photo some time back, which was of 9 cm.
By the way, I've seen suggested around that this design vaguely reminds 
that of CANDU nuclear fission reactors (at a much smaller scale). See 
here: http://www.nucleartourist.com/type/candu2.htm

Cheers,
S.A.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency


Some model concepts:

First, if we assume that there is a functional relationship between the power 
output of a mass of Rossi's material and the temperature to which it is 
subjected there will be a slope to that curve around the operating temperature. 
 A test fixture might be constructed that allows us to heat the material to a 
desired temperature and then measure the total power output with a calorimeter. 
 The ideal fixture would have a very low value of thermal resistance to ambient 
so that the material being tested would not become unstable and overheat.

We would construct the desired curve by taking the difference between the total 
output power and the drive, which we usually refer to as excess power.  If 
lucky, the curve can be constructed over a large range of temperature, 
especially covering the region of operation for the ECAT.

My model allows me to choose any functional relationship that is measured.  I 
have conducted test runs on linear, second, third, forth, and exponential 
functions.  All seem to behave in a similar manner, but it is evident that the 
higher order curves make things more critical to adjust, but not impossible.  
It would be grand if the actual curve associated with Rossi's combination of 
mix and gas were measured.

Once a curve has been chosen, there are important parameters that define the 
behavior of the system.  The first derivative of the curve defines a form of 
gain that ties a differential change in temperature to a differential change in 
output power.  This can be translated to mean that a 1 degree change in 
temperature causes a 10 (example) watt change in output power at some 
temperature.  If the thermal resistance of the ECAT is set to .1 degree K per 
watt then a product of the two yields 1.  This is the critical temperature 
where the device becomes unstable.  A noise level increase in device 
temperature results in a larger drive which proceeds toward some upper power 
point where the device either self destructs or limits.

The process is slowed down by the necessity to heat the device materials as the 
temperature increases.  This is where my model has a thermal capacity as a 
parameter.  The real world devices also take time to heat up which allows the 
control waveform to function.

This model behavior thus has several characteristics that mimic real life.  
First, a certain minimum amount of heat must be delivered to the active core in 
order to allow the combined system to reach the critical temperature.  
Operation below the critical temperature results in very low COP, which is not 
desired.  The demonstration of Celani's device was an example of operation 
within this region.

So we choose a drive power that allows the device to reach critical temperature 
and a bit extra for control.  The drive is applied and the temperature rises 
and the critical point is reached where the positive feedback takes over.  At 
this time, the temperature begins an exponential rise toward infinity.  The 
heat output increases rapidly due to the high order dependency.

The output power ramps ups and we decide that it is time to reverse the 
direction of the temperature curve.  A carefully timed drive power drop to zero 
is orchestrated and the output power begins to fall downward toward zero.  The 
stop timing is critical if we are to have a high COP.   A super carefully timed 
edge can result in a long delay period where the output power is just barely 
heading downward.  This of course will result in a large COP, but the stability 
would be difficult to maintain.  I prefer to have margin in my model runs and 
accept a reasonable COP, where 6 is fairly typical as in Rossi's statements.

The power output is heading downward after the reversal and that is again 
reversed by the reapplication of the drive waveform.  The process repeats from 
this point forward.

Operation of the device is restricted to be within the unstable positive 
feedback region if one is interested in a reasonable COP.  I tend to keep the 
output power near the upper point of no return so that the COP is maintained 
less than 10, but more than 6.

I wanted to mention one observation that is fairly important.  If you set the 
upper turn around timing extremely critically, it is possible to get a very 
large COP.  The reason is that the time constants associated with the thermal 
resistance and capacitance become quite large.  The timing is as critical as it 
is large however and the system is balanced upon a sharp edge.  It typically 
does not take long for the positive feedback to dominate and the curve begins a 
rapid decent.

I hope this helps to explain the model I am using for my simulations.

