[Vo]:Ni-62 patent application
Hi, If you go to https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP08873805lng=entab=doclist then select 15.04.2013 Reply to communication from the Examining Division and load all pages I get the distinct impression that Ni-62 was made specific in order to distinguish this patent application from others, IOW in order to obtain a patent at all. I get the impression that Rossi is trying to get a patent without disclosing his secret sauce, and the patent office isn't happy about it. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released - Angels on a pin
and that water flow calorimetry is required... (heard it too). so there is no way to please them. that is on purpose. exhausting. 2013/5/20 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Debunkers will say water flow calorimetry conceals a trick. Harry On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:31 PM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.comwrote: There might be a dozen reasons why NOT water flow calorimetry, but the big thing here is, why bother? They get a torrent of heat, *easily* shown by IR to be far, far more than any that accepted science can explain away, and you want that last decimal place? The question that was answered is, *is it real*? The answer is binary, two-state, accuracy is not a factor. But I think what you are really saying is that somehow hot water trumps IR, in the gut perhaps. It's not separated from common sense basement engineering by several exponential equations. And I think you are right in this, at least for a portion of the (persuadable) critics. Ol' Bab On 5/20/2013 12:04 PM, Jones Beene wrote: But the main issue - why they did not perform water flow calorimetry? That is a major question that needs to be answered after all of these months. Instead of removing doubts, which they could have done with water flow - they merely added more doubts.
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
it is done. good prediction. 2013/5/21 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Mary Yugo will claim that Rossi alone is doing this, and the scientists are being duped. That can only mean he has a magical ability to change the reading in a clamp-on ammeter, a voltmeter, and an IR camera that is not even touching his cell.
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Mary Yugo is indeed the bravest skeptic- she commented a lot on my blog. Very inspiring mode of thinking. Others (Cude?) have much slower reactions. Peter On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: it is done. good prediction. 2013/5/21 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Mary Yugo will claim that Rossi alone is doing this, and the scientists are being duped. That can only mean he has a magical ability to change the reading in a clamp-on ammeter, a voltmeter, and an IR camera that is not even touching his cell. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
A bright analysis, dear Jed! An anticipated answer to the paid killers (only Mary Yugo has surfaced till now, brave girl sui generis) I would gladly invite you to extend this writing to a *guest editorial *for my blog, even if you had not accepted the LENR vs LENR+ dichotomy till now. Cousin Peter On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree Jed. They did this the right way and it will be difficult for anyone to prove otherwise. You mention the cooling time shape not being that associated with normal processes which agrees with the model that I constructed earlier. In an ideal world with a very high COP the cooling curve would hesitate at the maximum temperature point for a relatively long time before beginning its decline. The trick is to come close to a zero slope at the initial point but ensure that the curve is always falling after the heating resistance is un powered. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 20, 2013 10:10 pm Subject: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a single thing I wish they had checked but did not. In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees away from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but rather than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if all surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first set of tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly, casting a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than into account. Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics and others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the nature of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no adjustments for it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an electrically heated cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It is hands-off in the literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching the cell, and the rest at a distance, including the clamp on ammeter which placed below the power supply. You do not have to know anything about the reaction to be sure these measurements are right. There is nothing Rossi could possibly do to fool these instruments, which the authors brought with them. They left a video camera on the instruments at all times to ensure there was no hanky-panky. They wrote: The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements themselves. They estimate the extent to which the heat exceeds the limits of chemistry by both the mass of the cell and the volume of the cell. In the first test, they use the entire weight of the inside cell as the starting point, rather than just the powder, as if stainless steel might be the reactant. In the second test they determine that the powder weighs ~0.3 g but they round that up to 1 g. They use Martin Fleischmann's favorite method of looking at the heat decay curves when the power cycles off. Plot 5 clearly shows that the heat does not decay according to Newton's law of cooling. There must be a heat producing reaction in addition to the electric heater. I like it! - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Just one question to all the experts around. can you correct my reasoning. I'm not experienced in that domain. The report claim a COP above 5 in one experiments. My goal is to rule-out COP=1 since the measure is done by thermography I think naively that to explain such an error : - one way to be wrong would be to make a temperature error. since power in in T^4, error is 5^1/4, about 1.5, thus +50%/-33%, assuming no convection. - Error on convection alone should be even greater because it grow less than T^4. - Error on emissivity alone should be of 5:1 change between the blank and the loaded run. thus you should have an optimal accumulation of huge temperature error (few ten percent of temp, thus hundreds of degrees), and few units of emissivity change between, and some convection to help the total... moreover the problem have been addressed with some measures (like the black dots) Am I reasoning well ? is COP=1 ruled out ? and from the measures of energy density it seems that even COP=1.1 cannot be chemical. it is the tea kettle the skeptics were asking? of course they are no more satisfied... 2013/5/21 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com Mary Yugo is indeed the bravest skeptic- she commented a lot on my blog. Very inspiring mode of thinking. Others (Cude?) have much slower reactions. Peter On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: it is done. good prediction. 2013/5/21 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Mary Yugo will claim that Rossi alone is doing this, and the scientists are being duped. That can only mean he has a magical ability to change the reading in a clamp-on ammeter, a voltmeter, and an IR camera that is not even touching his cell. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
From Peter: ... (only Mary Yugo has surfaced till now, ... Where? A link? What did she say? Someone should start a thread pointing to what the Rossi skeptics, like Cude, Yugo, or S. Krivit have decided to say about these latest developments. I haven't been able to find anything. so far. Related to this, browsing New Energy Time shows me nothing new. Krivit's site has two No Cold Fusion graphic logos plastered on the front page related to two topics: University LENR Expert No Longer Believes in Cold Fusion, and for Retired NRL LENR Expert No Longer Believes in Cold Fusion. It still baffles me why Krivit felt the need to go after the term CF as if it was a pinata and his words are the stick. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Comment on my blog to this most recent paper. My answers to Mary I wrote to Steve Krivit signalling this Report, no answer. I sincerely fear this very talented journalist is depresed obsessed, who knows... Peter On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:38 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: From Peter: ... (only Mary Yugo has surfaced till now, ... Where? A link? What did she say? Someone should start a thread pointing to what the Rossi skeptics, like Cude, Yugo, or S. Krivit have decided to say about these latest developments. I haven't been able to find anything. so far. Related to this, browsing New Energy Time shows me nothing new. Krivit's site has two No Cold Fusion graphic logos plastered on the front page related to two topics: University LENR Expert No Longer Believes in Cold Fusion, and for Retired NRL LENR Expert No Longer Believes in Cold Fusion. It still baffles me why Krivit felt the need to go after the term CF as if it was a pinata and his words are the stick. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/ -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl)
Hi Ed, I got lost trying to address everything so am just going to focus on this paragraph [snip] Just how the field can cause a force is difficult to explain. Photons obviously do not work as an explanation. Now you suggest that the force is related to gravity and inertia. This seems to be an odd kind of force to invoke. Gravity passes right through ordinary matter yet, if it causes the Casimir force, it can apparently transfer momentum when a small gap is created. Inertia only occurs when the velocity of mass is changed. I see no connection between the behaviors.[/snip] I feel your pain because the creation of a real photon is one of the possibilities that suppression of vacuum wavelengths can lead to as demonstrated by recent experiments with SQUIDS cited by Jones.. It can also lead to anomalous radioactive decay of gases exposed to the confinement. According to Cavity QEDhttp://th-www.if.uj.edu.pl/acta/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf by Zofia Bialynicka-Birula it also breaks the isotropy of gravity meaning gas atoms will receive the changes in momentum as they pass between regions with different gravitational constants - at the macro scale it would be like force fields we could step thru where gravity is different on each side.. the agitation we feel stepping between gravity fields is analogues to DCE or catalytic action. The theory that space inside a Casimir cavity modifies gravity was first proposed by Di Fiore et all in a 2002 paper Vacuum fluctuation force on a rigid Casimir cavity in a gravitational fieldhttp://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0109091. They proposed the possibility of verifying the equivalence principle for the zero-point energy of quantum electrodynamics, by evaluating the force, produced by vacuum fluctuations, acting on a rigid Casimir cavity in a weak gravitational field. Their calculations show a resulting force has opposite direction with respect to the gravitational acceleration. They stacked numerous cavities in an attempt to modify macro gravity but were unable to prove their claims.. My posit of a relativistic interpretation of Casimir force would agree that their experiment should have failed because suppression only segregates vacuum pressures and for every concentrated region in a cavity there will be an equal and opposite diluted region dispersed over the exterior area of the plates to balance out any bias from accumulating. The opportunity is there to expose physical matter such as gas atoms to these regions in a biased manner to accumulate effects but the cavities themselves will always balance out to zero. My posit is that these vacuum wavelengts are electromagnetic but traveling transverse to our 3D plane and thereby escape any Faraday caging, intersecting with all physical matter in our universe as if we were an ant farm or thin ribbon. When a 3d cavity is suppressed to near 2d these wavelengths can somewhat modify their angle of incidence to this ribbon in the same manner as an object with a velocity approaching C changes it's angle of incidence in a Pythagorean relationship to C. All the clues say these are relativistic effects but we are reluctant to embrace all that implies... Regards Fran From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 10:38 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl) Fran, I combined your two responses. As I understand, an attraction is measured between two materials, which is sensitive to the kind of material and the distance between them. That is the only observation on which this complex theory is based. Chemical attraction is known to occur, but assumptions are made about how to subtract this force. People assume that corrections have been properly made for the chemical force. If no other explanation had been suggested, all of the force would have been attributed to chemical attraction. But, people want to assume that something exists in vacuum space that can be detected. So they assume some of this force is caused by this proposed energy field. Just how the field can cause a force is difficult to explain. Photons obviously do not work as an explanation. Now you suggest that the force is related to gravity and inertia. This seems to be an odd kind of force to invoke. Gravity passes right through ordinary matter yet, if it causes the Casimir force, it can apparently transfer momentum when a small gap is created. Inertia only occurs when the velocity of mass is changed. I see no connection between the behaviors. If the gap has a critical size, quantum interference is proposed to stop a flux of something, thereby creating an unbalanced force. But, the field does not interact with ordinary material, so how does the force become unbalanced such that it will interact with the atoms in the material? In addition, if a flux of something is stopped, where does its energy go? If something is
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
This is Krivit's reaction on the Forbes article: Steven B. Krivit http://blogs.forbes.com/people/stevenbkrivit/9 hours ago This is a partially independent measurement, performed on a device that was built by and controlled by Rossi, and located in Rossi’s facility. The measurement was performed by some of the parties that have been involved in this scam since 2011. The fact that the authors of the paper have stated that they have performed an independent test is a significant misrepresentation and would qualify as research misconduct by some organizations. Steven B. Krivit Publisher and Senior Editor, New Energy Times Editor-in-Chief, 2011 Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Comment on my blog to this most recent paper. My answers to Mary I wrote to Steve Krivit signalling this Report, no answer. I sincerely fear this very talented journalist is depresed obsessed, who knows... Peter On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:38 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: From Peter: ... (only Mary Yugo has surfaced till now, ... Where? A link? What did she say? Someone should start a thread pointing to what the Rossi skeptics, like Cude, Yugo, or S. Krivit have decided to say about these latest developments. I haven't been able to find anything. so far. Related to this, browsing New Energy Time shows me nothing new. Krivit's site has two No Cold Fusion graphic logos plastered on the front page related to two topics: University LENR Expert No Longer Believes in Cold Fusion, and for Retired NRL LENR Expert No Longer Believes in Cold Fusion. It still baffles me why Krivit felt the need to go after the term CF as if it was a pinata and his words are the stick. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/ -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Here you've used average emissivity. I think a rock-bottom lower bound (or something along those lines) would use ε=1. I do not readily see a way to extract such a calculation for the March 2013 run from the data presented in the paper. I guess you can look it up. However, they measured the temperature on the surface with thermocouples and found they agreed with the IR camera to within 3°C. The difference can be explained by the tape used to hold the thermocouple to the surface acting as insulation. So obviously the IR camera settings are correct. Understood. Sometimes its helpful to get a lower bound that is beyond conservative . . . If you go too far you begin to make absurd assumptions, such as maybe the room temperature is actually close to 60°C, or maybe their ammeter is way off, or Rossi secretly changed the ammeter when no one was looking. You could go on all day spinning maybe, what if, suppose. Another thing I forgot to mention is that they ignore heat from the ends of the cylinder and from the large flange. I'll bet those two would add ~100 W. They also left out the effect of the cylinder walls being at an angle, as they did in the first test. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
According to this they had to build a new E-cat from scratch and test it on a continent where Rossi has no access (Antarctica for example) Hatred poisons the intellect, Krivit is really obsessed. Peter On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.comwrote: This is Krivit's reaction on the Forbes article: Steven B. Krivit http://blogs.forbes.com/people/stevenbkrivit/9 hours ago This is a partially independent measurement, performed on a device that was built by and controlled by Rossi, and located in Rossi’s facility. The measurement was performed by some of the parties that have been involved in this scam since 2011. The fact that the authors of the paper have stated that they have performed an independent test is a significant misrepresentation and would qualify as research misconduct by some organizations. Steven B. Krivit Publisher and Senior Editor, New Energy Times Editor-in-Chief, 2011 Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: Comment on my blog to this most recent paper. My answers to Mary I wrote to Steve Krivit signalling this Report, no answer. I sincerely fear this very talented journalist is depresed obsessed, who knows... Peter On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:38 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: From Peter: ... (only Mary Yugo has surfaced till now, ... Where? A link? What did she say? Someone should start a thread pointing to what the Rossi skeptics, like Cude, Yugo, or S. Krivit have decided to say about these latest developments. I haven't been able to find anything. so far. Related to this, browsing New Energy Time shows me nothing new. Krivit's site has two No Cold Fusion graphic logos plastered on the front page related to two topics: University LENR Expert No Longer Believes in Cold Fusion, and for Retired NRL LENR Expert No Longer Believes in Cold Fusion. It still baffles me why Krivit felt the need to go after the term CF as if it was a pinata and his words are the stick. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/ -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever! -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Gasp! Why this Cold Fusion thing is clearly some sort of conspiracy !!!
