Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved

[Edmund Storms]

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   
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]:Isotope separation technology can be improved

[Jones Beene]

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

[Jed Rothwell]

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]:substitutes?

[DJ Cravens]

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]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Jed Rothwell]

Andrew  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]:Isotope separation technology can be improved

[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?  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  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 general observations

[Arnaud Kodeck]

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  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]:substitutes?

[Andrew]

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]:Steven Krivit is not convinced that Rossi can obtain excess heat

[Jones Beene]

-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?

[DJ Cravens]

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]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

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  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]:Isotope separation technology can be improved

[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]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Andrew" 
> 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   

[Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved

[Jed Rothwell]

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]:substitutes?

[DJ Cravens]

 notice the jump in Nickel stocks... example NILSY up about 1.5% today.
I wonder.
 
 
Dennis
 
  

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Giovanni Santostasi]

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  wrote:

> Andrew  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

[Roarty, Francis X]

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 
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
These conversations are getting all mixed up. Let me start a new thread for 
this one.
Edmund Storms mailto: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

[Jed Rothwell]

Andrew  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]:Bowery comment on Forbes

[Chris Zell]

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]:3rd Party Report Released

[Jed Rothwell]

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]:Dynamic creation of NHE hypothesis

[Axil Axil]

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  wrote:

> These conversations are getting all mixed up. Let me start a new thread
> for this one.
>
> Edmund Storms  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]:Steven Krivit is not convinced that Rossi can obtain excess heat

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Peter Gluck  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]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

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]:E-Cat general observations

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan Fletcher  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

[David L Babcock]

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  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
>
>

[Vo]:Steven Krivit is not convinced that Rossi can obtain excess heat

[Peter Gluck]

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

[Vo]:Bowery comment on Forbes

[Jed Rothwell]

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

Re: [Vo]:substitutes?

[Axil Axil]

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  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
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat general observations

[Arnaud Kodeck]

>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]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Eric Walker]

On May 21, 2013, at 11:39, Jouni Valkonen  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]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Eric Walker]

On May 21, 2013, at 8:41, Michele Comitini  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]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test

[Axil Axil]

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 wrote:

>  Lovable : Is it an April fool ? (Look at the date of comment of Andrea
> Rossi)
>
> **2. **
> Andrea Rossi
>
> 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  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  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 

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Jouni Valkonen]

On May 21, 2013, at 5:09 AM, Jed Rothwell  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]

> From: "Andrew" 
> 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]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test

[Arnaud Kodeck]

Lovable : Is it an April fool ? (Look at the date of comment of Andrea
Rossi)

2. 
Andrea Rossi

 
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  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  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 m

Re: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test

[Axil Axil]

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  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  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 proto

[Vo]:Dynamic creation of NHE hypothesis

[Jed Rothwell]

These conversations are getting all mixed up. Let me start a new thread for
this one.

Edmund Storms  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

[Axil Axil]

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  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
> 

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat general observations

[Andrew]

Oops typo: should have been "over 100 hours"

- Original Message - 
From: "Andrew" 
To: 
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 P&F 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)

[Roarty, Francis X]

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. 
Philbin
(Submitted on 1 Mar 2011 (v1), 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 
mailto: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" 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 field". 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 

[Vo]:E-Cat general observations

[Andrew]

My very first post here, so be gentle. By way of introduction, I was on 
Usenet back in the P&F 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]:substitutes?

[David Roberson]

Maybe most of the Ni-62 has been converted in nature since it is the most 
reactive.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: DJ Cravens 
To: vortex-l 
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
> 

  

Re: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test

[David Roberson]

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 
To: vortex-l 
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 was>7.5 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 Scientific. 
No radiofrequency anomalies were d

RE: [Vo]:substitutes?

[Jones Beene]

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 anot

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:

[Alan Fletcher]

PopSci isn't impressed :


..
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]: ECAT Time Domain Response - radioactive scare

[David L Babcock]

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:

[Kevin O'Malley]

Mark:
Welcome to da internets.  I hope you don't 'loose' your reputation.


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Mark Gibbs  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 wrote:
>
>> posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher  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]:substitutes?