Dave

Re: [Vo]:Important claims are patented or published as quickly as possible


Sounds like a pretty effective test.  It is apparent that the Papp device, if 
real, is not a heat engine due to the cool touch.  I suspect LENR activity 
working in conjunction with some form of electric motor behavior.  The axial 
magnetic field would give the ions a twist in direction that would induce a 
circulating current within the piston and opposing cap.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 6:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Important claims are patented or published as quickly as 
possible


Correction: Rothmen logic should have been JedRothwell logic… 
as demonstrated in the touch test by an observer of a hot Rossireactor to prove 
over unity and life after death during late stage of the demo conducted by 
Rossijust before the last public October demo/test conducted by/for the 
Government. Remember? This man jumped when he burnt his fingers after he 
touched a hot reactor surface.
Cheers: Axil
 
 



On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

Let’s use some Rothmen logic here. How can plasma be produced if the 
temperature of the engine is just warm to the touch? How can 500 HP be produced 
sustainably without the presence of huge external electrical feed that is 
easily detectable?
 
Michael McKubre is a man of common sense; according to Mike, the internal power 
source is either LENR or derived from the vacuum. All that power coming from 
the vacuum would be hard to believe.
 
How can 500,000 watts come from the vacuum? So most probably LENR is involved 
in powering the Papp engine.
 
 
Cheers:  Axil



On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:


At 12:50 PM 8/30/2012, Axil Axil wrote:


Michael McKubre said that the reasonhe believes completely in the reality of 
the Papp engine reaction for thelast 14 years is that Papp ran a full demo of 
his engine in front ofpatent examiners to their total satisfaction using a 
dynamometer… itworked as advertised. On the strength of this demo, the patent 
office wasforced to give Papp a patent on his engine.


Is that documented anywhere? (googling doesn't give any quick, 
definitivelinks). Are patent office communications archived?



The Papp engine is the only LENRdevice that has ever been patented.


Since it depends on a plasma, I'd call it Hot fusion.

Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency

2012-08-30 Thread Jojo Jaro

In-situ HRTEM obeservations of CNT tip growth in a small gas-reaction CVD cell 
of nickel nanoparticle catalyst reveal that the nickel nanoparticle was 
changing shape indicating that they were in liquid form at a temperature of 
600C.  I suspect iron nanoparticles would also be in liquid state very near 
this temperature; and forget about copper, it would be melted at much lower 
temps.

That is why I am still of the opinion that Rossi's 1000C or 1200C ecats, if 
real, must be Carbon nanostructure based.  No metal nanoparticle NAE, cavity, 
voids, and vacancies will survive 1000C, let alone 1200C without signiificant 
deformations of the nanocavities that house your NAE.  Even refractory metals 
like tungsten in nanopowder form would probably start sintering and migrating 
at these levels.

Can anyone think of a metal in nanopowder form that will not start to sinter at 
1200C?  Only carbon nanostructures will survive these temps.

Hence, when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains however improbable 
must be the truth.  Rossi's cats MUST be carbon nanostructure-based.  And once 
more, time will prove me right about this.



Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: ChemE Stewart 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:49 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency


  Nanopowder typically melts at lower temperatures than its equivalent solid.


  On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

  Does the maximum level of external temperature spike ever get above 1450C 
at any point?

Ah. Google tells me that is the melting point of Ni . . .


Actually, you cannot get close to a melting point without bad stuff 
happening. Sintering and local melting. The temperature is not likely to be 
uniform.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...

I like D here; He has 83 people working for him in his company. Delegating
reactor packaging to a mechanical engineering group seems reasonable to me
because this activity does not involve entrusting the secret sauce to
somebody else.

Cheers:  Axil

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 If Rossi says he is shocked this could mean more things:

 a) he is not shocked but knows that some shocks are good in a story,
 b) be he is not shocked but wants the reader be shocked;
 c) he is sincerely shocked because he has found something unexpected,
 surprised,
 d) he has now a team working for him and the team indeed has found
 something new

 No possibility of realist choice here.

 Peter


 On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:17 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 Actually, I hope you are wrong.  We need these systems ASAP.

 Dave
  -Original Message-
 From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 7:29 am
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...

  I find it extremely difficult to take anything AR says seriously.  His
 research seems to be advancing too fast even if he does have
 assistance from the NRL, which I doubt would be taking place in a
 warehouse in Italy.

 Just my opinion.  I could be wrong.