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Chris, some 4 years ago you wrote something about Paul Feyerabend. What would this philosopher say about the slogan of ICCF-18? I need your help for a blog paper. if you want to help please write me in private. Peter On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** Gasp! Why this Cold Fusion thing *is clearly some sort of conspiracy !!! * -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Ni-62 patent application
mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I get the impression that Rossi is trying to get a patent without disclosing his secret sauce, and the patent office isn't happy about it. I doubt they care. It would not be a valid patent if he does not disclose everything he knows. I do not know whether they reject the application or whether it would be rejected at the first challenge, but it would be dead as a door nail. David French can tell us. Rossi has other, valid patents, so he knows the rules. I don't understand why he even bothered filing the ones I saw before. Maybe as placeholders? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: - one way to be wrong would be to make a temperature error. since power in in T^4, error is 5^1/4, about 1.5, thus +50%/-33%, assuming no convection. Yes, temperature measurement is critical. That is why they checked the surface temperature with a thermocouple to confirm the IR camera is set correctly. In the previous test, they just assumed emissivity is 1, meaning as bad as it can be. It makes no sense to assume no convection. There has to be convection. Also, as you see in Fig. 10, the flange is large and it must be radiating and convecting a lot of heat. They did not try to measure that. On p. 20 they say unaccounted for heat losses were 58 W out of 810 W during the calibration with joule heating. 7%. Actually, that is remarkably good accounting for a system like this. Am I reasoning well ? is COP=1 ruled out ? I think so, but actually even if the COP was exactly 1, that would indicate excess heat. You would not expect it to be better than 0.93 as shown by the 7% loss during calibration. - Jed
[Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test
[Here is a message I posted in 2011] Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test Villa reported no gamma emissions or other radiation significantly above background from the Rossi device. Celani, however, said that he did detect something. Here are the details he related to me at ICCF16, from my notes and with corrections from Celani. Celani attended the demonstration on Jan. 14. The device did not work at first. He and others were waiting impatiently in a room next to the room with the device. He estimates that he was around 6 m from the device. He had two battery-powered detectors: 1. A sodium iodide gamma detector (NaI), set for 1 s acquisition time. 2. A Geiger counter (model GEM Radalert II, Perspective Scientific), which was set to 10 s acquisition time. Both were turned on as he waited. The sodium iodide detector was in count mode rather than spectrum mode; that is, it just tells the number of counts per second. Both showed what Celani considers normal background for Italy at that elevation. As he was waiting, suddenly, during a 1-second interval both detectors were saturated. That is to say, they both registered counts off the scale. The following seconds the NaI detector returned to nomal. The Geiger counter had to be switched off to “delete” the “overrange,” which was 7.5 microsievert/hour, and later switched on again. About 1 to 2 minutes after this event, Rossi emerged from the other room and said the machine just turned on and the demonstration was underway. Celani commented that the only conventional source of gamma rays far from a nuclear reactor would be a rare event: a cosmic ray impact on the atmosphere producing proton storm shower of particles. He and I agreed it is extremely unlikely this happened coincidentally the same moment the reactor started . . . Although, come to think of it, perhaps the causality is reversed, and the cosmic ray triggered the Rossi device. Another scientist said perhaps both detectors malfunctioned because of an electromagnetic source in the building or some other prosaic source. Celani considers this unrealistic because he also had in operation battery-operated radio frequency detectors: an ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) and RF (COM environmental microwave monitor), both made by Perspective Scientific. No radio frequency anomalies were detected. I remarked that it is also unrealistic because the two gamma detectors are battery powered and they work on different principles. The scientist pointed to neutron detectors in an early cold fusion experiment that malfunctioned at a certain time of day every day because some equipment in the laboratory building was turned on every day. That sort of thing can happen with neutron detectors, which are finicky, but this Geiger counter is used for safety monitoring. Such devices have to be rugged and reliable or they will not keep you safe, so I doubt it is easy to fool one of them. Celani expresses some reservations about the reality of the Rossi device. Given his detector results I think it would be more appropriate for him to question the safety of it. When Celani went in to see the experiment in action, he brought out the sodium iodide detector and prepared to change it to spectrum mode, which would give him more information about the ongoing reaction. Rossi objected vociferously, saying the spectrum would give Celani (or anyone else who see it), all they need to know to replicate the machine and steal Ross's intellectual property. Celani later groused that there is no point to inviting scientists to a demo if you have no intentions of letter them use their own instruments. (Note, however, that Levi et al. did use their own instruments.) Jacques Dufour also attended the demonstration. He does not speak much Italian, so he could not follow the discussion. He made some observations, including one that I consider important, namely that the outlet pipe was far too hot to touch. That means the temperature of it was over 70 deg C. That, in turn, proves there was considerable excess heat. McKubre and others have said the outlet temperature sensor was too close to the body of the device. Others have questioned whether the steam was really dry or not. If the question is whether the machine really produced heat or not, these factors can be ignored. All you need to know is the temperature of the tap water going in (15°C), the flow rate and the power input (400 W). At that power level the outlet pipe would be ~30°C. Celani points out that the input power was quite unstable, fluctuating between 400 and 800 W, but it was still not large enough to explain the excess heat. Celani did not see the steam emerge from the end of the pipe, but he reported the whistling sound of steam passing through the pipe. I think there is no question the water boiled, and much of it was vaporized, so there was massive excess heat. Celani complained that phase-change calorimetry is too complicated, but
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
I wrote: Another thing I forgot to mention is that they ignore heat from the ends of the cylinder and from the large flange. I'll bet those two would add ~100 W. Okay, unaccounted for losses during the calibration at 810 W were 58 W. Not ~100 W. The calibration was stepped up through various power levels, including 810 W. (Maybe they went higher, but this was the closest step to the output during the test with powder.) The output during the run with powder was estimated at 816 W, conservatively, which is close to 810 W. They comment that the surface temperatures and temperature distribution were remarkably close to what was seen during the calibration. So that means losses unaccounted for were ~58 W. Actual output was more like ~868 W. A realistic COP would be 868 / 322 = 2.7. The same as Eq. 36. In any real-world scenario, if there was no excess heat, the COP would have been less than 1. You can never recover all the heat. Using conservative estimates as they did, you never get close. As I said, the COP would be about 0.93 based on the calibration. There is no way these measurements could be off by a factor of 3. That is, 290% too high. I would be surprised if they were too high by more than 10%. Too low by 10% would not surprise me at all. This method is somewhat crude but it is based on first principles and it is reliable. People have been using emissivity and IR cameras to estimate heat output for a long time. It is well established engineering physics. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
If there is an afterlife, Feyerabend might be laughing at anything that suggests 'method' ! If I had the time and skills, I'd write a blog/book on what I call Atheist Theology - a deliberate oxymoron. If science is wholly based on reductionism and materialism, then it is functionally atheistic. But if that's the case, why not adopt the view that the Cosmos is a patchwork - and that it doesn't have to be consistent? That it may rely on paradoxes? Theorists seem to enjoy spinning theories that are 'elegant', 'beautiful' - is this view justified - or useful? The subject seemed to be close to the heart of Einstein, who rejected a personal Deity, but still sought order and elegance. I'm interested in emergent phenomena - things that may not have any further explanation: ghosts, poltergeists, etc. In regard to Cold Fusion ( and much else), I'm blown away by the fanatical insistence on theory above all reality. To paraphrase a current slogan: 'it's here, it's queer, get used to it'
[Vo]:Krivit pulls the ladder up behind him
At the Forbes site, Krivit takes no prisoners, and leaves himself no path of retreat: This is a partially independent measurement, performed on a device that was built by and controlled by Rossi, and located in Rossi’s facility. The measurement was performed by some of the parties that have been involved in this scam since 2011. The fact that the authors of the paper have stated that they have performed an independent test is a significant misrepresentation and would qualify as research misconduct by some organizations. From Moby-Dick, Chapter viii, THE PULPIT . . .Halting for an instant at the foot of the ladder, and with both hands grasping the ornamental knobs of the man-ropes, Father Mapple cast a look upwards, and then with a truly sailorlike but still reverential dexterity, hand over hand, mounted the steps as if ascending the main-top of his vessel. The perpendicular parts of this side ladder, as is usually the case with swinging ones, were of cloth-covered rope, only the rounds were of wood, so that at every step there was a joint. At my first glimpse of the pulpit, it had not escaped me that however convenient for a ship, these joints in the present instance seemed unnecessary. For I was not prepared to see Father Mapple after gaining the height, slowly turn round, and stooping over the pulpit, deliberately drag up the ladder step by step, till the whole was deposited within, leaving him impregnable in his little Quebec. I pondered some time without fully comprehending the reason for this. Father Mapple enjoyed such a wide reputation for sincerity and sanctity, that I could not suspect him of courting notoriety by any mere tricks of the stage. No, thought I, there must be some sober reason for this thing; furthermore, it must symbolize something unseen. Can it be, then, that by that act of physical isolation, he signifies his spiritual withdrawal for the time, from all outward worldly ties and connexions? Yes, for replenished with the meat and wine of the word, to the faithful man of God, this pulpit, I see, is a self-containing stronghold -- a lofty Ehrenbreitstein, with a perennial well of water within the walls. . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere... Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device: Maybe The World Will Change After All 31 comments, 0 called-out http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/#comments_header Comment Nowhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/#comment_reply Follow CommentsFollowing CommentsUnfollow Comments javascript://follow Comment Nowhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/#comment_reply Follow CommentsFollowing CommentsUnfollow Comments javascript://follow [image: Italiano: Schema della cella di Piantelli-Foca...]http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Piantelli_Focardi_schema_reattore_01_it.jpg Back in October 2011 I first wrotehttp://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2011/101411-backspin-251983.htmlabout Italian engineer, Andrea Rossi, and his E-Cat project, a device that produces heat through a process called a Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR). Very briefly, LENR, otherwise called cold fusion, is a technique that generates energy through low temperature (far lower than hot fusion temperatures which are in the range of tens off thousands of degrees) reactions that are not chemical. Most importantly, LENR is, theoretically, much safer, much simpler, and many orders of magnitude cheaper than hot fusion. Rather than explaining LENR in detail here please see my original postinghttp://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2011/101411-backspin-251983.htmlfor a more complete explanation. My next posthttp://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/17/hello-cheap-energy-hello-brave-new-world/on this topic was here on Forbes a few days later and, as the labyrinthine and occasionally ridiculous saga developed, I tried to sort fact from fiction in a series of posts (see the list at the end of this posting) which covered everything from unconvincing demos, through an Australian businessman offering Rossi $1 million to show independently tested proof, to other players in the LENR market showing interesting results. I haven’t posted about Rossi and his E-Cat since last August simply because there wasn’t much to report other than more of Rossi’s unsupported and infuriating claims that included building large-scale automated factories to churn out millions of E-Cats (the factories still have no sign of actually existing) through to unsubstantiated performance claims that sounded far too good to be true. What everyone wanted was something that Rossi has been promising was about to happen for months: An independent test by third parties who were credible. This report was delayed several times to the point where many were wondering whether it was all nothing more than what we have come to see as Rossi’s usual “jam tomorrow” promises. But much to my, and I suspect many other people’s surprise, a report by credible, independent third parties is exactly what we got. Published on May 16, the paper titled “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913” would appear to deliver what we wanted. The paper was authored by Giuseppe Levihttp://www.unibo.it/Faculty/default.htm?TabControl1=TabRicercaUPN=giuseppe.levi%40unibo.itof Bologna University, Bologna, Italy; Evelyn Foschi http://www.linkedin.com/pub/evelyn-foschi/5/7b8/645, Bologna, Italy; Torbjörn Hartmanhttp://katalog.uu.se/simpleinfo/?languageId=1id=N96-5170, Bo Höistad http://katalog.uu.se/empInfo/?languageId=1id=XX1060, Roland Pettersson http://katalog.uu.se/empInfo/?id=XX1360 and Lars Tegnér http://katalog.uu.se/empInfo/?languageId=1id=N9-1431of Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; and Hanno Essénhttp://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hanno_Essen/, of the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. While some of these people have previously been public in their support of Rossi and the E-Cat they are all serious academics with reputations to loose and the paper is detailed and thorough. The actual test reactor, called the E-Cat HT, was described by the testers as: … a high temperature development of the original apparatus which has also undergone many construction changes in the last two years – is the latest product manufactured by Leonardo Corporation: it is a device allegedly capable of producing heat from some type of reaction the origin of which is unknown. They described the E-Cat HT as: … a cylinder having a silicon nitride ceramic outer shell, 33 cm in length, and 10 cm in diameter. A second cylinder made of a different ceramic material (corundum) was located within the shell, and housed three delta-connected spiral-wire resistor coils. Resistors were laid out horizontally, parallel to and equidistant from the
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
On 2013-05-21 04:09, Jed Rothwell wrote: I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. [...] Luboš Motl seems to think otherwise, but I think he's adopted an excessively negative view probably due to personal bias against CF/LENR in general: http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-impressed-by-cold-fusion.html Tommaso Dorigo is another apparently highly regarded skeptic who isn't exactly convinced by the latest paper by Levi et al.: http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/cold_fusion_real-112511 I hope you'll have fun debating with them. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
OK Peter, let's explore the dynamic creation process you suggest. First, a condition must be present that allows the NAE to form by release of Gibbs energy. If this condition exists, than it will not decompose under the same condition. The condition must change before the NAE can decompose. This requirement is basic to a chemical process. Consequently, the two different conditions must be created in the material by some process that fluctuates between these conditions for your proposal to function.In addition, the formation and destruction process must remain in balance because otherwise the process will stop once all the NAE are destroyed. Second a limited amount of the material would be susceptible to this change. This means sooner or later the material will stop making NAE. This means the heat production process has a lifetime that would be determined by how fast the NAE is destroyed and remade, and the amount of material present. Presumably the NAE is not made in exactly the same place in the same material where it previously had been destroyed. If what you say is true, the CF process will not be useful because it will not last very long. On the other hand, my theory predicts that stress is created by various processes applied initially to the material and it is relieved by formation of a fixed number of active sites. These sites are very stable once they fill with hydrons. The stability is created by the structure that forms in the gap, which I call the Hydroton because this is very chemically stable. It converts to a nuclear product which diffuses out while other Hydrotons form. As a result, the gap is always filled and maintained. Some Hydrotons are in the fusion process while others are forming. Hydrogen diffuses in while the nuclear reaction products diffuse out. This is a continuous process once it starts. A continuous long lasting process can only result if the nuclear product can leave the NAE. That is why transmutation can not be the source of energy. The transmutation products are fixed and can not leave,. As a result, eventually the Ni in the NAE will become fully converted to Cu, which apparently shows no indication of forming the next product as result of p addition. As a result, only a very limited amount of the Ni in the sample is available to make the proposed product. This means such a process would have a very limited lifetime. The duration of the Rossi e-Cat at high temperature can only be explained by a continuous and stable process. The NAE he creates must be formed at a temperature at which Gibbs energy can be released and remain stable thereafter regardless of a change in conditions. A continuous destruction and reformation process does not occur in a chemical system unless it is exactly at equilibrium, which the Rossi system clearly is not. Peter, I assume all the laws of chemical behavior apply to the formation of the NAE. You and other people assume the NAE can behave in conflict with these laws. That is the basic difference between my approach and everyone else. I do not know if this conflict results because people do not understand the laws of chemical behavior or because they simply assume they do not apply. Nevertheless, this is one reason for the conflict. Ed Storms On May 20, 2013, at 9:52 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Ed, You got the idea, NAE/active sites are NOT stable, they come, work or not and go, and come again incessantly. A dynamic vision, not a static one is necessary. Peter On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: No matter what is said, Yugo and others will distort the comments to agree with their belief. If we accept Rossi, we are stupid and deceived. If we criticize Rossi, this is used to show that Rossi is wrong. They do not even attempt to understand what part of a claim may be real. They simply reject all claims that CF is real. The method of evaluating the energy described in the paper may be correct. However, given the importance and the skepticism, I would have expected a thermocouple would have been placed on the device to check the measured temperature. I would have hoped the device would have been placed in a container from which the total power generated could be measured. These are not difficult or complicated things to do. Why are half measures repeatedly used? Why must we have to debate details that are easy to eliminate as issues? Maybe the NAE is not cracks. Nevertheless, something must be produced in the material that is not in normal material. Creating this condition must follow the laws of chemistry and be stable at high temperatures. You claim that Yiannis has told me what condition is required to form the NAE. He claims the surface structure of the Ni is the required condition. This does not make any sense because that structure in not
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
It seems that by the table provided concerning the emissivity of metals, dark materials are within .85 - .95% even at 1000C. So, the 10% error, claimed by the paper, is accurate. 2013/5/21 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com On 2013-05-21 04:09, Jed Rothwell wrote: I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. [...] Luboš Motl seems to think otherwise, but I think he's adopted an excessively negative view probably due to personal bias against CF/LENR in general: http://motls.blogspot.com/**2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-** impressed-by-cold-fusion.htmlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-impressed-by-cold-fusion.html Tommaso Dorigo is another apparently highly regarded skeptic who isn't exactly convinced by the latest paper by Levi et al.: http://www.science20.com/**quantum_diaries_survivor/cold_** fusion_real-112511http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/cold_fusion_real-112511 I hope you'll have fun debating with them. Cheers, S.A. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Ni-62 patent application
Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com mailto:mix...@bigpond.com If you go to https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP08873805lng=entab= doclist I get the distinct impression that Ni-62 was made specific in order to distinguish this patent application from others, IOW in order to obtain a patent at all I get the impression that Rossi is trying to get a patent without disclosing his secret sauce, and the patent office isn't happy about it. Robin, The motivation you ascribe to Rossi makes little legal sense (not that we can be assured that Rossi fits into the category of a rational person). Nickel-62 is the secret-sauce, now fully disclosed. Given that his wife is a lawyer and understands patent law and the importance of enforceability, and that trade secrets cannot be kept anyway, there is no attempt to manipulate the system here. She apparently handles the business end of Rossi's endeavors - as evidenced by the sale of his other business ventures, which she handled. Even if Rossi does not get good outside advice on everything, we have to assume he is getting proper legal advice from his wife. Having an unenforceable patent in the USA is almost worse than having none at all, since you have wasted so much money in the process that you present an aura of weakness to anyone who wishes to copy your product. Almost every major product will have novelty - so that salient details can be protected - but if you try to patent a non-existent feature, or over-extend your novelty - then you are essentially telling the court: I have no novelty worth protecting. His wife has no doubt seen and studied the impressive BLP portfolio of Intellectual Property - and she knows that it makes no sense to challenge that prior art. This patent is very specific, and is probably fully enforceable about the use of one isotope. Yet - for some reason, even Rossi's supporters balk at this suggestion, despite its obviousness. They apparently resist the implications of a rare isotope, because of a preconceived notion about the larger field of LENR providing almost limitless and free energy. This segment of Rossi supporters is so idealistic about going beyond what is now becoming obvious in the public record that they can be called isotope deniers. In terms of psychology (human nature) the answer must be that they (isotope deniers) want LENR to be not only proved, but also to be proved in a way that makes all their other notions about its low cost and ability to quash fossil fuel - true, as well. Nevertheless, the reality of the recent Levi paper in the context of the recent final Rossi patent disclosure, appears to be: 1) LENR is real and robust when an enriched isotope of nickel-62 is provided 2) LENR in therefore partially dependent on the availability of a rare isotope, although the effect can be demonstrated less reliably without it (using plain nickel). The bottom line: who wants an unreliable system? No even BLP. 3) Even though the nickel isotope will be brought down in cost, eventually, in the same way that U235 was, LENR may not propel society as rapidly into the lofty realms that supporters had forecast... which is to immediately and drastically limit oil consumption. The advantage will be with LENR in the long run, but it will be less apparent. 4) The Rossi-effect can still make a huge - massive - qualitative difference - 10 years down the road and beyond, but it will not be simple, nor will it be as cheap as it once seemed. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Haven't commented here in a while, pretty excited that after a couple of years of Rossi's shenanigans it's all perhaps about to happen. But I come from a hard test and measurement background (mechanical and electrical engineer, specialising in thermodynamics) and am by nature quite skeptical, so while compelling I am still not totally satisfied with this demo in Rossi's own facilities using Rossi's own equipment and setup. That is singularly because it relies upon Rossi being honest - something of which I am not totally assured given his history (I thought his Mat Lewans demo looked distinctly dodgy, and some of his others weren't great either). And I can think of a number of ways of cheating to get heat into the reactor: Altering the electrical measurement equipment supplied, fiber optic lasers hidden in cable, two-strand wires inside wired clamped ammeters (no net current), infrared, uv, x-ray, or radio frequency heat sources directed at reactor from afar, delivering combustible fuel into reactor via wires/cables (0.05g/s for 2000W). Probably most of these could be ruled out by the observers present, but as they are associates of Rossi I really don't know if they were looking for such. It would have been a far better approach for Rossi to engage aggressively skeptical testers to do the job. http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/power-analyzer-pce-holding-gmbh-power-analyzer-pce-830-1-det_60706.htm Anyway I look forward to more demos in preferably neutral locations to assuage my concerns. On 21 May 2013 14:44, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: - one way to be wrong would be to make a temperature error. since power in in T^4, error is 5^1/4, about 1.5, thus +50%/-33%, assuming no convection. Yes, temperature measurement is critical. That is why they checked the surface temperature with a thermocouple to confirm the IR camera is set correctly. In the previous test, they just assumed emissivity is 1, meaning as bad as it can be. It makes no sense to assume no convection. There has to be convection. Also, as you see in Fig. 10, the flange is large and it must be radiating and convecting a lot of heat. They did not try to measure that. On p. 20 they say unaccounted for heat losses were 58 W out of 810 W during the calibration with joule heating. 7%. Actually, that is remarkably good accounting for a system like this. Am I reasoning well ? is COP=1 ruled out ? I think so, but actually even if the COP was exactly 1, that would indicate excess heat. You would not expect it to be better than 0.93 as shown by the 7% loss during calibration. - Jed
[Vo]:[Vo] substitutes?