[DJ Cravens]

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]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test

[DJ Cravens]

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

Re: [Vo]:substitutes?

[Rob Dingemans]

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]:substitutes?

[DJ Cravens]

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]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl)

[Axil Axil]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.0187v3

Casimir effect from macroscopic quantum electrodynamics
Authors: T.G. 
Philbin
(Submitted on 1 Mar 2011 (v1 ), 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”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 
> field“.
> 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

RE: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test

[Arnaud Kodeck]

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 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 s

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:

[Mark Gibbs]

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  wrote:

> posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere...
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher  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? )
>>
>>
>

[Vo]:Stremmenos had some Rossi pixie-dust and made his own ecat

[Alan Fletcher]

http://prometeon.it/news.php  In Italian ... 
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=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]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Harry Veeder]

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  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'
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Harry Veeder]

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  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  wrote:
>
>> **
>> Gasp!  Why this Cold Fusion thing *is clearly some sort of conspiracy
>> !!!  *
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>

RE: [Vo]:substitutes?

[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.
Jones

 
<>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Michele Comitini]

2013/5/21 Akira Shirakawa 

>
> 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.:
>
> 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
only 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 

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 

>
>
>
> 2013/5/21 Akira Shirakawa 
>
>>
>> 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.:
>>
>>
> "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

[Michele Comitini]

2013/5/21 Akira Shirakawa 

>
> 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.:
>
>
"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

[Vo]:[Vo] substitutes?

[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?  Dennis

  

Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released

[Robert Lynn]

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.

Anyway I look forward to more demos in preferably neutral locations to
assuage my concerns.


On 21 May 2013 14:44, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Alain Sepeda  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
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Ni-62 patent application

[Jones Beene]

Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com   

> If you go to
https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP08873805&lng=en&tab=
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
<>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Daniel Rocha]

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 

> 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.
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:

[Edmund Storms]

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  
 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 stable and it has not be

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Akira Shirakawa]

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:

[Kevin O'Malley]

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

Comment 
Now
Follow CommentsFollowing CommentsUnfollow Comments 
Comment 
Now
Follow CommentsFollowing CommentsUnfollow Comments 

[image: Italiano: Schema della cella di
Piantelli-Foca...]

Back in October 2011 I first
wroteabout
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
postingfor
a more complete explanation.

My next 
poston
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 ” would
appear to deliver what we wanted.

The paper was authored by Giuseppe
Leviof
Bologna University, Bologna, Italy; Evelyn
Foschi , Bologna,
Italy; Torbjörn
Hartman,
Bo Höistad , Roland
Pettersson  and Lars Tegnér
of Uppsala
University, Uppsala, Sweden; and Hanno
Essén,
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 cylinder axi

[Vo]:Krivit pulls the ladder up behind him

[Jed Rothwell]

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]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Chris Zell]

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'

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:

[Jed Rothwell]

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

[Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test

[Jed Rothwell]

[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]:3rd Party Report Released

[Jed Rothwell]

Alain Sepeda  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

Re: [Vo]:Ni-62 patent application

[Jed Rothwell]

 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]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Peter Gluck]

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  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

[Chris Zell]

Gasp!  Why this Cold Fusion thing is clearly some sort of conspiracy !!!

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Peter Gluck]

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 wrote:

> This is Krivit's reaction on the Forbes article:
>
> Steven B. Krivit  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 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!
>



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

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:

[Jed Rothwell]

Eric Walker  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

[Patrick Ellul]

This is Krivit's reaction on the Forbes article:

Steven B. Krivit  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  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]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl)

[Roarty, Francis X]

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" 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 field". 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 so

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Peter Gluck]

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]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>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]:3rd Party Report Released

[Alain Sepeda]

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 

> 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 wrote:
>
>> it is done.
>>
>> good prediction.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/5/21 Jed Rothwell 
>>
>>>
>>> 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

[Peter Gluck]

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  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 
> To: vortex-l 
> 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

[Peter Gluck]

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 wrote:

> it is done.
>
> good prediction.
>
>
>
> 2013/5/21 Jed Rothwell 
>
>>
>> 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