 T





 --
 Dr. Peter Gluck
 Cluj, Romania
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Important claims are patented or published as quickly as possible

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:10 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 It is all the same effect aided by quantum level gravitational attraction
 finishing the collapse.

 I am going to continue pounding that thought into everyone's collective
 brains.

 Stewart
 http://wp.me/p26aeb-4



ChemE, I have a suggestion:

Rather than pounding that thought into everyone's collective brains
obsessively -- which is more likely to merely annoy than to persuade
(especially given the vast number of theories for all manner of phenomena
people have continually pounded into their brains by various proponents) --
how about if your put forth a hypothetical situation, based on your theory,
that can be tested with minimum cost?

[Vo]:Important claims are patented or published as quickly as possible

Papp/rohners mentioned it starts overheating above 2800 rpm.  If the effect
releases a large spectrum of radiation/charged particles only a portion
might get absorbed locally resulting in heat.  The rest might pass right
out of the device after also propelling the piston

On Thursday, August 30, 2012, David Roberson wrote:

 Sounds like a pretty effective test.  It is apparent that the Papp device,
 if real, is not a heat engine due to the cool touch.  I suspect LENR
 activity working in conjunction with some form of electric motor behavior.
 The axial magnetic field would give the ions a twist in direction that
 would induce a circulating current within the piston and opposing cap.

 Dave
  -Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 6:13 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Important claims are patented or published as quickly as
 possible

   Correction: Rothmen logic should have been Jed Rothwell logic…
 as demonstrated in the touch test by an observer of a hot Rossi reactor to
 prove over unity and life after death during late stage of the demo
 conducted by Rossi just before the last public October demo/test conducted
 by/for the Government. Remember? This man jumped when he burnt his
 fingers after he touched a hot reactor surface.
  Cheers: Axil




 On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Let’s use some Rothmen logic here. How can plasma be produced if the
 temperature of the engine is just warm to the touch? How can 500 HP be
 produced sustainably without the presence of huge external electrical feed
 that is easily detectable?

 Michael McKubre is a man of common sense; according to Mike, the internal
 power source is either LENR or derived from the vacuum. All that power
 coming from the vacuum would be hard to believe.

 How can 500,000 watts come from the vacuum? So most probably LENR is
 involved in powering the Papp engine.


 Cheers:  Axil

   On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

  At 12:50 PM 8/30/2012, Axil Axil wrote:

  Michael McKubre said that the reason he believes completely in the
 reality of the Papp engine reaction for the last 14 years is that Papp ran
 a full demo of his engine in front of patent examiners to their total
 satisfaction using a dynamometer… it worked as advertised. On the strength
 of this demo, the patent office was forced to give Papp a patent on his
 engine.


  Is that documented anywhere? (googling doesn't give any quick,
 definitive links). Are patent office communications archived?


  The Papp engine is the only LENR device that has ever been patented.


  Since it depends on a plasma, I'd call it Hot fusion.

Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency

I hear what you are saying JoJo, but Rossi says he will use natural gas
only for external power in  his 1200C reactor. This means that the reactor
is still thermionic in nature (No nanotubes). He could be using tungsten
carbide as the micro powder(4 microns) to avoid sintering.


Cheer: Axil

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 **
 In-situ HRTEM obeservations of CNT tip growth in a small gas-reaction CVD
 cell of nickel nanoparticle catalyst reveal that the nickel nanoparticle
 was changing shape indicating that they were in liquid form at a
 temperature of 600C.  I suspect iron nanoparticles would also be in liquid
 state very near this temperature; and forget about copper, it would be
 melted at much lower temps.

 That is why I am still of the opinion that Rossi's 1000C or 1200C ecats,
 if real, must be Carbon nanostructure based.  No metal nanoparticle NAE,
 cavity, voids, and vacancies will survive 1000C, let alone 1200C without
 signiificant deformations of the nanocavities that house your NAE.  Even
 refractory metals like tungsten in nanopowder form would probably start
 sintering and migrating at these levels.

 Can anyone think of a metal in nanopowder form that will not start to
 sinter at 1200C?  Only carbon nanostructures will survive these temps.

 Hence, when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains however
 improbable must be the truth.  Rossi's cats MUST be carbon
 nanostructure-based.  And once more, time will prove me right about this.