Ni-62 If we assume that speculation about Rossi is correct, what materials other than Ni-62 could be used? If it is p + X reaction, what other isotopes other than Ni62 could be used?Or perhaps it is really a p+p reaction with Ni-62 donating something??? Anyone have any suggestions? Dennis
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
2013/5/21 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com http://motls.blogspot.com/**2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-** impressed-by-cold-fusion.htmlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-impressed-by-cold-fusion.html Tommaso Dorigo is another apparently highly regarded skeptic who isn't exactly convinced by the latest paper by Levi et al.: I don't think I am going to read the paper with more attention than I already used with it; this is not my field of research so I would not learn much more anyway. But I must say I will from now on follow more closely the developing story of Rossi's E-CAT... I see they are starting to call themselves out as being not competent in the field. Like saying they do not know. That's a good sign. mic
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
2013/5/21 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com http://motls.blogspot.com/**2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-** impressed-by-cold-fusion.htmlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-impressed-by-cold-fusion.html Tommaso Dorigo is another apparently highly regarded skeptic who isn't exactly convinced by the latest paper by Levi et al.: The following argument is complete nonsense and stops me from reading the full article. No one, unless writing a book that requires complex mathematical notation is so foul to use TeX instead of LaTeX. If one does it means that he spends more time studying TeX than doing his homework. This is a (even if fundamental) report not a mathematical essay so using a wysiwyg word processor suffice. A technical or sociological detail that doesn't *prove* that the preprint is rubbish but it's always a brightly shining and blinking red light for me is that the physics.gen-ph preprint was delivered as PDF onlyhttp://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf and it wasn't written in TEX. That makes it very likely that the authors don't actually know TEX and most of such authors don't really know physics well, either.2013/5/21 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-impressed-by-cold-fusion.html Tommaso Dorigo is another apparently highly regarded skeptic who isn't exactly convinced by the latest paper by Levi et al.: 2013/5/21 Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com 2013/5/21 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com http://motls.blogspot.com/**2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-** impressed-by-cold-fusion.htmlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-impressed-by-cold-fusion.html Tommaso Dorigo is another apparently highly regarded skeptic who isn't exactly convinced by the latest paper by Levi et al.: I don't think I am going to read the paper with more attention than I already used with it; this is not my field of research so I would not learn much more anyway. But I must say I will from now on follow more closely the developing story of Rossi's E-CAT... I see they are starting to call themselves out as being not competent in the field. Like saying they do not know. That's a good sign. mic
RE: [Vo]:substitutes?
From: DJ Cravens Ni-62 If we assume that speculation about Rossi is correct, what materials other than Ni-62 could be used? If it is p + X reaction, what other isotopes other than Ni62 could be used? Or perhaps it is really a p+p reaction with Ni-62 donating something??? Anyone have any suggestions? This is an important point - is there a substitute for Ni-62? The best way to approach the subject is to look at the isotope and ask - is there anything which is unique about this species? Then, if the answer is yes we must ask - how does the unique property materialize in the gainful reaction? As to the first part - yes - Ni-62 is a singularity in the periodic table, being the one isotope with the highest binding energy per nucleon of all known nuclides (~8.8 MeV per) ... and yet here it is being identified as active for the anomalous energy Rossi claims to have found with hydrogen. On the one hand, if there is true gain in this device primarily due to properties of this isotope - being a singularity could be an important clue. OTOH it is most surprising that the physical property for which it derives its uniqueness - is the opposite of what one logically expects in the situation. That property, which is highest binding energy means the isotope is the most stable. What is the next most stable? That would be an iron isotope, but iron could have chemical properties which interfere with the nuclear reaction As for Part-2 of the inquiry... which is why ... this has been addressed piecemeal in prior postings, and I will collect these, with revisions, in another posting. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
I would shorten the title from “Applying the Scientific Method to Understanding Anomalous Heat Effects: Opportunities and Challenges.” to “Understanding Anomalous Heat Effects: Opportunities and Challenges.” Harry On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Chris, some 4 years ago you wrote something about Paul Feyerabend. What would this philosopher say about the slogan of ICCF-18? I need your help for a blog paper. if you want to help please write me in private. Peter On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** Gasp! Why this Cold Fusion thing *is clearly some sort of conspiracy !!! * -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
The original German title of Feyerabend's book is Wider den Methodenzwang. Skizzen einer anarchistischen Erkenntnistheorie. The standard English translation is Against Method. Outline Of An Anarchist Theory of Knowledge I have been told by someone who speaks German that a better translation is Against the Dictates of Method. Outline Of An Anarchist theory Of Knowledge Harry On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** If there is an afterlife, Feyerabend might be laughing at anything that suggests 'method' ! If I had the time and skills, I'd write a blog/book on what I call Atheist Theology - a deliberate oxymoron. If science is wholly based on reductionism and materialism, then it is functionally atheistic. But if that's the case, why not adopt the view that the Cosmos is a patchwork - and that it doesn't have to be consistent? That it may rely on paradoxes? Theorists seem to enjoy spinning theories that are 'elegant', 'beautiful' - is this view justified - or useful? The subject seemed to be close to the heart of Einstein, who rejected a personal Deity, but still sought order and elegance. I'm interested in emergent phenomena - things that may not have any further explanation: ghosts, poltergeists, etc. In regard to Cold Fusion ( and much else), I'm blown away by the fanatical insistence on theory above all reality. To paraphrase a current slogan: 'it's here, it's queer, get used to it'
[Vo]:Stremmenos had some Rossi pixie-dust and made his own ecat
http://prometeon.it/news.php In Italian ... http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ittl=enjs=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8eotf=1u=http%3A%2F%2Fprometeon.it%2Fnews.php 18 / 5/13 - The direct testimony of Professor. Stremmenos For the first time in a long time, Christos Stremmenos, a physicist who worked on the development of the ' E -Cat and retired professor at the Department of Physical Chemistry, University of Bologna, he returned to public speaking LENR, and made at a conference on Energy Savings held in Bologna on 18 May, organized by the local Lions Club, with a popular talk entitled 'cold fusion or LENR: cheap energy and no environmental impact. ... Perhaps the most interesting of the intervention was to his testimony, unusual for the general public, on a test of an entirely different nature from the previous Eng. Rossi has made himself available to perform. In a reactor built by Stremmenos with a geometry and a technique different from those reactors Rossi, have been used dust normally used by ' E -Cat. The results have been very positive, and this was a further confirmation of the validity of the process. ...
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Kevin, Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under the concept of Fair Use) but posting my article in full to a list (and a public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. I'd be less annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, this is the Internet ... you can cite a link as Alan Fletcher did so people can get directly to the original article (which, BTW, has been updated). Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. William, please delete Kevin's post from the archive. Yours, Mark Gibbs. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere... On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Mark Gibbs has an article up : http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ (Shout-out and plot to ... guess who? )
RE: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test
Thank you Jed to remind me this exchange you had with Celani. I was not fully aware of every detail. When I was reading, an idea come to me mind. Could it be possible that the secret sauce of Rossi is a gamma emitter? I explain myself: Secretly, Rossi could have opened his reactor to adjust something inside then closed the reactor back. In the meantime, Celani detected an increase of gamma emission. A low frequency gamma (25~50 keV) could be easily shielded. If Rossi opened his reactor, then vacuum should be applied prior to reload with H2. The noise of a vacuum pump can not be hidden easily. Celani and al should have heard it as well. Rossi isnt fool to put air and H2 inside a closed vessel Unfortunately, we dont have the wavelength of the emission. I dont want to play the sceptic here. Can Celani say that he is sure that Rossi didnt open his reactor while they were waiting behind the door? _ From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: mardi 21 mai 2013 15:48 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test [Here is a message I posted in 2011] Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test Villa reported no gamma emissions or other radiation significantly above background from the Rossi device. Celani, however, said that he did detect something. Here are the details he related to me at ICCF16, from my notes and with corrections from Celani. Celani attended the demonstration on Jan. 14. The device did not work at first. He and others were waiting impatiently in a room next to the room with the device. He estimates that he was around 6 m from the device. He had two battery-powered detectors: 1. A sodium iodide gamma detector (NaI), set for 1 s acquisition time. 2. A Geiger counter (model GEM Radalert II, Perspective Scientific), which was set to 10 s acquisition time. Both were turned on as he waited. The sodium iodide detector was in count mode rather than spectrum mode; that is, it just tells the number of counts per second. Both showed what Celani considers normal background for Italy at that elevation. As he was waiting, suddenly, during a 1-second interval both detectors were saturated. That is to say, they both registered counts off the scale. The following seconds the NaI detector returned to nomal. The Geiger counter had to be switched off to delete the overrange, which was 7.5 microsievert/hour, and later switched on again. About 1 to 2 minutes after this event, Rossi emerged from the other room and said the machine just turned on and the demonstration was underway. Celani commented that the only conventional source of gamma rays far from a nuclear reactor would be a rare event: a cosmic ray impact on the atmosphere producing proton storm shower of particles. He and I agreed it is extremely unlikely this happened coincidentally the same moment the reactor started . . . Although, come to think of it, perhaps the causality is reversed, and the cosmic ray triggered the Rossi device. Another scientist said perhaps both detectors malfunctioned because of an electromagnetic source in the building or some other prosaic source. Celani considers this unrealistic because he also had in operation battery-operated radio frequency detectors: an ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) and RF (COM environmental microwave monitor), both made by Perspective Scientific. No radio frequency anomalies were detected. I remarked that it is also unrealistic because the two gamma detectors are battery powered and they work on different principles. The scientist pointed to neutron detectors in an early cold fusion experiment that malfunctioned at a certain time of day every day because some equipment in the laboratory building was turned on every day. That sort of thing can happen with neutron detectors, which are finicky, but this Geiger counter is used for safety monitoring. Such devices have to be rugged and reliable or they will not keep you safe, so I doubt it is easy to fool one of them. Celani expresses some reservations about the reality of the Rossi device. Given his detector results I think it would be more appropriate for him to question the safety of it. When Celani went in to see the experiment in action, he brought out the sodium iodide detector and prepared to change it to spectrum mode, which would give him more information about the ongoing reaction. Rossi objected vociferously, saying the spectrum would give Celani (or anyone else who see it), all they need to know to replicate the machine and steal Ross's intellectual property. Celani later groused that there is no point to inviting scientists to a demo if you have no intentions of letter them use their own instruments. (Note, however, that Levi et al. did use their own instruments.) Jacques Dufour also attended the demonstration. He does not speak much Italian, so he could not follow the discussion. He made
Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.0187v3 Casimir effect from macroscopic quantum electrodynamics Authors: T.G. Philbinhttp://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Philbin_T/0/1/0/all/0/1 (Submitted on 1 Mar 2011 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0187v1), last revised 9 Jun 2011 (this version, v3)) Abstract: The canonical quantization of macroscopic electromagnetism was recently presented in New J. Phys. 12 (2010) 123008. This theory is here used to derive the Casimir effect, by considering the special case of thermal and zero-point fields. The stress-energy-momentum tensor of the canonical theory follows from Noether's theorem, and its electromagnetic part in thermal equilibrium gives the Casimir energy density and stress tensor. The results hold for arbitrary inhomogeneous magnetodielectrics and are obtained from a rigorous quantization of electromagnetism in dispersive, dissipative media. Continuing doubts about the status of the standard Lifshitz theory as a proper quantum treatment of Casimir forces do not apply to the derivation given here. Moreover, the correct expressions for the Casimir energy density and stress tensor inside media follow automatically from the simple restriction to thermal equilibrium, without the need for complicated thermodynamical or mechanical arguments. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Hi Ed, I got lost trying to address everything so am just going to focus on this paragraph [snip] Just how the field can cause a force is difficult to explain. Photons obviously do not work as an explanation. Now you suggest that the force is related to gravity and inertia. This seems to be an odd kind of force to invoke. Gravity passes right through ordinary matter yet, if it causes the Casimir force, it can apparently transfer momentum when a small gap is created. Inertia only occurs when the velocity of mass is changed. I see no connection between the behaviors.[/snip] I feel your pain because the creation of a real photon is one of the possibilities that suppression of vacuum wavelengths can lead to as demonstrated by recent experiments with SQUIDS cited by Jones.. It can also lead to anomalous radioactive decay of gases exposed to the confinement. According to “Cavity QED”http://th-www.if.uj.edu.pl/acta/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdfby Zofia Bialynicka-Birula it also breaks the isotropy of gravity meaning gas atoms will receive the changes in momentum as they pass between regions with different gravitational constants - at the macro scale it would be like force fields we could step thru where gravity is different on each side.. the agitation we feel stepping between gravity fields is analogues to DCE or catalytic action. The theory that space inside a Casimir cavity modifies gravity was first proposed by Di Fiore et all in a 2002 paper “Vacuum fluctuation force on a rigid Casimir cavity in a gravitational fieldhttp://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0109091“. They proposed the possibility of verifying the equivalence principle for the zero-point energy of quantum electrodynamics, by evaluating the force, produced by vacuum fluctuations, acting on a rigid Casimir cavity in a weak gravitational field. Their calculations show a resulting force has opposite direction with respect to the gravitational acceleration. They stacked numerous cavities in an attempt to modify macro gravity but were unable to prove their claims.. My posit of a relativistic interpretation of Casimir force would agree that their experiment should have failed because “suppression” only “segregates” vacuum pressures and for every concentrated region in a cavity there will be an equal and opposite diluted region dispersed over the exterior area of the plates to balance out any bias from accumulating. The opportunity is there to expose physical matter such as gas atoms to these regions in a biased manner to accumulate effects but the cavities themselves will always balance out to zero. My posit is that these vacuum wavelengts are electromagnetic but traveling transverse to our 3D plane and thereby escape any Faraday caging, intersecting with all physical matter in our universe as if we were an ant farm or thin ribbon. When a 3d cavity is suppressed to near 2d these wavelengths can somewhat modify their angle of incidence to this “ribbon” in the same manner as an object with a velocity approaching C changes it’s angle of incidence in a Pythagorean relationship to C. All the clues say these are relativistic effects but we are reluctant to embrace all that implies… Regards Fran ** ** ** ** *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] *Sent:* Monday, May 20, 2013 10:38 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Cc:* Edmund Storms *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl) ** ** Fran, I combined your two responses. ** ** As I understand, an attraction is measured between
RE: [Vo]:substitutes?