 Jojo




 - Original Message -
 *From:* ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 3:49 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature
 Dependency

 Nanopowder typically melts at lower temperatures than its equivalent solid.

 On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


  Does the maximum level of external temperature spike ever get above
 1450C at any point?

 Ah. Google tells me that is the melting point of Ni . . .

 Actually, you cannot get close to a melting point without bad stuff
 happening. Sintering and local melting. The temperature is not likely to be
 uniform.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...

Or it might be that after 3 years he does not yet have a stable reactor,
like DGT, Rohners, Terrawatt, etc.  these things might last for a short
period of time for a demo but then break down in short order.  They run
just long enough to show a patent officer or inspector or investor...

On Thursday, August 30, 2012, Axil Axil wrote:

 Many viral infections are successful in infecting other hosts because
 these pathogens delay symptoms until they have had an almost certain
 opportunity to spread. Evolution has proven that such a delaying survival
 tactic allows the pathogen to survive and prosper, ADS and influenza are
 examples of the “kept  it quiet” infection strategy.

 Rossi is using this dormancy infection strategy to imbed his product
 deeply in the marketplace before it can be stuffed out by a countering
 competitive eradication procedure by another form of energy production.  .



 Cheers:  Axil


 On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Jed Rothwell 
 jedrothw...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'jedrothw...@gmail.com');
  wrote:

 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'cheme...@gmail.com'); wrote:

 Of course I agree with Jed.  This is the same plague that effects all of
 these devices.


 Well, not the small scale cold fusion devices at places like SRI, thank
 goodness. They are established beyond any rational doubt.

 If I may be a little more serious about Rossi . . . It is clear to me
 that his policy is the same as Patterson's was. He does not want
 credibility. He *does not want* people to know for sure that his device
 is real -- or that it is fake. (I assume it is real, mainly because there
 are a growing number of credible nanoparticle Ni-H results.)

 Rossi has repeatedly gone out of his way to prevent people from
 independently confirming his claims. People including me. I could have
 verified it to a far greater extent than it has been so far. I could have
 done this easily in a few hours. He knows I could have. He put his foot
 down. Let me repeat with emphasis, and let me make this clear: he told me
 and he told several other people that *he will he will never allow
 independent public testing*.

 I and many others have proposed such tests. We could arrange them in a
 few days. He says no tests! He means it. He only allows tests that will
 remain secret under NDAs. As I have said here before, I know of some secret
 tests. I never publish things without permission. The last thing I need is
 to have researchers upset with me. I get in enough trouble with Rossi and
 others when I say the sort of thing I am saying here, in this message.

 I assume Rossi cultivates this ambiguity for the same reason Patterson
 did. I doubt it is because he is trying to cover up a fraud, and I can't
 think of any other reasons. Patterson and Reding both told me they wanted
 most people to think they were wrong, or crazy, or frauds, because that
 gave them 100% market share. I told him Patterson he would end up with
 100% of nothing. Needless to say, he took his technology and his market
 share to the grave with him. I predicted he would. I predict Rossi will do
 the same thing if he persists with this strategy. There is no chance you
 can keep this secret to the extent he is trying to do yet also achieve
 commercial success.

 Rossi and Patterson also shunned mass media exposure. No kidding. They
 went out of their way to make themselves look bad in the mass media. This
 is a business strategy, not lunacy. It is a lousy strategy, in my opinion.
 It usually fails.

 Defkalion has done the same thing, by the way. Last January they said
 they wanted tests with the results made public. Apparently they changed
 their minds, or they changed the schedule. As far as I know, all tests done
 since then have been under restrictive NDAs. I do not know if any of these
 NDAs have a time limit. A little information has leaked out despite the
 NDAs. As far as I can tell the tests have been unimpressive. But who knows?
 Until they publish a complete independent data set, you don't know whether
 their claims are valid. I see no point to speculating. It is a waste of
 time trying to suss out information people do not want you to have.

 Generally speaking, in my experience, the value of a technical claim is
 inversely proportional to the level of secrecy applied to it.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Important claims are patented or published as quickly as possible

2012-08-30 Thread Jeff Berkowitz

A patent is not the only way to protect an idea. In practice, trade secret
law may be more important. This is particularly true when the idea to be
protected is not the product itself, but the process used to produce it.