yes Ni62 has the lowest binding energy/nuc. Fe 56 has the lowest mass per nuc. (due to p n masses). if some isotope of Fe or other material can be found to be active, there is a chance that alloys with some isotope of Fe and something that is permeable to p's might be useful. My guess right now is that perhaps Ni 62 is the energy out and that the other isotopes of Ni might be sucking up some of the energy. Dennis PS I am presently using La Ni 5 alloys. But perhaps a Fe Ti alloy might be worth a try. From: jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:substitutes? Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 09:31:32 -0700 From: DJ Cravens Ni-62 If we assume that speculation about Rossi is correct, what materials other than Ni-62 could be used? If it is p + X reaction, what other isotopes other than Ni62 could be used? Or perhaps it is really a p+p reaction with Ni-62 donating something??? Anyone have any suggestions? This is an important point – is there a substitute for Ni-62? The best way to approach the subject is to look at the isotope and ask – is there anything which is unique about this species? Then, if the answer is “yes” we must ask – how does the unique property materialize in the gainful reaction? As to the first part – yes - Ni-62 is a singularity in the periodic table, being the one isotope with the highest binding energy per nucleon of all known nuclides (~8.8 MeV per) … and yet here it is being identified as active for the anomalous energy Rossi claims to have found with hydrogen. On the one hand, if there is true gain in this device primarily due to properties of this isotope - being a singularity could be an important clue. OTOH it is most surprising that the physical property for which it derives its uniqueness - is the opposite of what one logically expects in the situation. That property, which is “highest binding energy” means the isotope is the most stable. What is the next most stable? That would be an iron isotope, but iron could have chemical properties which interfere with the nuclear reaction As for Part-2 of the inquiry… which is “why” … this has been addressed piecemeal in prior postings, and I will collect these, with revisions, in another posting. Jones
Re: [Vo]:substitutes?
Hi, On 21-5-2013 18:31, Jones Beene wrote: As to the first part - yes - Ni-62 is a singularity in the periodic table, being the one isotope with the highest binding energy per nucleon of all known nuclides (~8.8 MeV per) Ok, then the following questions pops into my mind: Why is it that although having the highest binding energy the stable Ni-62 isotope only accounts for 3.634 % of all Ni isotopes? Shouldn't that be a lot higher or is there a special reason why it is so low compared to Ni-58 (68.077 %), Ni-60 (26.223 %), Ni-61 (1.114 %) and Ni-64 (0.926 %)? Kind regards, Rob
RE: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test
Perhaps Rossi was adding some catalyst. For example, perhaps his source of Ni 62 is slightly radioactive (say it was prepared via neutron activation of other Ni isotopes say there was some Ni 63m in it). Then it might register when the catalyst was accessed. Dennis From: arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 19:26:01 +0200 Thank you Jed to remind me this exchange you had with Celani. I was not fully aware of every detail. When I was reading, an idea come to me mind. Could it be possible that the secret sauce of Rossi is a gamma emitter? I explain myself: Secretly, Rossi could have opened his reactor to adjust something inside then closed the reactor back. In the meantime, Celani detected an increase of gamma emission. A low frequency gamma (25~50 keV) could be easily shielded. If Rossi opened his reactor, then vacuum should be applied prior to reload with H2. The noise of a vacuum pump can not be hidden easily. Celani and al should have heard it as well. Rossi isn’t fool to put air and H2 inside a closed vessel … Unfortunately, we don’t have the wavelength of the emission. I don’t want to play the sceptic here. Can Celani say that he is sure that Rossi didn’t open his reactor while they were waiting behind the door? From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: mardi 21 mai 2013 15:48 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test [Here is a message I posted in 2011] Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test Villa reported no gamma emissions or other radiation significantly above background from the Rossi device. Celani, however, said that he did detect something. Here are the details he related to me at ICCF16, from my notes and with corrections from Celani. Celani attended the demonstration on Jan. 14. The device did not work at first. He and others were waiting impatiently in a room next to the room with the device. He estimates that he was around 6 m from the device. He had two battery-powered detectors: 1. A sodium iodide gamma detector (NaI), set for 1 s acquisition time. 2. A Geiger counter (model GEM Radalert II, Perspective Scientific), which was set to 10 s acquisition time. Both were turned on as he waited. The sodium iodide detector was in count mode rather than spectrum mode; that is, it just tells the number of counts per second. Both showed what Celani considers normal background for Italy at that elevation. As he was waiting, suddenly, during a 1-second interval both detectors were saturated. That is to say, they both registered counts off the scale. The following seconds the NaI detector returned to nomal. The Geiger counter had to be switched off to “delete” the “overrange,” which was 7.5 microsievert/hour, and later switched on again. About 1 to 2 minutes after this event, Rossi emerged from the other room and said the machine just turned on and the demonstration was underway. Celani commented that the only conventional source of gamma rays far from a nuclear reactor would be a rare event: a cosmic ray impact on the atmosphere producing proton storm shower of particles. He and I agreed it is extremely unlikely this happened coincidentally the same moment the reactor started . . . Although, come to think of it, perhaps the causality is reversed, and the cosmic ray triggered the Rossi device. Another scientist said perhaps both detectors malfunctioned because of an electromagnetic source in the building or some other prosaic source. Celani considers this unrealistic because he also had in operation battery-operated radio frequency detectors: an ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) and RF (COM environmental microwave monitor), both made by Perspective Scientific. No radio frequency anomalies were detected. I remarked that it is also unrealistic because the two gamma detectors are battery powered and they work on different principles. The scientist pointed to neutron detectors in an early cold fusion experiment that malfunctioned at a certain time of day every day because some equipment in the laboratory building was turned on every day. That sort of thing can happen with neutron detectors, which are finicky, but this Geiger counter is used for safety monitoring. Such devices have to be rugged and reliable or they will not keep you safe, so I doubt it is easy to fool one of them. Celani expresses some reservations about the reality of the Rossi device. Given his detector results I think it would be more appropriate for him to question the safety of it. When Celani went in to see the experiment in action, he brought out the sodium iodide detector and prepared to change it to spectrum mode, which would give him more information about the ongoing
RE: [Vo]:substitutes?
that is interesting.I think that Ni 56 then quickly to Ni 60 is the end product of a Si cycle involving alpha additions. That is why there is more of it. But yes, why could 62 be good? Dennis Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 19:51:43 +0200 From: manonbrid...@aim.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:substitutes? Hi, On 21-5-2013 18:31, Jones Beene wrote: As to the first part - yes - Ni-62 is a singularity in the periodic table, being the one isotope with the highest binding energy per nucleon of all known nuclides (~8.8 MeV per) Ok, then the following questions pops into my mind: Why is it that although having the highest binding energy the stable Ni-62 isotope only accounts for 3.634 % of all Ni isotopes? Shouldn't that be a lot higher or is there a special reason why it is so low compared to Ni-58 (68.077 %), Ni-60 (26.223 %), Ni-61 (1.114 %) and Ni-64 (0.926 %)? Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Mark: Welcome to da internets. I hope you don't 'loose' your reputation. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Kevin, Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under the concept of Fair Use) but posting my article in full to a list (and a public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. I'd be less annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, this is the Internet ... you can cite a link as Alan Fletcher did so people can get directly to the original article (which, BTW, has been updated). Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. William, please delete Kevin's post from the archive. Yours, Mark Gibbs. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere... On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Mark Gibbs has an article up : http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ (Shout-out and plot to ... guess who? )
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response - radioactive scare
My prediction: So many oil dollars will jump on this possibility of unleashed radioactive doom that they will squash any progress in cold fusion. That aspect is not a particularly a good thing. But it will happen. Abetting this will be the horde of semi-literate tea party types, ready to fear whatever the Koch brothers tell them to fear. We will (after too long) be buying our heat gadgets from the Chinese, maybe on the black market. Ol' Bab, who sometimes gets a bit pessimistic. On 5/20/2013 7:27 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: My prediction: So many people will get enamored with this idea of cheap nuclear energy that they will squash any investigation into this danger. That aspect is not a particularly a good thing. But it will happen.
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
PopSci isn't impressed : http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says .. The paper, which is not peer-reviewed, leaves out crucial details, for example referring to unknown additives instead of specifying what chemicals actually go into the reaction. ... Maybe because it's a black-box/ red-hot-box test ? ... Even among those who work on cold fusion—often tinkerers not associated with major research institutions—Rossi doesn't necessarily inspire confidence. ... Uh-oh they're onto us!
RE: [Vo]:substitutes?
Revised from a prior posting: Naïve metaphorical approach to Rossi's claim of Ni-62 thermal gain: Imagine a number of strong springs subject to compressive loads. The strongest spring gives the fastest return to normal geometry following compression. What is the limiting factor on how close to 100% return of energy is available? Whatever that factor consists of, arguably makes the spring more subject to catastrophic failure. This kind of logic explains why it is true in Nature - that the nucleus with the highest binding strength of all is found in low enrichment. By all rights Ni-62 - which is the strongest spring in the period table, should represent more than 3.6 percent of all nickel atoms, since it possesses the highest bonding strength possible. But there are other factors involved. Secondly - ductile metals like nickel, are tough because the atoms are forced together by a sea of electrons. The negative charge agglomeration (electron glue) is subject to self-limiting Coulomb forces from the nucleus. At the limit of electron cohesive strength, we may also find a coupling to nuclear stability - and we may also find the beginning of the next plateau of friability (to continue the metaphor). Ni-62 is neutron heavy, and this has implications for the expression of nuclear positive charge. Thus Ni-62 having reached the pinnacle of nuclear strength among all elements, could be in a slot where it can fail catastrophically via a wave-function modality that is triggered by electron collapse. Too much local charge, in effect. This collapse affects adjacent protons in some way, even if the nickel eigenstate cannot evolve net energy. This is a bosonic version of wave function collapse resulting in a superposition of the different possible eigenstates, which appears to reduce to a single state. With nickel, this collapse will occasionally involve the 7th and 11th ionization potentials - especially the 11th which is an almost perfect energy hole for ground state (Rydberg) redundancy. The resulting photon is about 300 eV which will not show up on any gamma detector, but gives hundreds of times more heat than a chemical reaction. Ni-62 is bosonic - an atomic and nuclear boson - and we must make the adjacent protons appear bosonic, such as f/H or inverted Rydberg hydrogen - so as to act as if bosonic. Thus a population of f/H is required to achieve gain from nickel. (which is the function of the Rossi mouse unit). If this sounds a bit Millsean - then so be it. Perhaps Mills failed to recognize that certain isotopes themselves, especially singularities such as Ni-62 can possess latent physical properties (perhaps bosonic) which make them more conducive to promoting the kind of ground state, deep level redundancy - which produces excess heat. This is Mills' own contribution to the field, but he did not go far enough. Strange bedfellows, eh? Rossi and Mills? _ From: Jones Beene From: DJ Cravens Ni-62 If we assume that speculation about Rossi is correct, what materials other than Ni-62 could be used? If it is p + X reaction, what other isotopes other than Ni62 could be used? Or perhaps it is really a p+p reaction with Ni-62 donating something??? Anyone have any suggestions? This is an important point - is there a substitute for Ni-62? The best way to approach the subject is to look at the isotope and ask - is there anything which is unique about this species? Then, if the answer is yes we must ask - how does the unique property materialize in the gainful reaction? As to the first part - yes - Ni-62 is a singularity in the periodic table, being the one isotope with the highest binding energy per nucleon of all known nuclides (~8.8 MeV per) ... and yet here it is being identified as active for the anomalous energy Rossi claims to have found with hydrogen. On the one hand, if there is true gain in this device primarily due to properties of this isotope - being a singularity could be an important clue. OTOH it is most surprising that the physical property for which it derives its uniqueness - is the opposite of what one logically expects in the situation. That property, which is highest binding energy means the isotope is the most stable. What is the next most stable? That would be an iron isotope, but iron could have chemical properties which interfere with the nuclear reaction As for Part-2 of the inquiry... which is why ... this has been addressed piecemeal in prior postings, and I will collect these, with revisions, in another posting.
Re: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test
It is necessary to see radiation being emitted by the ECATs in a more controlled environment. Why assume that radiation is potentially a safety issue when it has not been detected except possibly in this one case? Are there other reports that can be correlated? Had Celani been in the room and seen an event that corresponded with the release then perhaps so. Jed may have found the correct idea when he joked that maybe the cosmic ray triggered both the instruments and Rossi's reactor at the same time. I suspect that no one would doubt that there is sufficient energy within a cosmic ray to trigger most nuclear events. I for one do not want to tag these LENR devices as being radiation sources unless they in fact are shown to be in that category. The limitations that apply under such a designation will seriously restrict their deployment. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 1:52 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test Perhaps Rossiwas adding some catalyst. Forexample, perhaps his source of Ni 62 is slightly radioactive (say itwas prepared via neutron activation of other Ni isotopes saythere was some Ni 63m in it). Then it might registerwhen the catalyst was accessed. Dennis From: arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 19:26:01 +0200 Thank you Jed to remindme this exchange you had with Celani. I was not fully aware of every detail. WhenI was reading, an idea come to me mind. Could it be possible that the secretsauce of Rossi is a gamma emitter? I explain myself: Secretly, Rossi could haveopened his reactor to adjust something inside then closed the reactor back. In themeantime, Celani detected an increase of gamma emission. A low frequency gamma (25~50keV) could be easily shielded. If Rossi opened his reactor, then vacuum shouldbe applied prior to reload with H2. The noise of a vacuum pump can not be hiddeneasily. Celani and al should have heard it as well. Rossi isn’t fool toput air and H2 inside a closed vessel … Unfortunately, we don’thave the wavelength of the emission. I don’t want to play the sceptichere. Can Celani say that he is sure that Rossi didn’t open his reactorwhile they were waiting behind the door? From:Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: mardi 21 mai 2013 15:48 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Celani detects gammaemissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test [Here is a message I posted in 2011] Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test Villa reported no gamma emissions or other radiation significantly abovebackground from the Rossi device. Celani, however, said that he did detectsomething. Here are the details he related to me at ICCF16, from my notes andwith corrections from Celani. Celani attended the demonstration on Jan. 14. The device did not work at first.He and others were waiting impatiently in a room next to the room with thedevice. He estimates that he was around 6 m from the device. He had twobattery-powered detectors: 1. A sodium iodide gamma detector (NaI), set for 1 sacquisition time. 2. A Geiger counter (model GEM Radalert II, PerspectiveScientific), which was set to 10 s acquisition time. Both were turned on as he waited. The sodium iodide detector was in count moderather than spectrum mode; that is, it just tells the number of counts persecond. Both showed what Celani considers normal background for Italy at thatelevation. As he was waiting, suddenly, during a 1-second interval both detectors weresaturated. That is to say, they both registered counts off the scale. Thefollowing seconds the NaI detector returned to nomal. The Geiger counter had tobe switched off to “delete” the “overrange,” which was7.5 microsievert/hour, and later switched on again. About 1 to 2 minutes after this event, Rossi emerged from the other room andsaid the machine just turned on and the demonstration was underway. Celani commented that the only conventional source of gamma rays far from anuclear reactor would be a rare event: a cosmic ray impact on the atmosphereproducing proton storm shower of particles. He and I agreed it is extremelyunlikely this happened coincidentally the same moment the reactor started . . .Although, come to think of it, perhaps the causality is reversed, and thecosmic ray triggered the Rossi device. Another scientist said perhaps both detectors malfunctioned because of anelectromagnetic source in the building or some other prosaic source. Celaniconsiders this unrealistic because he also had in operation battery-operatedradio frequency detectors: an ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) and RF (COMenvironmental microwave monitor), both made by Perspective
Re: [Vo]:substitutes?