Consider the high-K metal gate process used by Intel at the 45nm and 32nm
nodes. Intel published a small amount of information about the process when
they introduced it. And competitors have undoubtedly reverse engineered the
results, determining the precise geometries and elemental makeup of the
devices.

But they do not know the process used to produce them. They are forced to
hypothesize about the process technology and then test each hypothesis.
Certainly, knowing the final result is a huge advantage over having to
dream it up in the first place. But reverse engineering the manufacturing
process is still daunting, even for engineers already skilled in the art.

I think there may be analogies in LENR. Now frankly in the long run, I
don't expect this fact to be especially significant. If this stuff plays
out as some of us hope, the economic incentive will ensure that what can be
done, will be done, and quickly. If it doesn't play out, there are no
useful secrets to protect.

But trade secrecy may have a large effect on the likelihood of people like
me, a curious non-specialist, ever being able to satisfy my curiosity about
what the heck is going on. Bummer.  ;-)

Jeff, speaking for myself.
I have never been employed by Intel or had access to any Intel trade-secret
information through NDA or anything like that.

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 I wrote:


 Generally speaking, in my experience, the value of a technical claim is
 inversely proportional to the level of secrecy applied to it.


 I am not being cynical. Well, not completely cynical. In technology, when
 you make an important claim you file a patent. A patent must reveal
 everything or it is invalid. In pure science, when you make an important
 breakthrough you rush to publish it as soon as possible to establish
 priority.

 Sometimes, foolish people make what they think is an important
 breakthrough and they try to keep it secret. These breakthroughs are
 usually mistakes or stuff that everyone knows already.

 Howard Aiken's dictum applies: Don't worry about people stealing your
 ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's
 throats.

 - Jed

[Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency

Terry,

That is a good paper that I need to reference.  I see it more like alot of
different research/results are pointing us in a common direction.  I am
trying to piece together alot of observations and other theories, some from
astro physics and some from nuclear physics and some from just plain old
engineering sense  logic.

Unexpectedly, I have also scared myself a bit by what I think the reaction
might be,  what it implies and how to make it safe when you scale it up.
 There is a reason that it is taking taking decades to produce a device
that is stable.  Many very smart people have built devices that worked at
one time and yet they were not able to make it to market.  I also see some
health issues that concern me with some of the people most involved in the
past.

Interestingly, I came across an article from around the year 2000 or so
that mentioned Jed and also mentioned Frank Z. telling Ed Storms he thought
there was a link between cold fusion, superconductivity and gravity.  I
think Frank was right and Ed is still looking primarily at a nuclear fusion
reaction.

Sometimes I think scientists seem so bent on one theory that fits their
discipline that they close their eyes to others.

Just the way I see it.

Stewart


On Thursday, August 30, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote:

 On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
  Those are pretty tough questions for a device that is generating fission,
  fusion, chemical and possibly some forms of collapsed matter, all with
  different reaction kinetics, time constants and instabilities...

 Someone is beating you to the draw:

 http://www.darksideofgravity.com/DG_neutrinos.pdf

 T

Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency

2012-08-30 Thread Jojo Jaro

Axil,  This study concludes that tungsten sintering starts at 800-900C

http://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/td/239/

In particular, check out this statement

Densification of tungsten and tungsten with 10 weight percent ceria begins 
between 800 and 900 ºC and densities greater than 90% can be achieved at 
temperatures as low as 1500 ºC.

I don't know about you but they have confirmed the start of Densification 
(read: sintering and atom migration), at 800-900C. These are for micron-sized 
tungsten powders.

No, my firend, not even Tungsten will make a suitable metal lattice NAE if 
Rossi's cats are indeed operating at 1200C.

Also, I don't believe the leaked pictures.  It is quite convenient for 
Fioravanti to be involved in the leak.  I think Rossi was the one who 
authorized the release of that Leaked photo to misdirect.  I don't think that 
leaked photo has anything to do with his real cats.  Using gas for heating is 
also questionable.  I think Rossi is feeling the heat from other replicators 
that he needs to quickly misdirect with this leaked photo and gas nonsense. 

Even this 1200C operating temp might be a misdirection, cause this is beginning 
to look more and more impossible considering the thermal properties of many 
metals.  A stainless steel reactor at 1200C would not be able to hold much 
pressure, let alone hydrogen at these temps and high pressures.  Hydrogen 
embrittlement attack rates at these temps accelerate rapidly.

Whatever thermionic catalyst he had in his original cats would be useless at 
1200C, that's for sure.  So, his process must be radically different now. 

Once again, if you accept that Rossi is operating at 1200C, then you have to 
accept the logical conclusion stemming from that statement, that is, that he is 
using Carbon nanostructures.

 

Jojo

 

  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 7:18 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency


  I hear what you are saying JoJo, but Rossi says he will use natural gas only 
for external power in  his 1200C reactor. This means that the reactor is still 
thermionic in nature (No nanotubes). He could be using tungsten carbide as the 
micro powder(4 microns) to avoid sintering. 



  Cheer: Axil


  On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

In-situ HRTEM obeservations of CNT tip growth in a small gas-reaction CVD 
cell of nickel nanoparticle catalyst reveal that the nickel nanoparticle was 
changing shape indicating that they were in liquid form at a temperature of 
600C.  I suspect iron nanoparticles would also be in liquid state very near 
this temperature; and forget about copper, it would be melted at much lower 
temps.

That is why I am still of the opinion that Rossi's 1000C or 1200C ecats, if 
real, must be Carbon nanostructure based.  No metal nanoparticle NAE, cavity, 
voids, and vacancies will survive 1000C, let alone 1200C without signiificant 
deformations of the nanocavities that house your NAE.  Even refractory metals 
like tungsten in nanopowder form would probably start sintering and migrating 
at these levels.

Can anyone think of a metal in nanopowder form that will not start to 
sinter at 1200C?  Only carbon nanostructures will survive these temps.

Hence, when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains however 
improbable must be the truth.  Rossi's cats MUST be carbon nanostructure-based. 
 And once more, time will prove me right about this.



Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: ChemE Stewart 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:49 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency


  Nanopowder typically melts at lower temperatures than its equivalent 
solid.


  On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com 
wrote:

Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

  Does the maximum level of external temperature spike ever get above 
1450C at any point?

Ah. Google tells me that is the melting point of Ni . . .


Actually, you cannot get close to a melting point without bad stuff 
happening. Sintering and local melting. The temperature is not likely to be 
uniform.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...

Item E   Independent test showed no anomalous energy.

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 7:35 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...

I like D here; He has 83 people working for him in his company. Delegating 
reactor packaging to a mechanical engineering group seems reasonable to me 
because this activity does not involve entrusting the secret sauce to 
somebody else.
Cheers:  Axil

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

If Rossi says he is shocked this could mean more things:

a) he is not shocked but knows that some shocks are good in a story,
b) be he is not shocked but wants the reader be shocked;
c) he is sincerely shocked because he has found something unexpected, surprised,
d) he has now a team working for him and the team indeed has found something new

No possibility of realist choice here.

Peter 

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:17 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Actually, I hope you are wrong.  We need these systems ASAP.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 7:29 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...

I find it extremely difficult to take anything AR says seriously.  His
research seems to be advancing too fast even if he does have
assistance from the NRL, which I doubt would be taking place in a
warehouse in Italy.

Just my opinion.  I could be wrong.

T

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:51 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Sometimes I think scientists seem so bent on one theory that fits their
 discipline that they close their eyes to others.

When a scientist becomes an expert in his field, he has his entire
life invested in the paradigm.  It becomes a thing of faith mistaken
for knowledge.  It would take an epiphany tantamount to a blind man
suddenly gaining sight to change.  It's a great individual that can
admit his entire life's work was flawed.  It rarely happens.

T

Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency

Thanks Stewart,


Yes,  I have been saying the same thing for quite a while.  Miley showed a long 
time ago that is was the fission of a compound nucleus.  Many nucleons acting 
as one.  How can that be?  The nucleus are of  Fermi meter dimensions and the 
inter nuclear spacing is in angstroms?