Maybe most of the Ni-62 has been converted in nature since it is the most reactive. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 1:56 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:substitutes? that is interesting.I think that Ni 56 then quickly to Ni 60 is the end product of a Si cycle involving alpha additions. That is why there is more of it. But yes, why could 62 be good? Dennis Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 19:51:43 +0200 From: manonbrid...@aim.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:substitutes? Hi, On 21-5-2013 18:31, Jones Beene wrote: As to the first part - yes - Ni-62 is a singularity in the periodic table, being the one isotope with the highest binding energy per nucleon of all known nuclides (~8.8 MeV per) Ok, then the following questions pops into my mind: Why is it that although having the highest binding energy the stable Ni-62 isotope only accounts for 3.634 % of all Ni isotopes? Shouldn't that be a lot higher or is there a special reason why it is so low compared to Ni-58 (68.077 %), Ni-60 (26.223 %), Ni-61 (1.114 %) and Ni-64 (0.926 %)? Kind regards, Rob
[Vo]:E-Cat general observations
My very first post here, so be gentle. By way of introduction, I was on Usenet back in the PF days and made some money off palladium futures - I mention this to indicate that I've been in this space before. It seems so very long ago. I used to post with the moniker LordSnooty back then. I certainly remember Jed Rothwell's excellent posts from those days. So, some general comments: 1. I don't see how either the energy and power density can be hoaxed, especially with continuous run times of over 100 days. 2. I don't have a problem with this verification being done at Rossi's facility, because he doesn't want people carting off the device and reverse-engineering the catalyst (I'm guessing palladium :) and the drive waveform. Nevertheless, this wasn't a pure third party verification. 3. You'll notice that the plot for Plutonium has the axes erroneously swapped. 4. The technology is green, but not rechargeable (except by inserting a new cell). This makes it a razor and razor blades type economic proposition. Nickel and hydrogen are dirt cheap and plentiful resources. 5. VASIMR together with this seems to make a decent combination for a future intrasolar space drive. 6. The missing test piece is electrical output. Same engineering issue as with any nuclear reactor; to turn heat into electricity. Andrew Palfreyman
Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl)
Axil, nice citation, the math is beyond my pay grade but I believe the gist of the paper is that macro Casimir materials and geometries can now be calculated much more easily, and this agrees with what authors of Advances in Casimir Effect were predicting in 2009 as methods for calculating different geometries were still being investigated and simplified... I think it was Bordag who commented on it but there were 4 authors and I don't recall for certain. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:39 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.0187v3 Casimir effect from macroscopic quantum electrodynamics Authors: T.G. Philbinhttp://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Philbin_T/0/1/0/all/0/1 (Submitted on 1 Mar 2011 (v1http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0187v1), last revised 9 Jun 2011 (this version, v3)) Abstract: The canonical quantization of macroscopic electromagnetism was recently presented in New J. Phys. 12 (2010) 123008. This theory is here used to derive the Casimir effect, by considering the special case of thermal and zero-point fields. The stress-energy-momentum tensor of the canonical theory follows from Noether's theorem, and its electromagnetic part in thermal equilibrium gives the Casimir energy density and stress tensor. The results hold for arbitrary inhomogeneous magnetodielectrics and are obtained from a rigorous quantization of electromagnetism in dispersive, dissipative media. Continuing doubts about the status of the standard Lifshitz theory as a proper quantum treatment of Casimir forces do not apply to the derivation given here. Moreover, the correct expressions for the Casimir energy density and stress tensor inside media follow automatically from the simple restriction to thermal equilibrium, without the need for complicated thermodynamical or mechanical arguments. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.commailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Hi Ed, I got lost trying to address everything so am just going to focus on this paragraph [snip] Just how the field can cause a force is difficult to explain. Photons obviously do not work as an explanation. Now you suggest that the force is related to gravity and inertia. This seems to be an odd kind of force to invoke. Gravity passes right through ordinary matter yet, if it causes the Casimir force, it can apparently transfer momentum when a small gap is created. Inertia only occurs when the velocity of mass is changed. I see no connection between the behaviors.[/snip] I feel your pain because the creation of a real photon is one of the possibilities that suppression of vacuum wavelengths can lead to as demonstrated by recent experiments with SQUIDS cited by Jones.. It can also lead to anomalous radioactive decay of gases exposed to the confinement. According to Cavity QEDhttp://th-www.if.uj.edu.pl/acta/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf by Zofia Bialynicka-Birula it also breaks the isotropy of gravity meaning gas atoms will receive the changes in momentum as they pass between regions with different gravitational constants - at the macro scale it would be like force fields we could step thru where gravity is different on each side.. the agitation we feel stepping between gravity fields is analogues to DCE or catalytic action. The theory that space inside a Casimir cavity modifies gravity was first proposed by Di Fiore et all in a 2002 paper Vacuum fluctuation force on a rigid Casimir cavity in a gravitational fieldhttp://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0109091. They proposed the possibility of verifying the equivalence principle for the zero-point energy of quantum electrodynamics, by evaluating the force, produced by vacuum fluctuations, acting on a rigid Casimir cavity in a weak gravitational field. Their calculations show a resulting force has opposite direction with respect to the gravitational acceleration. They stacked numerous cavities in an attempt to modify macro gravity but were unable to prove their claims.. My posit of a relativistic interpretation of Casimir force would agree that their experiment should have failed because suppression only segregates vacuum pressures and for every concentrated region in a cavity there will be an equal and opposite diluted region dispersed over the exterior area of the plates to balance out any bias from accumulating. The opportunity is there to expose physical matter such as gas atoms to these regions in a biased manner to accumulate effects but the cavities themselves will always balance out to zero. My posit is that these vacuum wavelengts are electromagnetic but traveling transverse to our 3D plane and thereby escape any Faraday caging, intersecting with all physical matter in our universe as if we were an ant farm or thin ribbon. When a 3d cavity is suppressed to near 2d these wavelengths can somewhat
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat general observations
Oops typo: should have been over 100 hours - Original Message - From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:14 AM Subject: [Vo]:E-Cat general observations My very first post here, so be gentle. By way of introduction, I was on Usenet back in the PF days and made some money off palladium futures - I mention this to indicate that I've been in this space before. It seems so very long ago. I used to post with the moniker LordSnooty back then. I certainly remember Jed Rothwell's excellent posts from those days. So, some general comments: 1. I don't see how either the energy and power density can be hoaxed, especially with continuous run times of over 100 days. 2. I don't have a problem with this verification being done at Rossi's facility, because he doesn't want people carting off the device and reverse-engineering the catalyst (I'm guessing palladium :) and the drive waveform. Nevertheless, this wasn't a pure third party verification. 3. You'll notice that the plot for Plutonium has the axes erroneously swapped. 4. The technology is green, but not rechargeable (except by inserting a new cell). This makes it a razor and razor blades type economic proposition. Nickel and hydrogen are dirt cheap and plentiful resources. 5. VASIMR together with this seems to make a decent combination for a future intrasolar space drive. 6. The missing test piece is electrical output. Same engineering issue as with any nuclear reactor; to turn heat into electricity. Andrew Palfreyman
Re: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test
http://cold-fusion.ca/floridagate-puts-rossi-under-scrutiny-299000 *“Floridagate” puts Rossi under scrutiny* The matter was investigated by Mr James Stokes who reported “Dr Rossi stated the active ingredients are powdered nickel and a tablet containing a compound which releases hydrogen gas during the process. The output thermal energy is six times the electrical energy input. He acknowledged that *no nuclear reactions occur during the process and that only low energy photons in the energy range 50-100 keV occur within the device. There are no radiation readings above background when the device is in operation.* Since the device is not a reactor, the NRC does not have jurisdiction. Since there is no radioactive materials used in the construction and no radioactive waste is generated by it, the State of Florida, Bureau of Radiation Control has no jurisdiction. *Currently, all production, distribution and use of these devices is overseas.* Dr Rossi has arranged to meet with Underwriter Laboratories (UL) to seek approval for manufacturing in the United States.” On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:52 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Perhaps Rossi was adding some catalyst. For example, perhaps his source of Ni 62 is slightly radioactive (say it was prepared via neutron activation of other Ni isotopes say there was some Ni 63m in it). Then it might register when the catalyst was accessed. Dennis -- From: arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 19:26:01 +0200 Thank you Jed to remind me this exchange you had with Celani. I was not fully aware of every detail. When I was reading, an idea come to me mind. Could it be possible that the secret sauce of Rossi is a gamma emitter? I explain myself: Secretly, Rossi could have opened his reactor to adjust something inside then closed the reactor back. In the meantime, Celani detected an increase of gamma emission. A low frequency gamma (25~50 keV) could be easily shielded. If Rossi opened his reactor, then vacuum should be applied prior to reload with H2. The noise of a vacuum pump can not be hidden easily. Celani and al should have heard it as well. Rossi isn’t fool to put air and H2 inside a closed vessel … Unfortunately, we don’t have the wavelength of the emission. I don’t want to play the sceptic here. Can Celani say that he is sure that Rossi didn’t open his reactor while they were waiting behind the door? -- *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] *Sent:* mardi 21 mai 2013 15:48 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test [Here is a message I posted in 2011] Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test Villa reported no gamma emissions or other radiation significantly above background from the Rossi device. Celani, however, said that he did detect something. Here are the details he related to me at ICCF16, from my notes and with corrections from Celani. Celani attended the demonstration on Jan. 14. The device did not work at first. He and others were waiting impatiently in a room next to the room with the device. He estimates that he was around 6 m from the device. He had two battery-powered detectors: 1. A sodium iodide gamma detector (NaI), set for 1 s acquisition time. 2. A Geiger counter (model GEM Radalert II, Perspective Scientific), which was set to 10 s acquisition time. Both were turned on as he waited. The sodium iodide detector was in count mode rather than spectrum mode; that is, it just tells the number of counts per second. Both showed what Celani considers normal background for Italy at that elevation. As he was waiting, suddenly, during a 1-second interval both detectors were saturated. That is to say, they both registered counts off the scale. The following seconds the NaI detector returned to nomal. The Geiger counter had to be switched off to “delete” the “overrange,” which was 7.5 microsievert/hour, and later switched on again. About 1 to 2 minutes after this event, Rossi emerged from the other room and said the machine just turned on and the demonstration was underway. Celani commented that the only conventional source of gamma rays far from a nuclear reactor would be a rare event: a cosmic ray impact on the atmosphere producing proton storm shower of particles. He and I agreed it is extremely unlikely this happened coincidentally the same moment the reactor started . . . Although, come to think of it, perhaps the causality is reversed, and the cosmic ray triggered the Rossi device. Another scientist said perhaps both detectors malfunctioned because of an electromagnetic source in the building or some other prosaic source. Celani
[Vo]:Dynamic creation of NHE hypothesis
These conversations are getting all mixed up. Let me start a new thread for this one. Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: In addition, the formation and destruction process must remain in balance because otherwise the process will stop once all the NAE are destroyed. It they do not stay in balance, the reaction will fluctuate, getting stronger and weaker, finally petering out. Right? Cold fusion reactions often do that. Presumably the NAE is not made in exactly the same place in the same material where it previously had been destroyed. Perhaps it is, the way tungsten is redeposited in some incandescent lights. If what you say is true, the CF process will not be useful because it will not last very long. Perhaps it will not last very long, and it will not be useful. Rossi ran a reactor for a year, but there is no telling how much powder it had in it, or how much longer it might have run. We hope it will run indefinitely. But there is no proof of that yet as far as I know. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test
http://shutdownrossi.com/e-cat-science/110-quotes-by-rossi-about-gamma-rays-and-transmutations/ 110+ Quotes by Rossi about Gamma Rays and Transmutations On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://cold-fusion.ca/floridagate-puts-rossi-under-scrutiny-299000 *“Floridagate” puts Rossi under scrutiny* The matter was investigated by Mr James Stokes who reported “Dr Rossi stated the active ingredients are powdered nickel and a tablet containing a compound which releases hydrogen gas during the process. The output thermal energy is six times the electrical energy input. He acknowledged that *no nuclear reactions occur during the process and that only low energy photons in the energy range 50-100 keV occur within the device. There are no radiation readings above background when the device is in operation.*Since the device is not a reactor, the NRC does not have jurisdiction. Since there is no radioactive materials used in the construction and no radioactive waste is generated by it, the State of Florida, Bureau of Radiation Control has no jurisdiction. *Currently, all production, distribution and use of these devices is overseas.* Dr Rossi has arranged to meet with Underwriter Laboratories (UL) to seek approval for manufacturing in the United States.” On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:52 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Perhaps Rossi was adding some catalyst. For example, perhaps his source of Ni 62 is slightly radioactive (say it was prepared via neutron activation of other Ni isotopes say there was some Ni 63m in it). Then it might register when the catalyst was accessed. Dennis -- From: arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 19:26:01 +0200 Thank you Jed to remind me this exchange you had with Celani. I was not fully aware of every detail. When I was reading, an idea come to me mind. Could it be possible that the secret sauce of Rossi is a gamma emitter? I explain myself: Secretly, Rossi could have opened his reactor to adjust something inside then closed the reactor back. In the meantime, Celani detected an increase of gamma emission. A low frequency gamma (25~50 keV) could be easily shielded. If Rossi opened his reactor, then vacuum should be applied prior to reload with H2. The noise of a vacuum pump can not be hidden easily. Celani and al should have heard it as well. Rossi isn’t fool to put air and H2 inside a closed vessel … Unfortunately, we don’t have the wavelength of the emission. I don’t want to play the sceptic here. Can Celani say that he is sure that Rossi didn’t open his reactor while they were waiting behind the door? -- *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] *Sent:* mardi 21 mai 2013 15:48 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test [Here is a message I posted in 2011] Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test Villa reported no gamma emissions or other radiation significantly above background from the Rossi device. Celani, however, said that he did detect something. Here are the details he related to me at ICCF16, from my notes and with corrections from Celani. Celani attended the demonstration on Jan. 14. The device did not work at first. He and others were waiting impatiently in a room next to the room with the device. He estimates that he was around 6 m from the device. He had two battery-powered detectors: 1. A sodium iodide gamma detector (NaI), set for 1 s acquisition time. 2. A Geiger counter (model GEM Radalert II, Perspective Scientific), which was set to 10 s acquisition time. Both were turned on as he waited. The sodium iodide detector was in count mode rather than spectrum mode; that is, it just tells the number of counts per second. Both showed what Celani considers normal background for Italy at that elevation. As he was waiting, suddenly, during a 1-second interval both detectors were saturated. That is to say, they both registered counts off the scale. The following seconds the NaI detector returned to nomal. The Geiger counter had to be switched off to “delete” the “overrange,” which was 7.5 microsievert/hour, and later switched on again. About 1 to 2 minutes after this event, Rossi emerged from the other room and said the machine just turned on and the demonstration was underway. Celani commented that the only conventional source of gamma rays far from a nuclear reactor would be a rare event: a cosmic ray impact on the atmosphere producing proton storm shower of particles. He and I agreed it is extremely unlikely this happened coincidentally the same moment the reactor started . . . Although, come to
RE: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test
Lovable : Is it an April fool ? (Look at the date of comment of Andrea Rossi) 2. Andrea Rossi http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=614cpage=1#comment-209521 April 1st, 2012 at 5:51 PM Dear Steven N. Karels: We use regular Ni, then we make series of treatment. The cost of treatment is irrelevant compared to the energy produced. Warm Regards, A.R. _ From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: mardi 21 mai 2013 20:23 To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test http://shutdownrossi.com/e-cat-science/110-quotes-by-rossi-about-gamma-rays- and-transmutations/ 110+ Quotes by Rossi about Gamma Rays and Transmutations On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://cold-fusion.ca/floridagate-puts-rossi-under-scrutiny-299000 Floridagate puts Rossi under scrutiny The matter was investigated by Mr James Stokes who reported Dr Rossi stated the active ingredients are powdered nickel and a tablet containing a compound which releases hydrogen gas during the process. The output thermal energy is six times the electrical energy input. He acknowledged that no nuclear reactions occur during the process and that only low energy photons in the energy range 50-100 keV occur within the device. There are no radiation readings above background when the device is in operation. Since the device is not a reactor, the NRC does not have jurisdiction. Since there is no radioactive materials used in the construction and no radioactive waste is generated by it, the State of Florida, Bureau of Radiation Control has no jurisdiction. Currently, all production, distribution and use of these devices is overseas. Dr Rossi has arranged to meet with Underwriter Laboratories (UL) to seek approval for manufacturing in the United States. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:52 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Perhaps Rossi was adding some catalyst. For example, perhaps his source of Ni 62 is slightly radioactive (say it was prepared via neutron activation of other Ni isotopes say there was some Ni 63m in it). Then it might register when the catalyst was accessed. Dennis _ From: arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 19:26:01 +0200 Thank you Jed to remind me this exchange you had with Celani. I was not fully aware of every detail. When I was reading, an idea come to me mind. Could it be possible that the secret sauce of Rossi is a gamma emitter? I explain myself: Secretly, Rossi could have opened his reactor to adjust something inside then closed the reactor back. In the meantime, Celani detected an increase of gamma emission. A low frequency gamma (25~50 keV) could be easily shielded. If Rossi opened his reactor, then vacuum should be applied prior to reload with H2. The noise of a vacuum pump can not be hidden easily. Celani and al should have heard it as well. Rossi isnt fool to put air and H2 inside a closed vessel Unfortunately, we dont have the wavelength of the emission. I dont want to play the sceptic here. Can Celani say that he is sure that Rossi didnt open his reactor while they were waiting behind the door? _ From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: mardi 21 mai 2013 15:48 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test [Here is a message I posted in 2011] Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test Villa reported no gamma emissions or other radiation significantly above background from the Rossi device. Celani, however, said that he did detect something. Here are the details he related to me at ICCF16, from my notes and with corrections from Celani. Celani attended the demonstration on Jan. 14. The device did not work at first. He and others were waiting impatiently in a room next to the room with the device. He estimates that he was around 6 m from the device. He had two battery-powered detectors: 1. A sodium iodide gamma detector (NaI), set for 1 s acquisition time. 2. A Geiger counter (model GEM Radalert II, Perspective Scientific), which was set to 10 s acquisition time. Both were turned on as he waited. The sodium iodide detector was in count mode rather than spectrum mode; that is, it just tells the number of counts per second. Both showed what Celani considers normal background for Italy at that elevation. As he was waiting, suddenly, during a 1-second interval both detectors were saturated. That is to say, they both registered counts off the scale. The following seconds the NaI detector returned to nomal. The Geiger counter had to be switched off to delete the overrange, which was 7.5 microsievert/hour, and later switched on again. About 1 to 2 minutes after this event, Rossi
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat general observations
From: Andrew andrew...@att.net Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:14:14 AM My very first post here, so be gentle. Yeah ... sre ... 3. You'll notice that the plot for Plutonium has the axes erroneously swapped. It's been fixed in the article. Also the Power density for Plutonium (originally 50) was probably for the electric output and not raw heat. Upgraded to 500. http://b-i.forbesimg.com/markgibbs/files/2013/05/130520_ragone_04.png 6. The missing test piece is electrical output. Same engineering issue as with any nuclear reactor; to turn heat into electricity. That was the motivation behind the hot-cat : the current operating temperature of around 300C is likely a good fit with the Siemens turbine they are purportedly experimenting with.
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
On May 21, 2013, at 5:09 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This is a gem. Indeed. This paper proves that Mr. Krivit's criticism on bad calorimetry was utterly false but Rossi has a method to import excess electricity into device that does not register on measurements. I.e. he has hidden wires. Rossi just keeps getting COP 6 with all his devices. I think that this is the most telling fact. In earlier demonstrations having steam there was a good distraction, but this demo tells directly that it is about falsified electricity readings. I think that this is the reason, why science does not approve black box demonstrations. They are too easy to counterfeit! It is just required one David Copperfield for designing the good illusion. ―Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test
My interpretation of this quote is as follows: Rossi starts off with 5 micron nickel powder. He then forms nickel nanowires on the surface of this micro-powder using a propriety surface treatment. This treatment uses ionized nickel that Rossi sprays on the surface of the micro-powder. He selects heavy nickel atoms from the nickel vapor spray using electromagnetic mass separation. This method is a form of mass spectrometry, and is sometimes referred to by that name. It uses the fact that charged particles are deflected in a magnetic field and the amount of deflection depends upon the particle's mass. It is very expensive for the quantity produced, as it has an extremely low throughput, but it can allow very high purities to be achieved. This method is often used for processing small amounts of pure isotopes for research or specific use (such as isotopic tracers), but is usually impractical for industrial use. At Oak Ridge and at the University of California, Berkeley, Ernest O. Lawrence developed electromagnetic separation for much of the uranium used in the first United States atomic bomb (see Manhattan Project). Devices using his principle are named calutrons. After the war the method was largely abandoned as impractical. It had only been undertaken (along with diffusion and other technologies) to guarantee there would be enough material for use, whatever the cost. Its main eventual contribution to the war effort was to further concentrate material from the gaseous diffusion plants to even higher levels of purity. Since Rossi must vaporize the nickel anyway, little addition energy is required to select the nickel atoms the land on the micro-powder using mass spectrometry principles. see: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Diagram_of_uranium_isotope_separation_in_the_calutron.png On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.bewrote: Lovable : Is it an April fool ? (Look at the date of comment of Andrea Rossi) **2. ** Andrea Rossi April 1st, 2012 at 5:51 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=614cpage=1#comment-209521 Dear Steven N. Karels: *We use regular Ni, then we make series of treatment. The cost of treatment is irrelevant compared to the energy produced.** *Warm Regards, A.R. ** ** -- *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* mardi 21 mai 2013 20:23 *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test ** ** http://shutdownrossi.com/e-cat-science/110-quotes-by-rossi-about-gamma-rays-and-transmutations/ 110+ Quotes by Rossi about Gamma Rays and Transmutations ** ** On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://cold-fusion.ca/floridagate-puts-rossi-under-scrutiny-299000 *“Floridagate” puts Rossi under scrutiny* The matter was investigated by Mr James Stokes who reported “Dr Rossi stated the active ingredients are powdered nickel and a tablet containing a compound which releases hydrogen gas during the process. The output thermal energy is six times the electrical energy input. He acknowledged that *no nuclear reactions occur during the process and that only low energy photons in the energy range 50-100 keV occur within the device. There are no radiation readings above background when the device is in operation.*Since the device is not a reactor, the NRC does not have jurisdiction. Since there is no radioactive materials used in the construction and no radioactive waste is generated by it, the State of Florida, Bureau of Radiation Control has no jurisdiction. *Currently, all production, distribution and use of these devices is overseas.* Dr Rossi has arranged to meet with Underwriter Laboratories (UL) to seek approval for manufacturing in the United States.” ** ** On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:52 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Perhaps Rossi was adding some catalyst. For example, perhaps his source of Ni 62 is slightly radioactive (say it was prepared via neutron activation of other Ni isotopes say there was some Ni 63m in it). Then it might register when the catalyst was accessed. Dennis -- From: arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 19:26:01 +0200 ** ** Thank you Jed to remind me this exchange you had with Celani. I was not fully aware of every detail. When I was reading, an idea come to me mind. Could it be possible that the secret sauce of Rossi is a gamma emitter? I explain myself: Secretly, Rossi could have opened his reactor to adjust something inside then closed the reactor back. In the meantime, Celani detected an increase of gamma emission. A low frequency gamma (25~50 keV)
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
On May 21, 2013, at 8:41, Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: I see they are starting to call themselves out as being not competent in the field. Like saying they do not know. That's a good sign. Someone should write a manual for walking back an extreme position. This move would feature prominently. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
On May 21, 2013, at 11:39, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi just keeps getting COP 6 with all his devices. There were two main test runs. One achieved a COP of ~6 and the other, slightly longer one, of ~3. Eric
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat general observations
From pictures in the Levi's report, the wires are not galvanic shielded between the eCat and the controller. Thus frequency of the waveform (if any) is low. And the waveform should be easily determined by a simple oscilloscope. 2. I don't have a problem with this verification being done at Rossi's facility, because he doesn't want people carting off the device and reverse-engineering the catalyst (I'm guessing palladium :) and the drive waveform. Nevertheless, this wasn't a pure third party verification.
Re: [Vo]:substitutes?
DJ Cravens The LENR reaction is driven by geometry not material. The high school reactor uses tungsten without isotope separation. The key to the process is to use micro and nanoparticles is a wide range of sizes to support dark mode EMF amplification. Additional theory is available upon request. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:48 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: yes Ni62 has the lowest binding energy/nuc. Fe 56 has the lowest mass per nuc. (due to p n masses). if some isotope of Fe or other material can be found to be active, there is a chance that alloys with some isotope of Fe and something that is permeable to p's might be useful. My guess right now is that perhaps Ni 62 is the energy out and that the other isotopes of Ni might be sucking up some of the energy. Dennis PS I am presently using La Ni 5 alloys. But perhaps a Fe Ti alloy might be worth a try. -- From: jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:substitutes? Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 09:31:32 -0700 *From:* DJ Cravens Ni-62 If we assume that speculation about Rossi is correct, what materials other than Ni-62 could be used? If it is p + X reaction, what other isotopes other than Ni62 could be used? Or perhaps it is really a p+p reaction with Ni-62 donating something??? Anyone have any suggestions? This is an important point – is there a substitute for Ni-62? The best way to approach the subject is to look at the isotope and ask – is there anything which is unique about this species? Then, if the answer is “yes” we must ask – how does the unique property materialize in the gainful reaction? As to the first part – yes - Ni-62 is a singularity in the periodic table, being the one isotope with the highest binding energy per nucleon of all known nuclides (~8.8 MeV per) … and yet here it is being identified as active for the anomalous energy Rossi claims to have found with hydrogen. On the one hand, if there is true gain in this device primarily due to properties of this isotope - being a singularity could be an important clue. OTOH it is most surprising that the physical property for which it derives its uniqueness - is the opposite of what one logically expects in the situation. That property, which is “highest binding energy” means the isotope is the most stable. What is the next most stable? That would be an iron isotope, but iron could have chemical properties which interfere with the nuclear reaction As for Part-2 of the inquiry… which is “why” … this has been addressed piecemeal in prior postings, and I will collect these, with revisions, in another posting. Jones
[Vo]:Bowery comment on Forbes
James Bowery made this comment in the Forbes article. This is well said, and hilarious. A textbook physics 101 exercise that should be a piece of cake for you, MaryYugo: Assuming the electrical measurements were performed by a PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments with a nominal accuracy of 1% and the registered power input was on the order of 360W and there was _no_ convective flow — only blackbody losses, what color should we see in the photographs of a device of that surface area? Infamous cold fusion apologist Jed Rothwell claims you will refuse to do this simple physics exercise that could throw the cited paper’s primary technical claim into question. Elsewhere, I pointed out the Stefan-Boltzmann’s law is well established and not generally thought of as a complex mess. Mary Yugo demanded the test be done with a power supply from Bologna U., even though the paper says that the power supply is integral to the reactor and it produces a trade secret waveform. Yugo does not appear to understand that when you measure electricity between the wall socket and the power supply there is no way Rossi can fool the power meter. I sense the capital-S Skeptics' arguments are become less convincing even to their fellow Skeptics. They seem to be grasping at straws. Perhaps that is wishful thinking on my part. Anyway, they have a role to play and they are playing it to the bitter end. In a sense, they help along the process, but demonstrating how weak their arguments are. - Jed
[Vo]:Steven Krivit is not convinced that Rossi can obtain excess heat
In some cultures and sub-cultures (not speaking about counter-cultures) NOT changing your opinions is considered a virtue. An example: http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/05/21/rossi-manipulates-academics-to-create-illusion-of-independent-test/ Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
I dispute your COP 6 point. Dave Roberson has pointed out in a series of posts that /in a thermally controlled heat generating reaction/ the COP of 6 is about the best you can reliably aim for. Values above that are too near thermal runaway, and of course lower COP is less efficient.//A telling point alright, but not for /your/ case... Looks like you are saying that if an experiment proves CF, then it proves fraud. Oh please, just go away. Ol' Bab On 5/21/2013 2:39 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: On May 21, 2013, at 5:09 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This is a gem. Indeed. This paper proves that Mr. Krivit's criticism on bad calorimetry was utterly false but Rossi has a method to import excess electricity into device that does not register on measurements. I.e. he has hidden wires. Rossi just keeps getting COP 6 with all his devices. I think that this is the most telling fact. In earlier demonstrations having steam there was a good distraction, but this demo tells directly that it is about falsified electricity readings. I think that this is the reason, why science does not approve black box demonstrations. They are too easy to counterfeit! It is just required one David Copperfield for designing the good illusion. ―Jouni
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat general observations
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: That was the motivation behind the hot-cat : the current operating temperature of around 300C is likely a good fit with the Siemens turbine they are purportedly experimenting with. The pressurized water in a conventional fission reactor is about 320°C I believe. The reactors could be designed to run at higher temperatures but they deliberately made them low with poor Carnot efficiency because this reduces wear and tear on the turbines, pipes and so on. In a system where the heat costs you little or nothing, it makes sense to trade off Carnot efficiency for lower equipment costs. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-impressed-by-cold-fusion.htmlMotl's critique seems to hinge on the actual output power being far less than the estimate.He asserts that the actual emissivity is far less than unity, and so it's reasonable to supposethat the actual output power is perhaps even less than the input power.Doesn't he have this backwards? At constant output power, as the emissivity reduces, output powerwill apparently reduce, meaning that what is measured is progressively less than what's actually output.Andrew
Re: [Vo]:Steven Krivit is not convinced that Rossi can obtain excess heat
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: In some cultures and sub-cultures (not speaking about counter-cultures) NOT changing your opinions is considered a virtue. An example: http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/05/21/rossi-manipulates-academics-to-create-illusion-of-independent-test/ Some of his comments are libelous.
Re: [Vo]:Dynamic creation of NHE hypothesis
I have talked about Rydberg mater very often here at vortex. Hydrogen can form Rydberg matter. It is the SOLID form of clustered hydrogen. This hydrogen cluster is actually a alkali metal. Yes, hydrogen can form into nano-particles. These hydrogen nano-particles behave just like nickel nano-particles. Hydrogen nano-particles form dipoles and polaritons that are the fundamental cause of the LENR reaction. Jed said: Presumably the NAE is not made in exactly the same place in the same material where it previously had been destroyed. Perhaps it is, the way tungsten is redeposited in some incandescent lights. Axil responds: These hydrogen nano-particles form and are destroyed in a constant cycle. The same is true for potassium that is the “secret sauce” added to amplify the LENR reaction by created a wider size mix of nano and micro particle sizes. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: These conversations are getting all mixed up. Let me start a new thread for this one. Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: In addition, the formation and destruction process must remain in balance because otherwise the process will stop once all the NAE are destroyed. It they do not stay in balance, the reaction will fluctuate, getting stronger and weaker, finally petering out. Right? Cold fusion reactions often do that. Presumably the NAE is not made in exactly the same place in the same material where it previously had been destroyed. Perhaps it is, the way tungsten is redeposited in some incandescent lights. If what you say is true, the CF process will not be useful because it will not last very long. Perhaps it will not last very long, and it will not be useful. Rossi ran a reactor for a year, but there is no telling how much powder it had in it, or how much longer it might have run. We hope it will run indefinitely. But there is no proof of that yet as far as I know. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Robert Lynn wrote: And I can think of a number of ways of cheating to get heat into the reactor: Altering the electrical measurement equipment supplied . . . How could this fool a clamp on ammeter and a voltmeter attached directly to the wire? If you know how to fool these instruments you have valuable information. The power companies will pay you for this. , fiber optic lasers hidden in cable . . . I do not think these are capable of conducting 500 W of light, or 800 W when the power is off 65% of the time. Fiber optic laser capacity is measured in microwatts, ranging from 50 nW to 2 mW. , two-strand wires inside wired clamped ammeters (no net current) . . . The ammeters belong to Bologna U., not Rossi. , infrared, uv, x-ray, or radio frequency heat sources directed at reactor from afar . . . Infrared or RF would heat everything, including the equipment stand. They would notice it is incandescent. That would be hard to miss. 500 to 800 W of infrared would burn the observers when they got near the cells. x-rays would have been detected by Bianchini, I believe. , delivering combustible fuel into reactor via wires/cables (0.05g/s for 2000W). The cell is closed. You would have to delver rocket fuel, with oxidizer. When they removed the cell at the end of the test to saw it in half, the observers would have noticed this tube. Probably most of these could be ruled out by the observers present, . . . Yes, I think we can count on the head of the Swedish Skeptics Association to be on the lookout for such things. People who have done experiments for 50 years are pretty good at finding problems with instruments. but as they are associates of Rossi I really don't know if they were looking for such. This seems to be a gigantic game of sardines (reverse hide and go seek -- one person hides and as the others find him they all hide in the same place.) Every time an impartial observer visits a cold fusion experiment he is convinced. That's because cold fusion is real, and the good experiments are completely convincing. Every time this happens people say that they have become associates or co-conspirators with the researchers. Robert Duncan is now regularly attacked as a cold fusion true believer. It would have been a far better approach for Rossi to engage aggressively skeptical testers to do the job. These people are not rational. If you were to engage Mary Yugo she would demand she be allowed to bring her own power supply, which obviously would not work. It would be like showing up in August 1908 for the Wright Brothers demonstration with your own airplane, and demanding they fly your machine instead of their own. The whole point was that other people's flying machines did not fly. Anyway I look forward to more demos in preferably neutral locations to assuage my concerns. I think your concerns are overblown. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Bowery comment on Forbes
I'm generally thinking that, if the glowing ( and melting?) object in the photo is the reactor, then whatever hidden wires are feeding it would tend to be glowing and smoking, too. Just bein' heuristic, here. There's a reason why we have electrical codes and wire gauges - so your house doesn't burn down. And since it involves Scandinavian Scientists, it means Cold Fusion is an international conspiracy. Wow! Who knew?
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: *Doesn't he have this backwards?* At constant output power, as the emissivity reduces, output power will apparently reduce, meaning that what is measured is progressively less than what's actually output. Yes, he has it backwards. Emissivity of 1 means the power is lowest. As emissivity declines toward zero, power increases. The IR camera software computes temperature based on the emissivity you enter into the software. In the second test, they entered the actual number, rather than 1 (worst case). They confirmed the number was correct by comparing the IR camera software output to the actual temperature of the reactor surface measured with a thermocouple. What's not to like? What else would anyone have them do? IR cameras are widely used and reliable. It isn't like these people invented them for this purpose. Some people do invent special purpose instruments for cold fusion. That does not usually end well. - Jed
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Dynamic creation of NHE hypothesis
Axil, Although I was aware that alkali metals like calcium can form Casimir geometry I missed the fact that Rydberg hydrogen could also take this form in your previous mentions of Rydberg matter and it could be an important missing piece if true.. it certainly trumps the Mills theory that individual hydrogen atoms can be self catalyzing because what you are suggesting with hydrogen metal is that the micro and nano cavities where this type of metal hydrogen is originally formed can now further suppress the vacuum wavelengths by subdividing the original cavities down into even smaller cavities that any still free motion gas atoms could load into, migrate thru a tapestry of higher suppression values and interact with other atoms in the same region. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:28 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Dynamic creation of NHE hypothesis I have talked about Rydberg mater very often here at vortex. Hydrogen can form Rydberg matter. It is the SOLID form of clustered hydrogen. This hydrogen cluster is actually a alkali metal. Yes, hydrogen can form into nano-particles. These hydrogen nano-particles behave just like nickel nano-particles. Hydrogen nano-particles form dipoles and polaritons that are the fundamental cause of the LENR reaction. Jed said: Presumably the NAE is not made in exactly the same place in the same material where it previously had been destroyed. Perhaps it is, the way tungsten is redeposited in some incandescent lights. Axil responds: These hydrogen nano-particles form and are destroyed in a constant cycle. The same is true for potassium that is the secret sauce added to amplify the LENR reaction by created a wider size mix of nano and micro particle sizes. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.commailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: These conversations are getting all mixed up. Let me start a new thread for this one. Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.commailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: In addition, the formation and destruction process must remain in balance because otherwise the process will stop once all the NAE are destroyed. It they do not stay in balance, the reaction will fluctuate, getting stronger and weaker, finally petering out. Right? Cold fusion reactions often do that. Presumably the NAE is not made in exactly the same place in the same material where it previously had been destroyed. Perhaps it is, the way tungsten is redeposited in some incandescent lights. If what you say is true, the CF process will not be useful because it will not last very long. Perhaps it will not last very long, and it will not be useful. Rossi ran a reactor for a year, but there is no telling how much powder it had in it, or how much longer it might have run. We hope it will run indefinitely. But there is no proof of that yet as far as I know. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Motl is a pretty racist guy saying all the Italians are part of the mafia family. Very offended. Giovanni On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: *Doesn't he have this backwards?* At constant output power, as the emissivity reduces, output power will apparently reduce, meaning that what is measured is progressively less than what's actually output. Yes, he has it backwards. Emissivity of 1 means the power is lowest. As emissivity declines toward zero, power increases. The IR camera software computes temperature based on the emissivity you enter into the software. In the second test, they entered the actual number, rather than 1 (worst case). They confirmed the number was correct by comparing the IR camera software output to the actual temperature of the reactor surface measured with a thermocouple. What's not to like? What else would anyone have them do? IR cameras are widely used and reliable. It isn't like these people invented them for this purpose. Some people do invent special purpose instruments for cold fusion. That does not usually end well. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:substitutes?
notice the jump in Nickel stocks... example NILSY up about 1.5% today. I wonder. Dennis
[Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
Somewhere in all these recent comments, Jones Beene made interesting observations about the cost of nickel isotopes. I cannot find the comments. The gist of it was that if Rossi device requires an unusual metal isotope the cost may not be much cheaper than conventional energy. I believe that is incorrect. When I was researching the book I read some books and online resources about isotope separation, especially heavy water but also zinc and other elements. Perhaps my information is out of date, but what I learned then was that isotope separation technology has not been pursued much since World War II, when it was first developed for nuclear weapons. There has not been much practical use for isotopes. If a mass-market for a particular nickel isotope emerged, I believe that rapid progress would be made and the cost would soon fall. I also learned that much of the cost of isotope separation is for energy. Most of the techniques are energy intensive. Therefore, a cold fusion economy that called for isotope separation would bootstrap itself to lower costs. I illustrated this with the projected cost of heavy water, but that would apply to nickel as well, I think. I believe the quoted costs for isotopes are for highly pure monoisotopic samples. I do not think that Rossi would need a pure sample. If he only increased the concentration of one rare isotope, without eliminating the others, I assume that would work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
From: Andrew andrew...@att.net Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:16:45 PM http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-impressed-by-cold-fusion.html He also makes a big fuss about the convection being different between December and March. They ran at different temperatures, and were different sizes : of course the convection is different. He didn't seem to note that (except for the outward-side of the flange) the ecat was coated. Or that known-emissivity dots were used. Or that it was calibrated with a probe. Or ... Plus a long rant about boiling points -- irrelevant to this test. And, of course, his rant on Tex/LaTex
RE: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
Ni 62 has zero spin but the others have a nuclear spin component. So I should be relatively easy to come up with a way to separate them. D2 Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 16:15:20 -0400 From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved Somewhere in all these recent comments, Jones Beene made interesting observations about the cost of nickel isotopes. I cannot find the comments. The gist of it was that if Rossi device requires an unusual metal isotope the cost may not be much cheaper than conventional energy. I believe that is incorrect. When I was researching the book I read some books and online resources about isotope separation, especially heavy water but also zinc and other elements. Perhaps my information is out of date, but what I learned then was that isotope separation technology has not been pursued much since World War II, when it was first developed for nuclear weapons. There has not been much practical use for isotopes. If a mass-market for a particular nickel isotope emerged, I believe that rapid progress would be made and the cost would soon fall. I also learned that much of the cost of isotope separation is for energy. Most of the techniques are energy intensive. Therefore, a cold fusion economy that called for isotope separation would bootstrap itself to lower costs. I illustrated this with the projected cost of heavy water, but that would apply to nickel as well, I think. I believe the quoted costs for isotopes are for highly pure monoisotopic samples. I do not think that Rossi would need a pure sample. If he only increased the concentration of one rare isotope, without eliminating the others, I assume that would work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
An important issue is how one could possibly hoax such measured values of input and output energy and power densities. Since the supply powering the E-cat is off-limits, they measure only wall power. That means that one could secrete a discrete power source inside the supply box, and its power output would evade measurement. That's the input hoax. The output hoax might consist of secreting a nuclear power source, appropriately shielded, inside the other inaccessible part of the apparatus; the E-cat itself. So, that's the how of it, and it's qualitative. Can we fill this in quantitatively? Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Doesn't he have this backwards? At constant output power, as the emissivity reduces, output powerwill apparently reduce, meaning that what is measured is progressively less than what's actually output. Yes, he has it backwards. Emissivity of 1 means the power is lowest. As emissivity declines toward zero, power increases. The IR camera software computes temperature based on the emissivity you enter into the software. In the second test, they entered the actual number, rather than 1 (worst case). They confirmed the number was correct by comparing the IR camera software output to the actual temperature of the reactor surface measured with a thermocouple. What's not to like? What else would anyone have them do? IR cameras are widely used and reliable. It isn't like these people invented them for this purpose. Some people do invent special purpose instruments for cold fusion. That does not usually end well. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:substitutes?
Oh and notice gold is down, Ni up and most metal are flat today. It is though someone out there is selling some gold to buy Ni and Ni stocks. Just a guess. Dennis From: djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:substitutes? Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:13:51 -0600 notice the jump in Nickel stocks... example NILSY up about 1.5% today. I wonder. Dennis
RE: [Vo]:Steven Krivit is not convinced that Rossi can obtain excess heat
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton In some cultures and sub-cultures (not speaking about counter-cultures) NOT changing your opinions is considered a virtue. An example: http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/05/21/rossi-manipulates-academics-to-cre ate-illusion-of-independent-test/ Some of his comments are libelous. Not to mention: stupid. What you are seeing is an entire career teetering on collapse.
Re: [Vo]:substitutes?
Back in the day, Dennis, I turned $10K into $150K in a matter of weeks. Palladium futures! Andrew - Original Message - From: DJ Cravens To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:19 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:substitutes? Oh and notice gold is down, Ni up and most metal are flat today. It is though someone out there is selling some gold to buy Ni and Ni stocks. Just a guess. Dennis -- From: djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:substitutes? Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:13:51 -0600 notice the jump in Nickel stocks... example NILSY up about 1.5% today. I wonder. Dennis
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat general observations
The temperature limitation of fission nuclear plant is due to temperature of vaporization of water. The reactor must always be filled with liquid water. At the pressure inside a fission reactor, the limiting temperature is just a little above 300°C. The water is slowing the neutron. Without water, a reactor has a meltdown. _ From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: mardi 21 mai 2013 21:15 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat general observations Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: That was the motivation behind the hot-cat : the current operating temperature of around 300C is likely a good fit with the Siemens turbine they are purportedly experimenting with. The pressurized water in a conventional fission reactor is about 320°C I believe. The reactors could be designed to run at higher temperatures but they deliberately made them low with poor Carnot efficiency because this reduces wear and tear on the turbines, pipes and so on. In a system where the heat costs you little or nothing, it makes sense to trade off Carnot efficiency for lower equipment costs. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the reaction. Are we now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus participates in the nuclear reaction that causes the heat? Dr. Storms proposes that physical cracks in the lattice are the NAE and the money crop of the reaction does not have any Ni nuclei being consumed except as a possible side reaction. If the NAE are cracks (plausible but far from certain), then would the 62Ni create a more desirable crack than a 60Ni or a 64Ni? How would the isotope affect the crack as an NAE? Wouldn't only valence/conduction band electron effects show up in the crack? If so, how could an isotope in the lattice have any effect on what happens in the crack? At William and Mary's ILENR-12, Dr. Peter Hagelstein told me that transmutation of Ni is endothermic. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Ni 62 has zero spin but the others have a nuclear spin component. So I should be relatively easy to come up with a way to separate them. D2
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Since the supply powering the E-cat is off-limits, they measure only wall power. That means that one could secrete a discrete power source inside the supply box, and its power output would evade measurement. That's the input hoax. Mary Yugu suggested this, at Forbes. Unless she or some other skeptic can describe a method of fooling a modern, high quality power meter I think she has no case. The output hoax might consist of secreting a nuclear power source, appropriately shielded, inside the other inaccessible part of the apparatus; the E-cat itself. Bianchini's meters would have detected this. Even a Pu-238 reactor will trigger his sensors. Pu-238 costs fantastic sums of money and civilians such as Rossi are not allowed to buy it. It would take about 1.4 kg of Pu-238 to produce this much heat. The U.S. DoE is spending $1.5 billion to produce 150 kg of the stuff. That's $10 million per kg, so this would cost Rossi $14 million if he bought it on the black market. I guess he could steal it himself from highly secure DoE bomb factories that hold 50,000 drum cans of toxic radioactive waste. I doubt he is capable of that. I think we should rule out this kind of thing. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:substitutes?
Well, If I had the $$. but of course I have spent most of my savings on nano Ni, gas systems, and experimental things.. Oh and expect to use the reminder on a NI Week trip and set up. Oh, well. I have long since given up on trying to make any money from this field. Dennis From: andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:substitutes? Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 13:24:41 -0700 Back in the day, Dennis, I turned $10K into $150K in a matter of weeks. Palladium futures! Andrew - Original Message - From: DJ Cravens To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:19 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:substitutes? Oh and notice gold is down, Ni up and most metal are flat today. It is though someone out there is selling some gold to buy Ni and Ni stocks. Just a guess. Dennis From: djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:substitutes? Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:13:51 -0600 notice the jump in Nickel stocks... example NILSY up about 1.5% today. I wonder. Dennis
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
I wrote: If he only increased the concentration of one rare isotope, without eliminating the others, I assume that would work. The point being that present day isotope separation techniques work by processing the same material over and over again, gradually increasing the concentration of the desired isotope at each stage. That is what Bockris told me. That is what various other sources say. So if you only want a semi-pure concentration with one isotope at greater concentration than the natural distribution, you do not need to process the sample over and over again. This would greatly lower costs I believe. I doubt that Rossi's reactor would need monoisotopic metal. His reactors are not known for having pure material or clean-room grade construction. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
Guys, Without getting too philosophical Cost is almost a relative thing. When the demand is there, the cost will come down to some reasonable level. When the politicians favor it, the cost will be even lower. Aluminum was more expensive than gold when it was first put into production. Zirconium was like platinum until a certain Admiral Rickover demanded that he get it for a thousand times cheaper - and he did within a year. I have checked with half a dozen suppliers and the present cost of Ni-62 is at least $10,000 per gram - which is much higher than palladium, but that is not the end of story. We can look at U235 for an example of a rare isotope - which Government has decided ought to be available cheaply. This is as the model for Ni-62 future pricing. However, that on that decision about nickel - it could be years away, and involves political interference from Big Oil. But it is safe to hazard a guess. Based upon the cost of natural nickel being around $10 per pound, and the sunk cost of large gas centrifuges owned by Sam, the cost of this isotope could be as low as a dollar a gram, if they wanted it to be. That is a factor of 10,000 less than now. That is about what Rossi is paying. The big problem is how do inventors and developers get hold of some for experiments? I have been told recently (very recently) that Rossi may be getting his - not from ENEA but from DoE - remember the Amp-Enerco connection? Yup - that DoE and those former high officials now with Amp-Enerco - who have the right to the ECat in the USA - and that is essentially why Rossi builds them in Florida and ships them to Italy. And it is why he says cost is no problem. Indeed Cost is no problem when the rare Ni-62 comes free from the NRC/DoE via Amp-Enerco. What a deal. Jones From: DJ Cravens Ni 62 has zero spin but the others have a nuclear spin component. So I should be relatively easy to come up with a way to separate them. D2 _ Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 16:15:20 -0400 From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved Somewhere in all these recent comments, Jones Beene made interesting observations about the cost of nickel isotopes. I cannot find the comments. The gist of it was that if Rossi device requires an unusual metal isotope the cost may not be much cheaper than conventional energy. I believe that is incorrect. When I was researching the book I read some books and online resources about isotope separation, especially heavy water but also zinc and other elements. Perhaps my information is out of date, but what I learned then was that isotope separation technology has not been pursued much since World War II, when it was first developed for nuclear weapons. There has not been much practical use for isotopes. If a mass-market for a particular nickel isotope emerged, I believe that rapid progress would be made and the cost would soon fall. I also learned that much of the cost of isotope separation is for energy. Most of the techniques are energy intensive. Therefore, a cold fusion economy that called for isotope separation would bootstrap itself to lower costs. I illustrated this with the projected cost of heavy water, but that would apply to nickel as well, I think. I believe the quoted costs for isotopes are for highly pure monoisotopic samples. I do not think that Rossi would need a pure sample. If he only increased the concentration of one rare isotope, without eliminating the others, I assume that would work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
Good point, Bob. Simple arguments can show that the amount of energy claimed by Rossi can not result from the Ni+p=Cu reaction regardless of the isotope. Ironically, people will accept Rossi's claim that transmutation is the source of energy while questioning whether he makes any energy at all. Amazing! Ed Storms On May 21, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the reaction. Are we now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus participates in the nuclear reaction that causes the heat? Dr. Storms proposes that physical cracks in the lattice are the NAE and the money crop of the reaction does not have any Ni nuclei being consumed except as a possible side reaction. If the NAE are cracks (plausible but far from certain), then would the 62Ni create a more desirable crack than a 60Ni or a 64Ni? How would the isotope affect the crack as an NAE? Wouldn't only valence/conduction band electron effects show up in the crack? If so, how could an isotope in the lattice have any effect on what happens in the crack? At William and Mary's ILENR-12, Dr. Peter Hagelstein told me that transmutation of Ni is endothermic. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Ni 62 has zero spin but the others have a nuclear spin component. So I should be relatively easy to come up with a way to separate them. D2
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with additional power. There's another way to perpetrate the output hoax, and that's to secrete infrared lasers in the ceiling and heat the device up remotely. It's alleged by Mary Yugo that the rest of the measurement instruments were assembled by his close associate and personal friend, G. Levi. I have no way of assessing the veracity of that statement; how does she know that? See comments here http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Since the supply powering the E-cat is off-limits, they measure only wall power. That means that one could secrete a discrete power source inside the supply box, and its power output would evade measurement. That's the input hoax. Mary Yugu suggested this, at Forbes. Unless she or some other skeptic can describe a method of fooling a modern, high quality power meter I think she has no case. The output hoax might consist of secreting a nuclear power source, appropriately shielded, inside the other inaccessible part of the apparatus; the E-cat itself. Bianchini's meters would have detected this. Even a Pu-238 reactor will trigger his sensors. Pu-238 costs fantastic sums of money and civilians such as Rossi are not allowed to buy it. It would take about 1.4 kg of Pu-238 to produce this much heat. The U.S. DoE is spending $1.5 billion to produce 150 kg of the stuff. That's $10 million per kg, so this would cost Rossi $14 million if he bought it on the black market. I guess he could steal it himself from highly secure DoE bomb factories that hold 50,000 drum cans of toxic radioactive waste. I doubt he is capable of that. I think we should rule out this kind of thing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with additional power. What sort of internal power source? A generator? That would noisy and obvious. A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has developed such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own right. A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500 to 800 W. They would see it. Do you have anything else in mind? - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
yes, I have doubts about Ni + p or Ni + 2p reactions. most of these seem endothermic to me. I would be more inclined to think there some kind of p+p like event. (OK Ed... p e p ) Dennis CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com From: stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:48:13 -0600 Good point, Bob. Simple arguments can show that the amount of energy claimed by Rossi can not result from the Ni+p=Cu reaction regardless of the isotope. Ironically, people will accept Rossi's claim that transmutation is the source of energy while questioning whether he makes any energy at all. Amazing! Ed Storms On May 21, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the reaction. Are we now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus participates in the nuclear reaction that causes the heat? Dr. Storms proposes that physical cracks in the lattice are the NAE and the money crop of the reaction does not have any Ni nuclei being consumed except as a possible side reaction. If the NAE are cracks (plausible but far from certain), then would the 62Ni create a more desirable crack than a 60Ni or a 64Ni? How would the isotope affect the crack as an NAE? Wouldn't only valence/conduction band electron effects show up in the crack? If so, how could an isotope in the lattice have any effect on what happens in the crack? At William and Mary's ILENR-12, Dr. Peter Hagelstein told me that transmutation of Ni is endothermic. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Ni 62 has zero spin but the others have a nuclear spin component. So I should be relatively easy to come up with a way to separate them. D2
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat in the press
http://pesn.com/2013/05/21/9602321_E-Cat_Validation_Creates_More_Questions/ - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:41 PM Subject: [Vo]:E-Cat in the press http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas Andrew
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
If you have studied the ash from the Ni/H reactors you must conclude that: Any elements having an even number of nucleons with spin zero will react in LENR. LENR has a far greater energy density than U235 because cascades of LENR reaction products will fission from a very high atomic weight to a low weight. LENR reclaims the energy that a supernova used to produce the heavy reactive isotope and will reduce that isotope down to its original light atomic number configuration. Fusion is a secondary low probability reaction channel. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote: I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the reaction. Are we now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus participates in the nuclear reaction that causes the heat? Dr. Storms proposes that physical cracks in the lattice are the NAE and the money crop of the reaction does not have any Ni nuclei being consumed except as a possible side reaction. If the NAE are cracks (plausible but far from certain), then would the 62Ni create a more desirable crack than a 60Ni or a 64Ni? How would the isotope affect the crack as an NAE? Wouldn't only valence/conduction band electron effects show up in the crack? If so, how could an isotope in the lattice have any effect on what happens in the crack? At William and Mary's ILENR-12, Dr. Peter Hagelstein told me that transmutation of Ni is endothermic. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Ni 62 has zero spin but the others have a nuclear spin component. So I should be relatively easy to come up with a way to separate them. D2
RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
If you want to go the hoax path perhaps a ground loop with some current going through the metal supports, or through the gas connects. I doubt it. And 96 hours is fairly long. Not as long as I would wish, but still longer than any chemistry I can think of. That glow in the picture is fairly convensing. I have only had one thing glow like that before and it did not last but 2 hours. Oh would I love to know what is in that cylinder and what kind of frequencies, etc were used. Dennis Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 16:53:20 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with additional power. What sort of internal power source? A generator? That would noisy and obvious. A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has developed such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own right. A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500 to 800 W. They would see it. Do you have anything else in mind? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat in the press
*The Energy Catalyzer has been tested, successfully, yet again. However, the report has created more questions about the enigmatic technology, such as how can the E-Cat melt ceramic -- with a melting point of 2000 degrees C -- when the fuel of the E-Cat, nickel, has a much lower melting point?* This is possible because any element will react in LENR since it is not sensitive to material. It is a geometric based reaction driven by Nano and micro particles over a wide size range. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** http://pesn.com/2013/05/21/9602321_E-Cat_Validation_Creates_More_Questions/ - Original Message - *From:* Andrew andrew...@att.net *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:41 PM *Subject:* [Vo]:E-Cat in the press http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas Andrew
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's small. A battery would need to supply (say, conservatively) 500 W for 116 hours, or 200 MJ. Lithium batteries are about 2 MJ/Kg, so that's 100 Kg of battery. I agree that's unlikely but don;t have enough information to make the call. Andrew - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with additional power. What sort of internal power source? A generator? That would noisy and obvious. A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has developed such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own right. A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500 to 800 W. They would see it. Do you have anything else in mind? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat general observations
Just the opposite. Water is a moderator/ Only slow neutrons (thermalized) produce the fission reaction. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.bewrote: ** The temperature limitation of fission nuclear plant is due to temperature of vaporization of water. The reactor must always be filled with *liquid*water. At the pressure inside a fission reactor, the limiting temperature is just a little above 300°C. The water is slowing the neutron. Without water, a reactor has a meltdown. ** ** -- *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] *Sent:* mardi 21 mai 2013 21:15 *To:* **vortex-l@eskimo.com** *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:E-Cat general observations ** ** Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: That was the motivation behind the hot-cat : the current operating temperature of around 300C is likely a good fit with the Siemens turbine they are purportedly experimenting with. ** ** The pressurized water in a conventional fission reactor is about 320°C I believe. The reactors could be designed to run at higher temperatures but they deliberately made them low with poor Carnot efficiency because this reduces wear and tear on the turbines, pipes and so on. In a system where the heat costs you little or nothing, it makes sense to trade off Carnot efficiency for lower equipment costs. ** ** - Jed ** **
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that the power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments). Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the company licensing the technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have defrauded the investigators by hidden camera, or other spy device, observing when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency, overlaid on the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the PCE-830. This assertion about the PCE-830's limitations has not been validated as plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a single thing I wish they had checked but did not. In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees away from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but rather than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if all surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first set of tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly, casting a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than into account. Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics and others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the nature of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no adjustments for it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an electrically heated cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It is hands-off in the literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching the cell, and the rest at a distance, including the clamp on ammeter which placed below the power supply. You do not have to know anything about the reaction to be sure these measurements are right. There is nothing Rossi could possibly do to fool these instruments, which the authors brought with them. They left a video camera on the instruments at all times to ensure there was no hanky-panky. They wrote: The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements themselves. They estimate the extent to which the heat exceeds the limits of chemistry by both the mass of the cell and the volume of the cell. In the first test, they use the entire weight of the inside cell as the starting point, rather than just the powder, as if stainless steel might be the reactant. In the second test they determine that the powder weighs ~0.3 g but they round that up to 1 g. They use Martin Fleischmann's favorite method of looking at the heat decay curves when the power cycles off. Plot 5 clearly shows that the heat does not decay according to Newton's law of cooling. There must be a heat producing reaction in addition to the electric heater. I like it! - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
From: Bob Higgins I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the reaction. Are we now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus participates in the nuclear reaction that causes the heat IMO this is a Mills type reaction (BLP), involving deep hydrogen redundancy - and the Ni does not transmute into another element. This particular isotope is simply a much better catalyst for deep redundancy at the 300 eV level. This mechanism goes beyond Randell Mills theory into QM and wave function collapse, which Mills rejects. Rossi and Focardi apparently believe that nickel transmutes to copper, but the proof offered indicates otherwise. Others believe that protons fuse to deuterium. There is no proof of that. Many qualified observers, at this stage, have markedly different opinions. However, it is worth repeating that if it is a nuclear reaction - there should be gamma radiation and/or radioactive ash. There is none. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
My argument against what Motl claims (what I wrote on his post): I think Lumo you are wrong on this issue of epsilon. The camera doesn't know about temperatures but can measure power. If you use a higher epsilon (1 being the highest) than the real one you are actually underestimating the temperature (derived from Stephan-Boltzman). The camera gives temperature as a proxy for power. If you use the wrong epsilon in the setting of the camera, let's say 1 instead of 0.1 you are underestimating the temperature by a factor of 10, so 5000 K is reported as 500 K. Then when you use the reading of 500 K to calculate the power using Stephan-Boltzman again (after averaging over many areas) reintroducing the same value for epsilon=1 would overestimate power but because the temperature was underestimated by the same factor, everything is all right and the radiation power is estimated correctly. It is still a lower limit of total power given that some power would be in other forms (like convection). On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that the power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments). Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the company licensing the technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have defrauded the investigators by hidden camera, or other spy device, observing when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency, overlaid on the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the PCE-830. This assertion about the PCE-830's limitations has not been validated as plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a single thing I wish they had checked but did not. In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees away from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but rather than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if all surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first set of tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly, casting a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than into account. Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics and others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the nature of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no adjustments for it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an electrically heated cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It is hands-off in the literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching the cell, and the rest at a distance, including the clamp on ammeter which placed below the power supply. You do not have to know anything about the reaction to be sure these measurements are right. There is nothing Rossi could possibly do to fool these instruments, which the authors brought with them. They left a video camera on the instruments at all times to ensure there was no hanky-panky. They wrote: The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements themselves. They estimate the extent to which the heat exceeds the limits of chemistry by both the mass of the cell and the volume of the cell. In the first test, they use the entire weight of the inside cell as the starting point, rather than just the powder, as if stainless steel might be the reactant. In the second test they determine that the powder weighs ~0.3 g but they round that up to 1 g. They use Martin Fleischmann's favorite method of looking at the heat decay curves when the power cycles off. Plot 5 clearly shows that the heat does not decay according to Newton's law of cooling. There must be a heat producing reaction in addition to the electric heater. I like it! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Lubos motll,and Physicists
After all this is Physics so he should be able to speak in a competent manner about it. But everybody can make a logical mistake, the problem with Motl is that he is too sure about himself and too arrogant, almost in an aggressive way. Giovanni On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: ** Until today I had never heard of Lubos Motl, however, having followed LENR/Cold Fusion since last January his attitude doesn't surprise me. Pardon the generalization but it just seems that Physicists have the notion they are experts on everything. Until this last year I had thought that arrogance was reserved for Lawyers. The difference though is that while lawyers think they can be experts on all things Human, including physics, generally they do recognize how little they actually know about anything (In other words Human's are still savages in the universe and we most likely know nothing if measured by all knowledge). Lobus's silly comments clearly indicate he hasn't learned that lesson. And again I speak only in generalizations and I don't mean to offend either Physicists or lawyers who have learned some humility. Ransom - Original Message - *From:* Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, February 13, 2012 9:28 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Lubos motll, physicis talk of CERN CF conference, and bash it... I don't feel that “respected” skeptics are retiring from the field in the face of the growing evidence... you should read Judith Curry... in fact it seems that, fair or not, the history is tumbling... first rats start to flee the drowning boat... anyway, about LM, I've always been shocked by his lack of moderation in any opinion, his rough US Republican Coffee party vision of economy, and nearly faint on some things not to say (sorry here it is a crime, and a proven stupidity; also a family insult in every large family)... anyway, his opinion and vulgarization on QM is great and cutting edge. an example why one should avoid ad hominem critics. 2012/2/13 Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com His career will suffer for poor timing, while other “respected” skeptics are retiring from the field in the face of the growing evidence, they are letting the young blood charge forward to take their place under the oncoming bus. Although there was once good reason to be skeptical those reasons continue to erode and that rate has been increasing rapidly of late. The longer Lubos keeps his head buried the more he shortens his own career. Was Daniel suggesting Lubos has made both sexist and racist remarks? [snip] He was banned(sort of) from Harvard due his strong opinions on women and black people. He's been unemployed for around 5 years because of that.[/snip]. I would hate to think we are giving any consideration to this man if so. Fran