Once again the only way is if the range of the strong nuclear force is 
extended.  My analysis suggests that the spin orbit nuclear-magnetic effect is 
the actor.  I am an Electrical Engineer and I think in terms of fields and 
forces.  Nuclear physicists think in therms of particle like nucleons. I know 
the magnetic force is not conserved.  The spin orbit force must by analogy also 
be non-conservative. The magnetic field is extend within soft iron.  I believe 
that the nuclear spin orbit force is extended within a vibrating inverse Bose 
condensate.  A condensate of protons.  For some reason over the last few days 
my book has started selling.  The article on IE produced no sales.  I know not 
why.


http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8field-author=Frank%20Znidarsicie=UTF8search-alias=bookssort=relevancerank




The mathematics also produced the quantum condition and a unification of 
Special Relativity and quantum physics.
I completed this stuff 10 years ago and adjusted a little since.  My 
experiments have not produced any anomalous energy by I will soon try again 
with something different.


http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/913/Frank,%20Znidarsic%20(new)






Frank Znidarsic









Interestingly, I came across an article from around the year 2000 or so that 
mentioned Jed and also mentioned Frank Z. telling Ed Storms he thought there 
was a link between cold fusion, superconductivity and gravity.  I think Frank 
was right and Ed is still looking primarily at a nuclear fusion reaction.


Sometimes I think scientists seem so bent on one theory that fits their 
discipline that they close their eyes to others.


Just the way I see it.


Stewart






-Original Message-
From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 8:22 pm
Subject: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency


Terry,


That is a good paper that I need to reference.  I see it more like alot of 
different research/results are pointing us in a common direction.  I am trying 
to piece together alot of observations and other theories, some from astro 
physics and some from nuclear physics and some from just plain old engineering 
sense  logic.


Unexpectedly, I have also scared myself a bit by what I think the reaction 
might be,  what it implies and how to make it safe when you scale it up.  There 
is a reason that it is taking taking decades to produce a device that is 
stable.  Many very smart people have built devices that worked at one time and 
yet they were not able to make it to market.  I also see some health issues 
that concern me with some of the people most involved in the past.


Interestingly, I came across an article from around the year 2000 or so that 
mentioned Jed and also mentioned Frank Z. telling Ed Storms he thought there 
was a link between cold fusion, superconductivity and gravity.  I think Frank 
was right and Ed is still looking primarily at a nuclear fusion reaction.


Sometimes I think scientists seem so bent on one theory that fits their 
discipline that they close their eyes to others.


Just the way I see it.


Stewart




On Thursday, August 30, 2012, Terry Blanton  wrote:

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
 Those are pretty tough questions for a device that is generating fission,
 fusion, chemical and possibly some forms of collapsed matter, all with
 different reaction kinetics, time constants and instabilities...

Someone is beating you to the draw:

http://www.darksideofgravity.com/DG_neutrinos.pdf

T

[Vo]:gravity, genesis and cold fusion


a version of this was published in IE in 1995.


http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter5.html

Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency

When I see/read something like the following

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

I think that the magnetic fields created across a void/gap due to charge
concentrations must align the condensate atoms such that the repulsion
between atoms within the condensate is reduced further allowing quantum
gravity to then trigger a collapse and instant, intense radiation and heat
release. I think the effect is most likely enhanced by external
pressure/repulsion from the lattice on the condensate, ultra high densities
and total charge accumulation. I am a chemical guy so think less about
magnetic fields but that seems to an important parameter. Based on that
Papp engine and terrawatt engines I think a lattice is optional, magnetic
field induced across a metallic gap definitely.

Stewart

On Thursday, August 30, 2012, wrote:

Thanks Stewart,

Yes, I have been saying the same thing for quite a while. Miley showed
a long time ago that is was the fission of a compound nucleus.
Many nucleons acting as one. How can that be? The nucleus are of Fermi
meter dimensions and the inter nuclear spacing is in angstroms?

Once again the only way is if the range of the strong nuclear force is
extended. My analysis suggests that the spin orbit nuclear-magnetic effect
is the actor. I am an Electrical Engineer and I think in terms of fields
and forces. Nuclear physicists think in therms of particle like nucleons.
I know the magnetic force is not conserved. The spin orbit force must by
analogy also be non-conservative. The magnetic field is extend within soft
iron. I believe that the nuclear spin orbit force is extended within a
vibrating inverse Bose condensate. A condensate of protons. For some
reason over the last few days my book has started selling. The article on
IE produced no sales. I know not why.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8field-author=Frank%20Znidarsicie=UTF8search-alias=bookssort=relevancerank

The mathematics also produced the quantum condition and a unification of
Special Relativity and quantum physics.
I completed this stuff 10 years ago and adjusted a little since. My
experiments have not produced any anomalous energy by I will soon try again
with something different.

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/913/Frank,%20Znidarsic%20(new)

Frank Znidarsic

Interestingly, I came across an article from around the year 2000 or so
that mentioned Jed and also mentioned Frank Z. telling Ed Storms he thought
there was a link between cold fusion, superconductivity and gravity. I
think Frank was right and Ed is still looking primarily at a nuclear fusion
reaction.

Sometimes I think scientists seem so bent on one theory that fits their
discipline that they close their eyes to others.

Just the way I see it.

Stewart

-Original Message-
From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'cheme...@gmail.com');
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'vortex-l@eskimo.com');
Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 8:22 pm
Subject: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency

Terry,

That is a good paper that I need to reference. I see it more like alot
of different research/results are pointing us in a common direction. I am
trying to piece together alot of observations and other theories, some from
astro physics and some from nuclear physics and some from just plain old
engineering sense logic.

Unexpectedly, I have also scared myself a bit by what I think the
reaction might be, what it implies and how to make it safe when you scale
it up. There is a reason that it is taking taking decades to produce a
device that is stable. Many very smart people have built devices that
worked at one time and yet they were not able to make it to market. I also
see some health issues that concern me with some of the people most
involved in the past.

Sometimes I think scientists seem so bent on one theory that fits their
discipline that they close their eyes to others.

Just the way I see it.

Stewart

On Thursday, August 30, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote:

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
wrote:
Those are pretty tough questions for a device that is generating
fission,
fusion, chemical and possibly some forms of collapsed matter, all with
different reaction kinetics, time constants and instabilities...

Someone is beating you to the draw:

http://www.darksideofgravity.com/DG_neutrinos.pdf

[Vo]:Its all in the questions you ask




Subject: Its all in the questions you ask


The questions asked by Storms, Miley, Widdom Larson, and just abut every 
nuclear scientist and person on this list are:


How is the electrostatic repulsion of the nucleons overcome at low energy?


Why does the transit over the potential barrier not emit high energy radiation 
or involve lots of neutrons?


...


The question asked by Znidarsic alone for 15 years and with little recognition 
is:


Under what condition will the nuclear magnetic spin orbit force be expelled 
beyond a cluster of nucleons?


The electromagnetic Meissner effect shows that this effect lies within the 
conservation laws.  Uo = zero
The extenuation of the spin orbit field beyond the electromagnetic will 
overcome the potential barrier without producing radiation.
The effect will be Miley's compound nucleus with all of the results some of you 
have demanded.




The condition has also produced the energy levels of the hydrogen atom, the 
intensity of spectral emission and the energy and frequency of a the photon.  
What  a big deal I thought 10 years ago.  Today I don't think or work on it any 
more, no one believes it, however, it is correct.  It also leads to 
technologies that produce a strong gravitomagnetic field. 


Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency

2012-08-30 Thread Eric Walker

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 I wanted to mention one observation that is fairly important.  If you set
 the upper turn around timing extremely critically, it is possible to get a
 very large COP.  The reason is that the time constants associated with the
 thermal resistance and capacitance become quite large.  The timing is as
 critical as it is large however and the system is balanced upon a sharp
 edge.  It typically does not take long for the positive feedback to
 dominate and the curve begins a rapid decent.


It sounds like your model suggests that it is fairly easy to have a power
excursion that sinters the substrate if the device is operated at too high
a temperature.  I wonder whether this is behind Defkalion's using discrete
spikes spikes in the input power rather than a continuous drive.  Perhaps
they find this eliminates some of the feedback problem.

Are you including a stochastic component in the temperature as a function
of the input power?  If you do, I suspect the model will have to be
operated at a lower average temperature than if the model were purely
deterministic.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency