Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency

[Axil Axil]

I believe that this type of meltdown occurs when nano-particles become
dense enough and suspended in the hydrogen gas or another dielectric to
support dipole formation and charge separation.



In the Pons & Fleishmann incident, the dielectric could have been glass or
concrete.



I suppose that  if you mix nano-particles in a solid dielectric like glass,
the LENR reaction might take hold.



If you remember, there was a report that DGT put some glass in their
reactor and the glass melted. It may have happened that nano-particles
melted into the glass and the reaction took off.


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> Then  I ask you to visit this thread and comment.   No one had anything
> else to say after I talked about P&F's meltdown.
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg77082.html
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> it is a surface phenomenon rather than a bulk phenomenon
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
>>> Let us take an example…A crack with two faces or two nano-particles
>>> separated by a few nano-meters can separate charge through dipole
>>> vibration
>>> with electrons gathering on one side of the crack or nano-particle and
>>> electrons on the other face of the crack or the other nano-particle.
>>> ***Does this mean for your polariton hypothesis to be true that it is a
>>> surface phenomenon rather than a bulk phenomenon?  I would think that BECs
>>> are a bulk phenomenon, with the EFFECTs of the nuclear reactions getting
>>> pushed out to the surface like a river washes a landslide & a bunch of
>>> trees to a chokepoint.  You notice the backed up river at the chokepoint
>>> but that isn't where the actual phenomenon took place.
>>>
>>>
>>>


>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency

[Kevin O'Malley]

Then  I ask you to visit this thread and comment.   No one had anything
else to say after I talked about P&F's meltdown.

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg77082.html

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> it is a surface phenomenon rather than a bulk phenomenon
>
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>> Let us take an example…A crack with two faces or two nano-particles
>> separated by a few nano-meters can separate charge through dipole
>> vibration
>> with electrons gathering on one side of the crack or nano-particle and
>> electrons on the other face of the crack or the other nano-particle.
>> ***Does this mean for your polariton hypothesis to be true that it is a
>> surface phenomenon rather than a bulk phenomenon?  I would think that BECs
>> are a bulk phenomenon, with the EFFECTs of the nuclear reactions getting
>> pushed out to the surface like a river washes a landslide & a bunch of
>> trees to a chokepoint.  You notice the backed up river at the chokepoint
>> but that isn't where the actual phenomenon took place.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

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

[Harry Veeder]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

>
> On May 27, 2013, at 12:17 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>>
>> On May 24, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The process you have described has the characteristics of
>> a ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet metaphor in another post where
>> he characterised the effect of modulating the input on the cell.
>>
>>
>> Yes Harry, this can be called a ratchet. All kinds of ratchets exist in
>> Nature. The challenge is to find the cause. In this case, the nuclei have
>> to communicate before they have fused into a single nuclei.  The form of
>> htat communication is unknown, but very important. Once discovered, this
>> will get someone the Nobel prize.
>>
>> Imagine the following sequence. The nuclei are held apart by an electron
>> bond, which is normally the case. Once formed, this structure starts to
>> resonate so that the two nuclei get periodically closer together.  As they
>> approach each other, information is exchanged between the nuclei that tells
>> them they have too much mass -energy for being this close. After all, if
>> they were in contact, the excess mass-energy would be 24 MeV if the nuclei
>> were deuterons. But they are not in contact yet, so that the excess
>> mass-energy is less than the maximum. Nevertheless, this excess must be
>> dissipated, which each nuclei does by emitting a photon having 1/2 of the
>> excess energy for the distance achieved. After the photons are emitted, the
>> resonance moves the two nuclei apart, but this time not as far as
>> previously the case. The next resonance cycle again brings the nuclei
>> close, but this time they come closer than before, again with emission of
>> two photons. This cycle repeats until all energy has been dissipated and
>> the two nuclei are in contact. The intervening electron, that was necessary
>> to the process, is sucked into the final nucleus. Because very little
>> energy is released by entry of the electron, the neutrino, if it is emitted
>> at all, has very little energy available to carry away.
>>
>> This process, I suggest, is the unique and previously unknown phenomenon
>> that CF has revealed.
>>
>>
>
>
> Ed,
> Typically we associate quantization with attractive forces as is the case
> with an electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom, but your system involves
> quantization with repulsive forces.
>
>
> Like charges repel and unlike charges attract. Quantization is always a
> balance between attraction and repulsion. Consequently, I do not understand
> your point.
>
>

In a hydrogen atom quantisation is present but there is only the attraction
between unlike charges, i.e. a electron and a proton. So as a general rule
quantisation does not require a balance between attraction and repulsion.



> Resonance occurs when an object can alternate between between attraction
> and repulsion. This combination results in forces that can  move an object
> between these two extremes as long as energy is supplied.
>
>
Yes, but the attractive forces are the bonds between the Pd or Ni atoms and
the repulsive forces between the hydrogen nuclei and the Pd or Ni nuclei.
The bonds between the atoms allow the big nuclei to coral hydrogen nuclei
by mutual repulsion. The presence of an electron inside the coral acts
a site of least repulsion where hydrogen nuclei are most likely to
converge as they are gradually brought together through emission of a
photon and resonance with the surrounding web of big nuclei.





>
> If pushing an electron and proton apart can happen in steps through the
> absorption of photons, I guess it follows that pushing together of
> protons can happen in steps through the emission of photons.
>
>
> Your description is not correct. Photon emission only occurs when the
> electron RETURNS to its original energy level.
>
>
I said If pushing an electron and proton apart can happen in steps through
the *absorption* of photons, I guess it follows that pushing together of
protons can happen in steps through the emission of photons.



> I'm not suggesting the electron has an role in emitting a photon. I'm
> proposing that a photon is emitted FROM THE NUCLEUS when two nuclei get too
> close to each other. Nuclei can not normally get this close. Consequently,
> the process is not normally possible.  The conditions in the NAE make this
> possible.
>
>
I think the electron does play a role. It serves to discharge a build of a
quantum of electrostatic energy that exists between the nuclei. Since the
state of repulsion is quantized the nuclei stay at that distance until the
next vibration from the matrix pushes them closer together.




>  However, in the former situation "the pushing apart" is the effect but
> the absorption of the photons is the cause, whereas in the latter situation
> the pushing together is the cause, and the emission of photons is
> effector is it? ;-)
>
>
> The protons 

Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency

[Axil Axil]

it is a surface phenomenon rather than a bulk phenomenon


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> Let us take an example…A crack with two faces or two nano-particles
> separated by a few nano-meters can separate charge through dipole vibration
> with electrons gathering on one side of the crack or nano-particle and
> electrons on the other face of the crack or the other nano-particle.
> ***Does this mean for your polariton hypothesis to be true that it is a
> surface phenomenon rather than a bulk phenomenon?  I would think that BECs
> are a bulk phenomenon, with the EFFECTs of the nuclear reactions getting
> pushed out to the surface like a river washes a landslide & a bunch of
> trees to a chokepoint.  You notice the backed up river at the chokepoint
> but that isn't where the actual phenomenon took place.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

Let us take an example…A crack with two faces or two nano-particles
separated by a few nano-meters can separate charge through dipole vibration
with electrons gathering on one side of the crack or nano-particle and
electrons on the other face of the crack or the other nano-particle.
***Does this mean for your polariton hypothesis to be true that it is a
surface phenomenon rather than a bulk phenomenon?  I would think that BECs
are a bulk phenomenon, with the EFFECTs of the nuclear reactions getting
pushed out to the surface like a river washes a landslide & a bunch of
trees to a chokepoint.  You notice the backed up river at the chokepoint
but that isn't where the actual phenomenon took place.



>
>

Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency

[Axil Axil]

Here is how infrared photons increase the tunneling of electrons across a
dielectric barrier.



“Using the coherent coupling of light and matter to alter the

tunneling properties of electrons was first discussed during

the 1960s when it was established that photons can optically

excite an electron across an insulating gap between two

superconductors.1 As growth methods for nano- and mesoscale

solid-state structures improved, schemes for photon-assisted

tunneling (PAT) quickly developed. The oscillating electric

field of a resonant photon modulates the local potential of an

electronic state to modify its tunneling properties. Radiation

applied to quantum wells or quantum dots dresses the electron

energy levels, resulting in the emergence of Floquet states.2

The resulting ladder of dressed states above and below the

original energy provides new paths through which the electrons

can tunnel.3–6”

Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency

[Axil Axil]

This is how this stuff looks to me now.

Reference:

http://www.umich.edu/~mctp/SciPrgPgs/events/2010/MQSS10/Talks/Littlewood_Michigan_PBL.pdf

Infrared photons cause the electrons in a dipole to tunnel across a
dielectric barrier. A separation of charge is produced with holes on one
side of the dielectric barrier and electrons on the other.

Let us take an example…A crack with two faces or two nano-particles
separated by a few nano-meters can separate charge through dipole vibration
with electrons gathering on one side of the crack or nano-particle and
electrons on the other face of the crack or the other nano-particle.


The dipole vibrations sync up with the waves of the infrared photons. More
electron tunneling happens than recombination of holes and electrons
because the infrared photons greatly increase electron tunneling across the
dielectric barrier. Charge separation happens very fast. The charge
separation becomes very large because of the massive electron tunneling
that is going on across the dielectric barrier; I guess that means high
voltage develops across the dielectric gap.

More infrared photons produce more tunneling and associated charge
separation.

But the dipoles are also made coherent by the infrared photons. This is how
ionized atoms (holes) can form a BEC at very high temperatures.

Extreme charge separation of the dipoles separated by a large dielectric
gap causes screening of the coulomb barrier in the holes (atoms mostly
stripped of their electrons by intense tunneling across the dielectric
barrier).

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Harry Veeder]

David,

As Joshua has suggested, the authors of the report should consult with an
expert in spectral analysis and include his remarks in their report.

harry


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:22 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> The question of the emissivity seems to keep rearing its head.  One thing
> is certain and that is that the device looks very black within the visible
> spectrum at low temperatures.  I assume that this suggests that it
> approaches a black body within that range, but I suppose that this may not
> be the case in the IR region.
>
> Is there evidence that the emissivity changes with temperature?  I have
> not heard of this behavior before, but some paints might have a
> problem.  Has anyone found a reference to the actual paint used by Rossi
> for this test to determine how it functions as a emitter?
>
> Is it possible to scan the surface of the ECAT with some instrument to
> actually measure the emissivity just prior to the next test if is is to be
> tested in the same manner?  What can the future testers do to enhance their
> ability to get accurate results?
>
> Joshua, if you were going to be a member of the test gang, what would you
> do to keep the skeptics at bay?  Put yourself in the tester's shoes for a
> moment instead of casting stones.
>
> How much confidence should be placed in the white emission dots?
> Apparently they correlate well with a thermal probe place upon the test
> unit.  What is the chance that Rossi would allow the test scientists an
> opportunity to spray some of their own paint upon a portion of the device
> for comparisons?  This might only require paint over a small area.
>
> Does anyone offer additional suggestions to improve the acceptance of
> the future test data?
>
> Dave
>  -Original Message-
> From: Joshua Cude 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 12:00 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
>
>  On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Eric Walker  wrote:
>>
>>  Joshua's position is that in the present measurements, the emissivity
>>> is implicitly taken into account twice when using an IR camera, and that in
>>> assuming that a high epsilon is conservative (in the first calculation),
>>> people are neglecting to see what effect it has on the calculated power in
>>> the second calculation.
>>>
>>
>>  For the fifth time, the authors addressed this! It is shown right there
>> in Fig. 7. The camera software computes higher temperatures. The higher the
>> temperature, the higher the power (all else being equal, which of course it
>> is, since we are only changing one parameter).
>>
>>
>  It's not all else equal. You're simply not paying attention. The
> emissivity is lower. So the higher temperature contributes to higher power,
> but the lower emissivity to lower power. The two effects work in opposite
> directions. Which one is bigger depends on the particular wavelength and
> temperature.
>
>
>
>>   It could not be shown more clearly! With this camera, when you lower
>> the emissivity parameter, the computed temperature goes up.
>>
>>
>  Right. No one disagrees with that.
>
>
>>   Cude asserts that if they lowered it all the way to 0.2 the
>> temperature might be computed lower.
>>
>
>  No. You simply don't understand what I assert. You're not thinking about
> it carefully enough. Get Fletcher to help.
>
>  I'm saying that while the temperature goes up, the effect on the power
> *including the lower emissivity* may be computed lower, depending on the
> effective exponent used to compute the temperature.
>
>  Here's a simplified version of the math, ignoring ambient temperature
> and the temperature of the camera, since the point at issue is independent
> of those:
>
>  The power measured by the camera is assumed to be given by P = C*e*T^n,
> where C is a constant, P is measured power within a range of wavelengths
> and n is the effective exponent determined by this range of wavelengths
> (which presumably depends on temperature). If the frequency range is the
> entire spectrum n = 4, as in the S-B equation.
>
>  Solving for T gives T = (P/Ce)^(1/n)
>
>  Now when you calculate power, you use Pcalc  = C*e*T^4. You can see that
> if n = 4, Pcalc = P for any value of e. But if n is not equal to 4 as is
> the case in reality, to correct for the finite wavelength range, then Pcalc
> can differ from P, as it does in the 2 examples used in the paper. So it
> depends on what value of n gets used, and it may be very different when
> e=0.2. It should be possible to figure this out from the Planck law, but
> there is no mention of this in the paper, and no test to see what
> temperature gets computed for a lower emissivity. In any case, the
> correction only applies to grey bodies, where the emissivity is constant
> and there is no telling what the temperature means if its not.
>
>  I don't know (and frankly doubt) that this is the problem, but all I'm
> saying is that it's not as simple as you or the authors have argued, 

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Harry Veeder]

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:18 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
>
>> Josh questions:
>>
>> “I'm talking about the December test, when a different paint was used. I
>> don't think we know anything about the emissivity of that paint, nor its
>> dependence on wavelength.”
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> You could just as easily do a 30 second search and FIND THE ANSWER!
>>
>> ** **
>>
>>
>>
>
> Since we don't know what the paint was, I don't think we can find the
> answer. I found a black coating with an emissivity of .08 to .25. I agree,
> most black paints are much higher, but Rossi may have spent more than 30
> seconds to find something that suited his purpose.
>
>

is the black coating you found durable at the measured temperatures?

harry

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[David Roberson]

The question of the emissivity seems to keep rearing its head.  One thing is 
certain and that is that the device looks very black within the visible 
spectrum at low temperatures.  I assume that this suggests that it approaches a 
black body within that range, but I suppose that this may not be the case in 
the IR region.

Is there evidence that the emissivity changes with temperature?  I have not 
heard of this behavior before, but some paints might have a problem.  Has 
anyone found a reference to the actual paint used by Rossi for this test to 
determine how it functions as a emitter?

Is it possible to scan the surface of the ECAT with some instrument to actually 
measure the emissivity just prior to the next test if is is to be tested in the 
same manner?  What can the future testers do to enhance their ability to get 
accurate results?

Joshua, if you were going to be a member of the test gang, what would you do to 
keep the skeptics at bay?  Put yourself in the tester's shoes for a moment 
instead of casting stones.

How much confidence should be placed in the white emission dots?  Apparently 
they correlate well with a thermal probe place upon the test unit.  What is the 
chance that Rossi would allow the test scientists an opportunity to spray some 
of their own paint upon a portion of the device for comparisons?  This might 
only require paint over a small area.

Does anyone offer additional suggestions to improve the acceptance of the 
future test data?

Dave  


-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 12:00 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.



On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Eric Walker  wrote:




Joshua's position is that in the present measurements, the emissivity is 
implicitly taken into account twice when using an IR camera, and that in 
assuming that a high epsilon is conservative (in the first calculation), people 
are neglecting to see what effect it has on the calculated power in the second 
calculation.




For the fifth time, the authors addressed this! It is shown right there in Fig. 
7. The camera software computes higher temperatures. The higher the 
temperature, the higher the power (all else being equal, which of course it is, 
since we are only changing one parameter).






It's not all else equal. You're simply not paying attention. The emissivity is 
lower. So the higher temperature contributes to higher power, but the lower 
emissivity to lower power. The two effects work in opposite directions. Which 
one is bigger depends on the particular wavelength and temperature.


 




It could not be shown more clearly! With this camera, when you lower the 
emissivity parameter, the computed temperature goes up.






Right. No one disagrees with that.
 




Cude asserts that if they lowered it all the way to 0.2 the temperature might 
be computed lower. 




No. You simply don't understand what I assert. You're not thinking about it 
carefully enough. Get Fletcher to help.


I'm saying that while the temperature goes up, the effect on the power 
*including the lower emissivity* may be computed lower, depending on the 
effective exponent used to compute the temperature.


Here's a simplified version of the math, ignoring ambient temperature and the 
temperature of the camera, since the point at issue is independent of those:


The power measured by the camera is assumed to be given by P = C*e*T^n, where C 
is a constant, P is measured power within a range of wavelengths and n is the 
effective exponent determined by this range of wavelengths (which presumably 
depends on temperature). If the frequency range is the entire spectrum n = 4, 
as in the S-B equation. 


Solving for T gives T = (P/Ce)^(1/n)


Now when you calculate power, you use Pcalc  = C*e*T^4. You can see that if n = 
4, Pcalc = P for any value of e. But if n is not equal to 4 as is the case in 
reality, to correct for the finite wavelength range, then Pcalc can differ from 
P, as it does in the 2 examples used in the paper. So it depends on what value 
of n gets used, and it may be very different when e=0.2. It should be possible 
to figure this out from the Planck law, but there is no mention of this in the 
paper, and no test to see what temperature gets computed for a lower 
emissivity. In any case, the correction only applies to grey bodies, where the 
emissivity is constant and there is no telling what the temperature means if 
its not.


I don't know (and frankly doubt) that this is the problem, but all I'm saying 
is that it's not as simple as you or the authors have argued, and in the case 
of the authors, that's sloppy. And it's frustrating to see people trying to 
argue that it is blatantly obvious that e = 1 is conservative in all 
circumstances. It's not at all. It's quite subtle. And the failure to 
understand this is symptomatic of shoddy work.
 



I am sure this is nonsense, but even if it were true it is irreleva

Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

>
>
>
> Kevin, did you actually read this paper (
>
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf)?
>
***I'm still making my way through it.  It is not one of the links I posted.



> The conditions have no relationship to those in PdD at room temperature.
>
***I never said they did.




> The BEC is created in vacuum at low temperatures using Rb atoms.
>
***Yup.  And the BEC absorbed photons.  That's what started this
discussion.




>
>
>
>
> If you think these statements are not important,
>
***I did not say that they are unimportant, I said they didn't stand out.




> than you understand nothing about materials science or BEC.
>
***Now you're in insult mode.  Try to add more bran to your diet.



>  Creation of an assembly of atoms requires energy to compensate for the
> entropy change. This is basic thermodynamics. This energy is not sufficient
> in the formation of a BEC for it to occur much above absolute zero, where
> the entropy energy is small. This means a BEC cannot form between atoms
> much above absolute zero.
>
***And yet, those 2 links I posted have BECs forming at room temperature
and even high temperature.Perhaps it is time to talk about how much you
know about BECs, seein' as how you started the insults flying in that
sandbox.


>
>
>
>
>>  Formation of a BEC does not supply much energy, as theory shows.
>>
> ***But Y E Kim's theory shows that the formation of a BEC could generate
> fusion, which does supply much energy.
>
>
> Kim only has a theory based on the assumption that a BEC can form. He has
> shown no proof that the assumption is correct.
>
***Not proof yet, but evidence nonetheless.  First you say "as theory
shows", then you say he has shown no proof.  Those are 2 entirely different
things.  You yourself have not shown proof that your theory is correct.
Obviously.  Otherwise we'd all be having a LENR party because of such a
giant breakthrough.



>
> His theory does not fit the facts.  With more time, I can list the
> conflicts if you are interested.
>
***I'm not that interested if you're gonna go all tribal and start throwing
insults around.  You should get in touch with Dr. Kim and have a discussion
right here on Vortex.  All of us would benefit, including you.


>
> Yes, some theories conflict with more facts and observations than others.
> At this stage in the process, you can choose what you want to believe.
> Nevertheless, after reading all the theories, most of the published papers
> describing the behavior of CF, and applying my knowledge of materials
> science and nuclear physics, I choose to believe my theory. I have
> described exactly why I believe my theory and suggested many predictions
> that can be used to test it. That is all I or anyone can do. It is now up
> to the experimentalist to test the predictions and find out who is correct.
> Further discussion will not solve the problem.
>
***Further discussion is the purpose of Vortex-L



>
> How would you propose to test his theory?
>
***Well, the room temperature BEC paper suggested there was a telltale
signature for the formation of a BEC.  I would suggest going after the
telltale signatures and load up some Nickel/H1 or Palladium/Deuterium and
see if the signature presents itself.  How would you?

[Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported underestimation of radiated power

[Harry Veeder]

 From a comment thread on e-catworld:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/rossi-no-longer-controls-e-cat-business/

Pekka Janhunen on May 27, 2013 at 8:01 pm

Off-topic for the thread: the question whether assuming emissivity equal to
one indeed yields to underestimation of the radiated power. Now I think
yes, but to deduce it one has to know something about the Optris PI-160
thermal camera. The specs of the camera say that its wavelength range is
7.5-13 microns. For relevant HotCat temperatures, this is on the long
wavelength side of the Planck emission function (i.e. to the right from the
peak in wavelength space). If the true emissivity is below unity, say 0.8,
and one inputs 1.0 for the camera (as the testers did), the camera
basically integrates the emission in its wavelength band and then finds a
source temperature which, when multiplied by the assumed emissivity 1.0,
yields the same integral. Because the real emissivity is smaller, this
yields an underestimation of the temperature, as the testers said. The
total radiative emission (integral of Planck function over all wavelengths)
is emissivity*sigma*T^4. The real emissivity is less than unity which tends
to make the true emitted power smaller than the estimated one. But the real
temperature is higher which causes a reverse effect. Which effect wins is
not immediately clear. I tested it numerically for temperatures 300-400 C
used in the test (i.e. I numerically integrated the Planck function in the
range 7.5-13 um and then adjusted the source temperature until it matches
the real one; the full story is a bit more complicated but this is the
general idea). It is indeed so that with these numbers, the net effect is
underestimation of the emitted power.

The result is understandable, I think, in the following way. If the camera
measures an integral of the emission function above the peak,
underestimation of temperature moves the real Planck function towards
shorter wavelengths i.e. further away from the camera’s wavelength range.
Thus the camera sees a smaller fraction of the radiated infrared energy
than it thinks based on its own idea of the source temperature which is
based on assuming epsilon=1 instead of the correct value. The numerical
integration also shows that if the camera’s wavelength range would be below
the peak, overestimation of the emitted power would result. But that regime
is never entered in this case because it would correspond to only room
temperature or such.

If the true epsilon is 0.8 and true temperature 400 C, I got an
underestimation factor of 0.889 for the emitted power. I.e., the
underestimation is not likely to be large, but it is anyway of the correct
sign as the testers asserted.

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Andrew]

Do you believe that, by fiddling with the exponent n and the emissivity e, you 
can show that P could be in actuality 3 times lower (roughly) than is 
calculated in the report? For if you can, then you've reduced COP to unity.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Joshua Cude 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 9:04 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.


  On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:18 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  
wrote:

Josh questions:

“I'm talking about the December test, when a different paint was used. I 
don't think we know anything about the emissivity of that paint, nor its 
dependence on wavelength.”



You could just as easily do a 30 second search and FIND THE ANSWER!










  Since we don't know what the paint was, I don't think we can find the answer. 
I found a black coating with an emissivity of .08 to .25. I agree, most black 
paints are much higher, but Rossi may have spent more than 30 seconds to find 
something that suited his purpose. 

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:18 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

> Josh questions:
>
> “I'm talking about the December test, when a different paint was used. I
> don't think we know anything about the emissivity of that paint, nor its
> dependence on wavelength.”
>
> ** **
>
> You could just as easily do a 30 second search and FIND THE ANSWER!
>
> ** **
>
>
>

Since we don't know what the paint was, I don't think we can find the
answer. I found a black coating with an emissivity of .08 to .25. I agree,
most black paints are much higher, but Rossi may have spent more than 30
seconds to find something that suited his purpose.

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Eric Walker  wrote:
>
> Joshua's position is that in the present measurements, the emissivity is
>> implicitly taken into account twice when using an IR camera, and that in
>> assuming that a high epsilon is conservative (in the first calculation),
>> people are neglecting to see what effect it has on the calculated power in
>> the second calculation.
>>
>
> For the fifth time, the authors addressed this! It is shown right there in
> Fig. 7. The camera software computes higher temperatures. The higher the
> temperature, the higher the power (all else being equal, which of course it
> is, since we are only changing one parameter).
>
>
It's not all else equal. You're simply not paying attention. The emissivity
is lower. So the higher temperature contributes to higher power, but the
lower emissivity to lower power. The two effects work in opposite
directions. Which one is bigger depends on the particular wavelength and
temperature.



> It could not be shown more clearly! With this camera, when you lower the
> emissivity parameter, the computed temperature goes up.
>
>
Right. No one disagrees with that.


> Cude asserts that if they lowered it all the way to 0.2 the temperature
> might be computed lower.
>

No. You simply don't understand what I assert. You're not thinking about it
carefully enough. Get Fletcher to help.

I'm saying that while the temperature goes up, the effect on the power
*including the lower emissivity* may be computed lower, depending on the
effective exponent used to compute the temperature.

Here's a simplified version of the math, ignoring ambient temperature and
the temperature of the camera, since the point at issue is independent of
those:

The power measured by the camera is assumed to be given by P = C*e*T^n,
where C is a constant, P is measured power within a range of wavelengths
and n is the effective exponent determined by this range of wavelengths
(which presumably depends on temperature). If the frequency range is the
entire spectrum n = 4, as in the S-B equation.

Solving for T gives T = (P/Ce)^(1/n)

Now when you calculate power, you use Pcalc  = C*e*T^4. You can see that if
n = 4, Pcalc = P for any value of e. But if n is not equal to 4 as is the
case in reality, to correct for the finite wavelength range, then Pcalc can
differ from P, as it does in the 2 examples used in the paper. So it
depends on what value of n gets used, and it may be very different when
e=0.2. It should be possible to figure this out from the Planck law, but
there is no mention of this in the paper, and no test to see what
temperature gets computed for a lower emissivity. In any case, the
correction only applies to grey bodies, where the emissivity is constant
and there is no telling what the temperature means if its not.

I don't know (and frankly doubt) that this is the problem, but all I'm
saying is that it's not as simple as you or the authors have argued, and in
the case of the authors, that's sloppy. And it's frustrating to see people
trying to argue that it is blatantly obvious that e = 1 is conservative in
all circumstances. It's not at all. It's quite subtle. And the failure to
understand this is symptomatic of shoddy work.


> I am sure this is nonsense, but even if it were true it is irrelevant.
> There is not a shred of evidence the actual emissivity of this reactor is
> anything close to 0.2. It is 0.7 to 0.9. It makes no sense to talk about
> 0.2 anything.
>
>
There is unfortunately no evidence at all what the emissivity is in the
December run.


>
>
>> I would be interested in a second opinion from someone familiar with IR
>> cameras.
>>
>
> In Fig. 7, the IR camera itself tells you the answer! That is the most
> authoritative answer you can get.
>
>
>
Not for lower emissivities and not for non-grey bodies.

Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency

[David Roberson]

Axil,

It is advantageous for the cavity to capture the photons for a reasonable 
amount of time.   This process leads to a high Q cavity with significant gain.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 11:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency



The cavity in the polariton laser is imperfect. It allows photons to  get out 
of the nano-cavities.
 
If the nano-cavities are near perfect, the photons stay inside and aid the 
electrons to concentrate.
 
See:
 
http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/en/sonstiges/meldungen/detail/artikel/eine-neue-1/
 
I am trying to figure out this one which seems to describe how photons and 
electrons are strongly coupled. It is an experimental study which means that it 
is real.
 

http://www.np.phy.cam.ac.uk/uploads/2013/prb13-mcavbistability.pdf




On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:





On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:


The polaritonis a PHOTON with a negative electric Charge. The polariton is a 
boson with spin= 1.
 
The polaritonforms the BEC, it concentrates negative electric charge, and all 
this has all been experimentally demonstrated.

 

***In a metal hydride? With hydrons?This seems to be Ed's requirement.  


 
 
And thepolariton generates the LENR reaction.


***It seems the theory is catching up.  Do you have some links?   I see earlier 
you posted this

 
LENR is like a polaritor laser turned in onto itself.   Dark mode EMF is not
allowed to exit the lattice (nuclear active environment).
 

and other items elsewhere about polaritons.  But to be candid, I did not 
understand them.
 

 
 

 

Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency

[Edmund Storms]

On May 27, 2013, at 8:12 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:




On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:


The essential question is, Does a BEC form in any material?
***Yes, according to the 2 links I posted.


Kevin, did you actually read this paper (
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf)? The conditions have no  
relationship to those in PdD at room temperature.  The BEC is created  
in vacuum at low temperatures using Rb atoms.



Various applications of this concept have been applied, but not to  
hydron atoms.
***We both already agreed to that, so I don't understand the need to  
repeat it.  This hasn't been applied for H2 or H1 or D2 gas because  
it is difficult and expensive.   Oh, and there's that added wrinkle  
where LENR starts to become active, really messing with scientists'  
heads...  ;-)




 In fact, when BEC are formed near absolute zero, they consist of  
neutral atoms in a vacuum. In the case of hydrons, they are ions  
located in stable sites in a structure. Moving these ions into a  
common site where a BEC might form takes energy.

***Okay, nothing particularly standing out in these statements.


If you think these statements are not important, than you understand  
nothing about materials science or BEC.  Creation of an assembly of  
atoms requires energy to compensate for the entropy change. This is  
basic thermodynamics. This energy is not sufficient in the formation  
of a BEC for it to occur much above absolute zero, where the entropy  
energy is small. This means a BEC cannot form between atoms much above  
absolute zero.



Formation of a BEC does not supply much energy, as theory shows.
***But Y E Kim's theory shows that the formation of a BEC could  
generate fusion, which does supply much energy.


Kim only has a theory based on the assumption that a BEC can form. He  
has shown no proof that the assumption is correct.




I do not see any advantage to pretending something might happen that  
conflicts with basic theory
***Because Y E Kim's theory fits the facts pretty good right now.   
Anyone's LENR theory will conflict with what's out there.  Including  
yours.


His theory does not fit the facts.  With more time, I can list the  
conflicts if you are interested.


Yes, some theories conflict with more facts and observations than  
others. At this stage in the process, you can choose what you want to  
believe. Nevertheless, after reading all the theories, most of the  
published papers describing the behavior of CF, and applying my  
knowledge of materials science and nuclear physics, I choose to  
believe my theory. I have described exactly why I believe my theory  
and suggested many predictions that can be used to test it. That is  
all I or anyone can do. It is now up to the experimentalist to test  
the predictions and find out who is correct. Further discussion will  
not solve the problem.




and experience unless this is the only possibility.
***What a bizarre requirement.  Where does it come from?


This is not the only possibility. In fact, better ideas have been  
suggested.
***The best ideas are the ones immediately testable.  Kim's theory  
doesn't look all that superior to others in this respect, but recent  
developments in BECs suggest that his theory is certainly worth  
looking into.


How would you propose to test his theory?

Ed Storms




Ed Storms





On May 27, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:



On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Edmund Storms > wrote:


The BEC is known from experience and theory to only form near  
absolute zero.

***How quickly you forget having logged onto this thread:

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg76596.html

And this thread was greeted with a yawn:
[Vo]:Re: Superheated Bose-Einstein condensate exists above  
critical temperature

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg78827.html

Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency

[Axil Axil]

The cavity in the polariton laser is imperfect. It allows photons to  get
out of the nano-cavities.

If the nano-cavities are near perfect, the photons stay inside and aid the
electrons to concentrate.

See:

http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/en/sonstiges/meldungen/detail/artikel/eine-neue-1/

I am trying to figure out this one which seems to describe how photons and
electrons are strongly coupled. It is an experimental study which means
that it is real.


http://www.np.phy.cam.ac.uk/uploads/2013/prb13-mcavbistability.pdf


On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> The polariton is a PHOTON with a negative electric Charge. The polariton
>> is a boson with spin = 1.
>>
>>
>>
>> The polariton forms the BEC, it concentrates negative electric charge,
>> and all this has all been experimentally demonstrated.
>>
>
> ***In a metal hydride? With hydrons?This seems to be Ed's
> requirement.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> And the polariton generates the LENR reaction.
>>
> ***It seems the theory is catching up.  Do you have some links?   I see
> earlier you posted this
>
> LENR is like a polaritor laser turned in onto itself.   Dark mode EMF is
> not
> allowed to exit the lattice (nuclear active environment).
>
> and other items elsewhere about polaritons.  But to be candid, I did not
> understand them.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[mixent]

In reply to  Andrew's message of Mon, 27 May 2013 20:22:25 -0700:
Hi Andrew,
[snip]
>Robin,
>
>Is Blacklight simply a patent repository these days or does it attempt to 
>make and sell equipment also?

I don't really keep tabs on them, but as I understand it they have always sold
licenses, and I think they now also sell software.
I don't think they have ever sold hardware.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The polariton is a PHOTON with a negative electric Charge. The polariton
> is a boson with spin = 1.
>
>
>
> The polariton forms the BEC, it concentrates negative electric charge, and
> all this has all been experimentally demonstrated.
>

***In a metal hydride? With hydrons?This seems to be Ed's requirement.

>
>
>
>
> And the polariton generates the LENR reaction.
>
***It seems the theory is catching up.  Do you have some links?   I see
earlier you posted this

LENR is like a polaritor laser turned in onto itself.   Dark mode EMF is not
allowed to exit the lattice (nuclear active environment).

and other items elsewhere about polaritons.  But to be candid, I did not
understand them.


>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Andrew]

Robin,

Is Blacklight simply a patent repository these days or does it attempt to 
make and sell equipment also?


Andrew

- Original Message - 
From: 

To: 
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test


In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Mon, 27 May 2013 16:33:01 -0600:
Hi Ed,

Thanks for the explanation.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[mixent]

In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Mon, 27 May 2013 16:33:01 -0600:
Hi Ed,

Thanks for the explanation.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency

[Axil Axil]

The polariton is a PHOTON with a negative electric Charge. The polariton is
a boson with spin = 1.



The polariton forms the BEC, it concentrates negative electric charge, and
all this has all been experimentally demonstrated.





And the polariton generates the LENR reaction.






On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

>
> On May 27, 2013, at 7:29 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Kevin, I see no evidence in the link for the actual existence of a BEC
>> forming between hydrons at room temperature. People have proposed but not
>> demonstrated.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
> ***That's because it would be difficult and expensive to demonstrate.
> What you said was "The BEC is known from experience and theory to only form
> near absolute zero."  But that is not the case.  So if BECs in other
> materials can form at high temperature, it is not a tremendous supposition
> to suggest they can in Nickel/H1 of Palladium/Deuterium.
>
>
> The essential question is, Does a BEC form in any material? Various
> applications of this concept have been applied, but not to hydron atoms.
>  In fact, when BEC are formed near absolute zero, they consist of neutral
> atoms in a vacuum. In the case of hydrons, they are ions located in stable
> sites in a structure. Moving these ions into a common site where a BEC
> might form takes energy. Formation of a BEC does not supply much energy, as
> theory shows. I do not see any advantage to pretending something might
> happen that conflicts with basic theory and experience unless this is the
> only possibility. This is not the only possibility. In fact, better ideas
> have been suggested.
>
> Ed Storms
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On May 27, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>> The BEC is known from experience and theory to only form near absolute
>> zero.
>> ***How quickly you forget having logged onto this thread:
>>
>> Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room 
>> Temperature
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg76596.html
>>
>> And this thread was greeted with a yawn:
>> [Vo]:Re: Superheated Bose-Einstein condensate exists above critical
>> temperature
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg78827.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

>
> The essential question is, Does a BEC form in any material?
>
***Yes, according to the 2 links I posted.



> Various applications of this concept have been applied, but not to hydron
> atoms.
>
***We both already agreed to that, so I don't understand the need to repeat
it.  This hasn't been applied for H2 or H1 or D2 gas because it is
difficult and expensive.   Oh, and there's that added wrinkle where LENR
starts to become active, really messing with scientists' heads...  ;-)




>  In fact, when BEC are formed near absolute zero, they consist of neutral
> atoms in a vacuum. In the case of hydrons, they are ions located in stable
> sites in a structure. Moving these ions into a common site where a BEC
> might form takes energy.
>
***Okay, nothing particularly standing out in these statements.



> Formation of a BEC does not supply much energy, as theory shows.
>
***But Y E Kim's theory shows that the formation of a BEC could generate
fusion, which does supply much energy.




> I do not see any advantage to pretending something might happen that
> conflicts with basic theory
>
***Because Y E Kim's theory fits the facts pretty good right now.  Anyone's
LENR theory will conflict with what's out there.  Including yours.




> and experience unless this is the only possibility.
>
***What a bizarre requirement.  Where does it come from?



> This is not the only possibility. In fact, better ideas have been
> suggested.
>
***The best ideas are the ones immediately testable.  Kim's theory doesn't
look all that superior to others in this respect, but recent developments
in BECs suggest that his theory is certainly worth looking into.


>
>
> Ed Storms
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On May 27, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>> The BEC is known from experience and theory to only form near absolute
>> zero.
>> ***How quickly you forget having logged onto this thread:
>>
>> Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room 
>> Temperature
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg76596.html
>>
>> And this thread was greeted with a yawn:
>> [Vo]:Re: Superheated Bose-Einstein condensate exists above critical
>> temperature
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg78827.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi

[Andrew]

Ah yes; Ni! I think I've identified the secret ingredient here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIV4poUZAQo

-- a shrubbery.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 5:10 PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi


  ChemE and Andrew:

  If you read the entire thread, you'll see my statement:

  "If this sort of thing is happening in or around the NAE,
  whatever they turn out to be, then it could very well explain how the
  Coulomb barrier is overcome..."



  You should both be quite familiar with the term, NAE, coined by Dr. Storms, 
so I shouldn't have to explain this further.

   

  The thread was discussing localized areas in the Ni or Pd samples used in 
LENR research, which, due to specific and rare conditions, do NOT behave as the 
bulk material; some of the physics which describe the bulk material no longer 
apply.

   

  Let me be more explicit.

  If you have a chuck of Ni, that is 'bulk' matter; its physical properties are 
well known and predictable.  However, inside that bulk Ni are dislocations and 
voids caused by stress relief and perhaps other well know processes.  These 
voids, and perhaps the atoms immediately surrounding them,  or atoms trapped 
inside, given certain conditions, do NOT behave as predicted by the physics 
which describe the behavior of the BULK Ni.

   

  It wouldn't surprise me if one reason it is taking so long for LENR 
researchers to develop a viable theoretical framework is that they are relying 
too much on the physics of the 'bulk' material, when the active areas where 
LENR takes place is not governed by the same physics;  they need to be looking 
outside the bulk box.

   

  -Mark 

   

  From: ChemE Stewart [mailto:cheme...@gmail.com] 
  Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 4:42 PM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi

   

  I am not sure what Mark is referring to but I believe the core of the Earth 
is a Black Brane 

   

  

   

  Stewart

   

  On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Andrew  wrote:

  Are we talking about the bulk of theoretical physics? If so, then it's simply 
everything that's not on the brane. I like to conceptualise it as an embedding 
space of higher dimension than the brane we inhabit.

  Andrew

   

- Original Message - 

From: ChemE Stewart 

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 4:11 PM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi

 

Mark, 

 



 

 

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:22 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  
wrote:

Mornin' Jones!

NAE might imply to some 'nuclear', but I qualified it with , "..in or around
the NAE, *whatever they turn out to be*,"

I use the term NAE more in a general sense to refer to the localized areas
that are conducive to the reaction/process... it obviously is quite
different than the bulk, or else there would be a big hole in the earth,
instead of the tabletop!
;-)

Processes in the bulk can be considered random and disordered, and therefore
one must use QM and probabilities to predict behaviors.   I would bet that
once we understand what is going on in NAEs (generally speaking), it will
NOT be random, and will be modeled in a more classical manner.

I see much discussion about the conditions necessary to overcome the coulomb
barrier.  In trying to think their way thru it, they apply some scientific
'rules' so as to propose something that is at least reasonable, and
rightfully so.  However, the 'rules' seem to me to be taken from what's
expected of the bulk properties, and I take issue with that.  The concept of
resonances and coherent (or in-phase) oscillatory systems can cause
long-term localized regions which concentrate energy; the bulk's physics of
chaotic randomness does NOT support this concentration of energy.  For the
localized areas (NAEs), is the concentration of energy enough to overcome
the coulomb barrier?  Time will tell.  Tesla was generating potentials of
tens of millions of volts in his secondary from only a few hundred volts in
his primary, so amplification factors of 4 to 6 orders of magnitude are
perfectly reasonable...


-Mark
_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]

Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 9:54 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi



Mark,

Yes - the "energy localization" aspect of Ahern/Dicke/Preparata and the
superradiance modality could apply to any secondary reaction which benefits
from local mechanical pressure at the nm geometry.

However, the "NAE" implies a nuclear reaction, which may not be necessary.

The absence of gamma radiation presents the prima facie case that no
traditional nuc

RE: [Vo]:Update- Rossi no longer controls the E-cat business

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

What I take from this is that perhaps Rossi has finally allowed himself to
be sequestered within a business model where his exceptional talents within
the R&A field will continue to be valued while simultaneously removed from
where his eccentricities and propensity to micromanage every aspect of a
business are least valued.

 

Hopefully, this is a positive step towards a more robust business model.

 

And yes, who is this "American" company.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency

[Edmund Storms]

On May 27, 2013, at 7:29 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:




On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
Kevin, I see no evidence in the link for the actual existence of a  
BEC forming between hydrons at room temperature. People have  
proposed but not demonstrated.


Ed Storms
***That's because it would be difficult and expensive to  
demonstrate.  What you said was "The BEC is known from experience  
and theory to only form near absolute zero."  But that is not the  
case.  So if BECs in other materials can form at high temperature,  
it is not a tremendous supposition to suggest they can in Nickel/H1  
of Palladium/Deuterium.


The essential question is, Does a BEC form in any material? Various  
applications of this concept have been applied, but not to hydron  
atoms.  In fact, when BEC are formed near absolute zero, they consist  
of neutral atoms in a vacuum. In the case of hydrons, they are ions  
located in stable sites in a structure. Moving these ions into a  
common site where a BEC might form takes energy. Formation of a BEC  
does not supply much energy, as theory shows. I do not see any  
advantage to pretending something might happen that conflicts with  
basic theory and experience unless this is the only possibility. This  
is not the only possibility. In fact, better ideas have been suggested.


Ed Storms




On May 27, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:



On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Edmund Storms > wrote:


The BEC is known from experience and theory to only form near  
absolute zero.

***How quickly you forget having logged onto this thread:

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg76596.html

And this thread was greeted with a yawn:
[Vo]:Re: Superheated Bose-Einstein condensate exists above critical  
temperature

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg78827.html

Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency

[Kevin O'Malley]

This paper verifies that a photon eradiated Bose-Einstein condensate will
cut the frequency of incoming photons by dividing that frequency between N
numbers of atoms.
***So if one assumes a gamma ray is emitted by a BEC cold fusion event,
eventually one could go backwards and measure the frequency generated to
see how many atoms formed the BEC, right?  And the average frequency would
give us the average # of atoms per BEC.  I wonder if anyone has ever
measured emitted frequencies of LENR experiments.


On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> This paper verifies that a photon eradiated Bose-Einstein condensate will
> cut the frequency of incoming photons by dividing that frequency between N
> numbers of atoms.
>
>
>
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf
>
>
>
> Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate
>
>
>
>  “The results of theoretical simulations are represented by the
> continuous lines.
>
>
>
> According to the super-atom picture the collective Rabi frequency for the
> coherent excitation of N atoms is
>
>
>
> frequency (collective) = square root(number of atoms) X frequency(single);
>
>
>
> Where the single-particle Rabi frequency (single) is app 2 pi x 200 kHz
> for our experimental parameters.”
>

Re: [Vo]:The Real Space Age

[James Bowery]

*Necessity and Incentives*

*Opening the Space Frontier*

Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Space

by James Bowery, Chairman

Coalition for Science and Commerce

July 31, 1991





*Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee:*

I am James Bowery, Chairman of the Coalition for Science and Commerce. We
greatly appreciate the opportunity to address the subcommittee on the
critical and historic topic of commercial incentives to open the space
frontier.

The Coalition for Science and Commerce is a grassroots network of citizen
activists supporting greater public funding for diversified scientific
research and greater private funding for proprietary technology and
services. We believe these are mutually reinforcing policies which have
been violated to the detriment of civilization. We believe in the
constitutional provision of patents of invention and that the principles of
free enterprise pertain to intellectual property. We therefore see
technology development as a private sector responsibility. We also
recognize that scientific knowledge is our common heritage and is therefore
a proper function of government. We oppose government programs that remove
procurement authority from scientists, supposedly in service of them.
Rather we support the inclusion, on a per-grant basis, of all funding
needed to purchase the use of needed goods and services, thereby creating a
scientist-driven market for commercial high technology and services. We
also oppose government subsidy of technology development. Rather we support
legislation and policies that motivate the intelligent investment of
private risk capital in the creation of commercially viable intellectual
property.

In 1990, after a 3 year effort with Congressman Ron Packard (CA) and a
bipartisan team of Congressional leaders, we succeeded in passing the
Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990, a law which requires NASA to procure
launch services in a commercially reasonable manner from the private
sector. The lobbying effort for this legislation came totally from
taxpaying citizens acting in their home districts without a direct
financial stake -- the kind of political intended by our country's
founders, but now rarely seen in America.

We ask citizens who work with us for the most valuable thing they can
contribute: The voluntary and targeted investment of time, energy and
resources in specific issues and positions which they support as taxpaying
citizens of the United States. There is no collective action, no slush-fund
and no bureaucracy within the Coalition: Only citizens encouraging each
other to make the necessary sacrifices to participate in the political
process, which is their birthright and duty as Americans. We are working to
give interested taxpayers a voice that can be heard above the din of
lobbyists who seek ever increasing government funding for their clients.

*Introduction*

Americans need a frontier, not a program.

Incentives open frontiers, not plans.

If this Subcommittee hears no other message through the barrage of studies,
projections and policy recommendations, it must hear this message. A
reformed space policy focused on opening the space frontier through
commercial incentives will make all the difference to our future as a
world, a nation and as individuals.



*Americans Need a Frontier*

When Neil Armstrong stepped foot on the moon, we won the "space race"
against the Soviets and entered two decades of diminished expectations.

The Apollo program elicited something deep within Americans. Something
almost primal. Apollo was President Kennedy's "New Frontier." But when
Americans found it was terminated as nothing more than a Cold War contest,
we felt betrayed in ways we are still unable to articulate -- betrayed
right down to our pioneering souls. The result is that Americans will never
again truly believe in government space programs and plans.

Without a frontier, for the past two decades, Americans have operated under
the inevitable conclusion that land, raw materials and wealth itself are
fundamentally limited and therefore to be hoarded and controlled -- rather
than created. Out of this post-Apollo mentality, a deeply rooted cynicism
has led young people into careers as lawyers and financial manipulators
rather than farmers, inventors and engineers. It has led to an
environmental movement which loathes humanity's natural capacity to
transform hostile environments with technology. It has led to cartels, wars
over energy and a devastatingly expensive arms race. It has led businesses
and investors to remain averse to high risk technology development even as
they issue billions in high risk debt vehicles for corporate take-overs. It
has led to a preference for real estate speculation over job creating
investments, making it nearly impossible for most of those born in the
mid-to-late baby boom of the 1950s to establish stable careers, homesteads
and equity for retirement, even with two incomes.

In short, the lack of 

Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Kevin, I see no evidence in the link for the actual existence of a BEC
> forming between hydrons at room temperature. People have proposed but not
> demonstrated.
>
> Ed Storms
>
***That's because it would be difficult and expensive to demonstrate.  What
you said was "The BEC is known from experience and theory to only form near
absolute zero."  But that is not the case.  So if BECs in other materials
can form at high temperature, it is not a tremendous supposition to suggest
they can in Nickel/H1 of Palladium/Deuterium.



>
> On May 27, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
> The BEC is known from experience and theory to only form near absolute
> zero.
> ***How quickly you forget having logged onto this thread:
>
> Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room 
> Temperature
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg76596.html
>
> And this thread was greeted with a yawn:
> [Vo]:Re: Superheated Bose-Einstein condensate exists above critical
> temperature
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg78827.html
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Update- Rossi no longer controls the E-cat business

[Daniel Rocha]

But knowing that Rossi attaches himself to silly details, it means that the
research part of his business went to his wife, formally.


2013/5/27 Jed Rothwell 

> Daniel Rocha  wrote:
>
> Probably his wife...
>>
>
> His wife has always been in charge of the business. Seriously. Assuming
> this report is true, I suppose it means someone else now is.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Update- Rossi no longer controls the E-cat business

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> His wife has always been in charge of the business. Seriously. Assuming this
> report is true, I suppose it means someone else now is.

It would be nice if it was LockMart.  I have friends there.

Re: [Vo]:Update- Rossi no longer controls the E-cat business

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

Probably his wife...
>

His wife has always been in charge of the business. Seriously. Assuming
this report is true, I suppose it means someone else now is.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency

[Edmund Storms]

Kevin, I see no evidence in the link for the actual existence of a BEC  
forming between hydrons at room temperature. People have proposed but  
not demonstrated.


Ed Storms
On May 27, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:



On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:


The BEC is known from experience and theory to only form near  
absolute zero.

***How quickly you forget having logged onto this thread:

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg76596.html

And this thread was greeted with a yawn:
[Vo]:Re: Superheated Bose-Einstein condensate exists above critical  
temperature

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg78827.html

Re: [Vo]:Update- Rossi no longer controls the E-cat business

[Daniel Rocha]

Probably his wife...


2013/5/27 Ron Kita 

> Greetings Vortex-L
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/rossi-no-longer-controls-e-cat-business/
>
> Understandable..it will keep him "safer".
>
> Respectfully,
> Ron Kita, Chiralex
>



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

Re: [Vo]:Update- Rossi no longer controls the E-cat business

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>>
>> SPAWAR?
>
>
> Emphatically not.

SAIC?

Re: [Vo]:Update- Rossi no longer controls the E-cat business

[Jed Rothwell]

Terry Blanton  wrote:


> SPAWAR?
>

Emphatically not.

I do not know who it is but I am sure it isn't them.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Jed Rothwell]

Eric Walker  wrote:

Joshua's position is that in the present measurements, the emissivity is
> implicitly taken into account twice when using an IR camera, and that in
> assuming that a high epsilon is conservative (in the first calculation),
> people are neglecting to see what effect it has on the calculated power in
> the second calculation.
>

For the fifth time, the authors addressed this! It is shown right there in
Fig. 7. The camera software computes higher temperatures. The higher the
temperature, the higher the power (all else being equal, which of course it
is, since we are only changing one parameter).

It could not be shown more clearly! With this camera, when you lower the
emissivity parameter, the computed temperature goes up.

Cude asserts that if they lowered it all the way to 0.2 the temperature
might be computed lower. I am sure this is nonsense, but even if it were
true it is irrelevant. There is not a shred of evidence the actual
emissivity of this reactor is anything close to 0.2. It is 0.7 to 0.9. It
makes no sense to talk about 0.2 anything.



> I would be interested in a second opinion from someone familiar with IR
> cameras.
>

In Fig. 7, the IR camera itself tells you the answer! That is the most
authoritative answer you can get.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Update- Rossi no longer controls the E-cat business

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Ron Kita  wrote:
> Greetings Vortex-L
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/rossi-no-longer-controls-e-cat-business/

SPAWAR?

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Harry Veeder]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>>>

 But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the
 December test was, nor whether it was wavelength dependent.  There may be a
 paint for which an assumption of emissivity of 1 greatly overestimates the
 power. A few measurements could have excluded this possibility.


>>>
>>>
>>> This book
>>>
>>> _Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles_
>>>
>>> says for a body to have an emissivity > 1 it can't be much bigger than
>>> the wavelength it radiates.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not suggesting emissivity greater than 1. I'm suggesting we don't
>> know how the correction for a limited wavelength range goes for low
>> emissivity (this could be answered with a bit of effort, or by an expert in
>> the area), and more importantly, we don't know if the surface has a
>> wavelength dependent emissivity, in which case, an assumption of unity
>> could err on either side of the true value of the power depending on the
>> particular dependence.
>>
>
>
>
> If they take emissivity = 1 then they are assuming the worst value for
> emissivity at all wavelengths. How will a lower emissivity in any
> range lead to an over estimation of power?
>
> Harry
>
>

Never mind. I see what you mean

The power measurements are just as sloppy as the earlier ECat tests. I
though it would be when I heard in April that they were
measuring radiant power.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

If they take emissivity = 1 then they are assuming the worst value for
> emissivity at all wavelengths. How will a lower emissivity in any
> range lead to an over estimation of power?
>

Joshua's position is that in the present measurements, the emissivity is
implicitly taken into account twice when using an IR camera, and that in
assuming that a high epsilon is conservative (in the first calculation),
people are neglecting to see what effect it has on the calculated power in
the second calculation.  There are some subtleties that have to do with the
processing software of the IR camera.  He has explained this several times.

I would be interested in a second opinion from someone familiar with IR
cameras.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Harry Veeder]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the
>>> December test was, nor whether it was wavelength dependent.  There may be a
>>> paint for which an assumption of emissivity of 1 greatly overestimates the
>>> power. A few measurements could have excluded this possibility.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> This book
>>
>> _Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles_
>>
>> says for a body to have an emissivity > 1 it can't be much bigger than
>> the wavelength it radiates.
>>
>
>
>
> I'm not suggesting emissivity greater than 1. I'm suggesting we don't know
> how the correction for a limited wavelength range goes for low emissivity
> (this could be answered with a bit of effort, or by an expert in the area),
> and more importantly, we don't know if the surface has a wavelength
> dependent emissivity, in which case, an assumption of unity could err on
> either side of the true value of the power depending on the particular
> dependence.
>



If they take emissivity = 1 then they are assuming the worst value for
emissivity at all wavelengths. How will a lower emissivity in any
range lead to an over estimation of power?

Harry

[Vo]:Update- Rossi no longer controls the E-cat business

[Ron Kita]

Greetings Vortex-L
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/rossi-no-longer-controls-e-cat-business/

Understandable..it will keep him "safer".

Respectfully,
Ron Kita, Chiralex

RE: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Josh questions:

"I'm talking about the December test, when a different paint was used. I
don't think we know anything about the emissivity of that paint, nor its
dependence on wavelength."

 

You could just as easily do a 30 second search and FIND THE ANSWER!

 

Emissivity of various materials:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html

 

Black Body Matt   1.00

 

Black lacquer on iron  0.875

Black Silicone Paint  0.93

Black Epoxy Paint 0.89

Black Enamel Paint  0.80

 

ALL of these black paints are within the range:  0.80 - 0.93

 

>From this document:

 
http://www.scigiene.com/pdfs/428_InfraredThermometerEmissivitytablesrev.pdf

(the figure on the far right is the emissivity)

Paints   

Blue, Cu2O3  75 (24)  0.94

Black, CuO  75 (24)  0.96

Green, Cu2O3  75 (24)  0.92

Red, Fe2O3  75 (24)  0.91

White, Al2O3  75 (24)  0.94

White, Y2O3  75 (24)  0.9

White, ZnO  75 (24)  0.95

White, MgCO3  75 (24)  0.91

White, ZrO2  75 (24)  0.95

White, ThO2  75 (24)  0.9

White, MgO  75 (24)  0.91

White, PbCO3  75 (24)  0.93

Yellow, PbO  75 (24)  0.9

Yellow, PbCrO4  75 (24)  0.93

 

It should be obvious that most paints, REGARDLESS OF COLOR, have an
emissivity >0.9.

 

In addition, the value for the black paint used on the March reactor was
ALSO in this range when emissivity 'dots' and a thermocouple were used as
checks.  If someone wanted to go back to the December reactor and substitute
a value for emissivity, a value within this range is REASONABLE; using or
suggesting something *other* than this would require justification.

 

With the internet being so convenient, let's check for the emissivity for
the underlying ceramic:

  ". having a *silicon  nitride* ceramic outer shell, 33 cm in length,
and 10 cm in diameter. "

 

Emissivity between .88 to .98.  See the chart a few postings from the top at
this website:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/22307/Emissivity-Of-Silicon-Nitride-Si3N4

 

 

 "A second cylinder made of a different ceramic material (corundum)." 

 

The above-linked table also lists:

Silicon Carbide   (carborundum)0.83 - 0.96

 

But they specifically say, 'corundum', which is a crystalline form of
aluminum oxide (Al2O3).

This is a common geological mineral, and I have to wonder if they really
meant carborundum (SiC)?

 

-Mark Iverson

 

From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:02 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

 

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

> From: "Joshua Cude" 
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:41:34 PM


> And just in case you're wondering how e effects the calculated power
>
> P = a . e . (T1^4 - T0^4) -- T1 actual, T0 ambient
>
> a e Tc Tk P
> area 18 1.00E-10 0.8 564.1 837.1 38.84 <=== lower "e" OVER-estimates the
power
> area 19 1.00E-10 1 496.6 769.6 34.52
> area 20 1.00E-10 0.95 511.7 784.7 35.49

> You're right. I did that calculation too. But the reason they're not
> equal is because they use an effective exponent not equal to 4 when
> they calculate temperature. It's not clear what that effective
> exponent would be if the emissivity were set to 0.2, and so we don't
> know what the effect would be there. And in particular, we don't
> know what the effect would be if the emissivity depended on
> wavelength. The literature warns about poor accuracy in such cases.

But it's NOT metal : it's metal-ceramic-paint.
AND the "blank" test was in the same temperature range as the "live" test.

They checked it with a) DOTS of known emissivity and b) A thermocouple --
giving results in reasonable agreement with the calorimeter.

 

 

I'm talking about the December test, when a different paint was used. I
don't think we know anything about the emissivity of that paint, nor it's
dependence on wavelength.

 

In the March test, the power estimate was better, though far from good, but
the input was dodgier.

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

ChemE and Andrew:

If you read the entire thread, you'll see my statement:

"If this sort of thing is happening in or around the NAE,
whatever they turn out to be, then it could very well explain how the
Coulomb barrier is overcome..."



You should both be quite familiar with the term, NAE, coined by Dr. Storms,
so I shouldn't have to explain this further.

 

The thread was discussing localized areas in the Ni or Pd samples used in
LENR research, which, due to specific and rare conditions, do NOT behave as
the bulk material; some of the physics which describe the bulk material no
longer apply.

 

Let me be more explicit.

If you have a chuck of Ni, that is 'bulk' matter; its physical properties
are well known and predictable.  However, inside that bulk Ni are
dislocations and voids caused by stress relief and perhaps other well know
processes.  These voids, and perhaps the atoms immediately surrounding them,
or atoms trapped inside, given certain conditions, do NOT behave as
predicted by the physics which describe the behavior of the BULK Ni.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if one reason it is taking so long for LENR
researchers to develop a viable theoretical framework is that they are
relying too much on the physics of the 'bulk' material, when the active
areas where LENR takes place is not governed by the same physics;  they need
to be looking outside the bulk box.

 

-Mark 

 

From: ChemE Stewart [mailto:cheme...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 4:42 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi

 

I am not sure what Mark is referring to but I believe the core of the Earth
is a Black Brane 

 



 

Stewart

 

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Andrew  wrote:

Are we talking about the bulk of theoretical physics? If so, then it's
simply everything that's not on the brane. I like to conceptualise it as an
embedding space of higher dimension than the brane we inhabit.

Andrew

 

- Original Message - 

From: ChemE Stewart   

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 4:11 PM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi

 

Mark, 

 



 

 

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:22 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
wrote:

Mornin' Jones!

NAE might imply to some 'nuclear', but I qualified it with , "..in or around
the NAE, *whatever they turn out to be*,"

I use the term NAE more in a general sense to refer to the localized areas
that are conducive to the reaction/process... it obviously is quite
different than the bulk, or else there would be a big hole in the earth,
instead of the tabletop!
;-)

Processes in the bulk can be considered random and disordered, and therefore
one must use QM and probabilities to predict behaviors.   I would bet that
once we understand what is going on in NAEs (generally speaking), it will
NOT be random, and will be modeled in a more classical manner.

I see much discussion about the conditions necessary to overcome the coulomb
barrier.  In trying to think their way thru it, they apply some scientific
'rules' so as to propose something that is at least reasonable, and
rightfully so.  However, the 'rules' seem to me to be taken from what's
expected of the bulk properties, and I take issue with that.  The concept of
resonances and coherent (or in-phase) oscillatory systems can cause
long-term localized regions which concentrate energy; the bulk's physics of
chaotic randomness does NOT support this concentration of energy.  For the
localized areas (NAEs), is the concentration of energy enough to overcome
the coulomb barrier?  Time will tell.  Tesla was generating potentials of
tens of millions of volts in his secondary from only a few hundred volts in
his primary, so amplification factors of 4 to 6 orders of magnitude are
perfectly reasonable...


-Mark
_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]

Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 9:54 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi



Mark,

Yes - the "energy localization" aspect of Ahern/Dicke/Preparata and the
superradiance modality could apply to any secondary reaction which benefits
from local mechanical pressure at the nm geometry.

However, the "NAE" implies a nuclear reaction, which may not be necessary.

The absence of gamma radiation presents the prima facie case that no
traditional nuclear reaction takes place. The is no good reason to propose a
known nuclear reaction, if good alternatives exist, which is the case.

Ahern and others, including Mitchell Swartz seem to be leaning towards an
explanation where thermal gain is QM-based and mediated by spin dynamics -
which involves the "magnon".

The source for energy mediated by magnons can itself be nuclear or
non-nuclear. This is where semantics enters the picture - but one is on
firmer theoretical ground using QM magnons as an operative modality - rather
than LENR "cold fusion".

The magnon is a 

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments

[David Roberson]

Andrew, I tried very hard to teach you about this subject and failed miserably. 
 If you do not understand it after my extreme effort, then it must be beyond 
your level of knowledge.

Even though I failed, you can run a spice program and see for yourself.  I did 
this for proof.  Do you want to argue with a program that does not have an 
agenda?  Apparently you are being confused by the complexity of DC versus AC 
waveforms.

Good luck,

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 7:08 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments



"Power from an AC source can only be extracted by the fundamental component of 
that source, period. "
 
An uneducated and completely incorrect statement like that disqualifies you, in 
my view, from making any further comments about the EE aspects of this 
experiment. If you do, I urge anyone reading them to ignore them, because in 
all likelihood they will also be wrong.
 
Andrew
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   David   Roberson 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 1:55 PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn   Hartman describes power measurments
  


  
If you do not understand what I have already written then it is not going   to 
help to go over it again.   I leave this discussion by asking you   one 
pertinent question.  Where do you think the power comes from that   ends up in 
the resistor?  There is only one source and it is the AC   mains.  Power from 
an AC source can only be extracted by the fundamental   component of that 
source, period.  All others, including DC balance out   over the long run and 
can not make a long term contribution.  Once you   realize that this is true, 
which is common theory, it will become clear to you   that a measurement of 
these two waveforms is all that is required.
  
 
  
Forget the nonsense about diodes faking out good AC true RMS   instruments.  It 
don't happen.
  
 
  
Dave
  
 
  
-Original   Message-
From: Duncan Cumming 
To:   vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 4:32   pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power   measurments

  
  
  
OK, I will tackle this problem head-on using the   Socratic method in stages. 

First, consider a wire carrying 100 amps of   direct current, plus one amp of 
pure sinusoidal AC current at 60Hz. What is   the AC component of the current?

Duncan

P.S. Don't worry, we   will get to the diode later.

On 5/27/2013 11:57 AM, David Roberson   wrote:

  

Duncan, I hate to keep repeating myself that the power can be measured by 
analyzing the AC components only.  When will you guys show why this is not 
true?  I suggest that you start with the simple system you proposed of a 
diode in series with a resistor driven by an AC wall socket.  Explain how 
it works as you say and I promise to show you the error of your 
calculations.

 

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Duncan Cumming 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 2:38 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments




I am not sure if I count as a skeptic, because I am not saying that any 
kind of scam was perpetrated. I am certainly not suggesting that there was 
a DC power supply hidden in the wall! My doubts are related to the 
electrical engineering skills evident in the published paper, attempting 
the notoriously difficult task of measuring three phase non sinusoidal 
power. Not only is the waveform non sinusoidal, it is a trade secret!

I am merely saying that rectification will cause a misleadingly low value 
of current to be registered using a clamp on ammeter. Since the DC is not 
smooth, there will, indeed, be a small reading from the ammeter but 
substantially lower than the actual current. This will, in turn, lead to a 
misleadingly low power measurement.

Duncan

On 5/26/2013 8:46 PM, David Roberson wrote:


  
Robin,
  
 
  
The problem at hand is that the skeptic claims that power   due to the DC 
current can be very large and not detected.  There has   been no discussion 
of the AC current reading being affected by the DC so   far.  That is a 
different issue entirely.
  
 
  
I would like for them to answer the questions because then they might   
realize that their position is invalid.  I can explain this if   required.  
No one is suggesting that Rossi actually has a DC power   supply hidden 
within the wall I hope.  This would be beyond reality   since it would be 
so easy to measure with a voltmeter or any monitor that   looks at the 
voltage.  The testers did a visual look at the voltage   from what I have 
determined.
  
 
  
So, skeptics, what say you?
  
 
  
Dave
  
-Original   Message-
From: mixent 
To:   vortex-l 
Sent:   Sun, May 26, 2013 11:0

Re: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi

[ChemE Stewart]

I am not sure what Mark is referring to but I believe the core of the Earth
is a Black Brane (most likely 5 dimensions curled up), her magnetic fields
are connected 1-1 Branes(strings), our quantum gravity field contains 1-2
Branes with the Sun, which is also a larger black brane at her core.  Those
billions of tons of CMEs and solar wind contain closed string 1-Branes and
along with our quantum gravity field they also create our severe weather on
Earth, through vacuum condensing and electromagnetic activity, along with
sinkholes and seismic activity.

We are all in effect orbiting approx. 3960 miles away from the Earth's
black hole/brane core on a lump of baryonic matter surrounding her.  Te Sun
is a black brane particle collider and collapser of Hydrogen.

Stewart
darkmattersalot.com


On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Andrew  wrote:

> **
> Are we talking about the bulk of theoretical physics? If so, then it's
> simply everything that's not on the brane. I like to conceptualise it as an
> embedding space of higher dimension than the brane we inhabit.
>
> Andrew
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* ChemE Stewart 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Monday, May 27, 2013 4:11 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi
>
> Mark,
>
> Just to comment on your comments to the "Bulk".
>
>  "it obviously is quite different than the bulk, or else there would be a
> big hole in the earth,instead of the tabletop! "
>
> We do get lots of large holes in the bulk, we call them "sinkholes"  some
> are very large and strange.  I have been tracking approx. 120 along with
> the weather patterns.  Here is an interesting one from 2011
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/sinkhole-found-under-guatemalan-womans-bed/2011/07/21/gIQAw3ThRI_blog.html
>
> "Processes in the bulk can be considered random and disordered, and
> therefore one must use QM and probabilities to predict behaviors"
>
> Our weather patterns on Earth are not random and disordered, in fact when
> nature creates waterspouts, tornadoes, hurricanes and severe cold fronts
> from originally a random and disordered gas she is showing us her ability
> to organize random gasseous environment into a thermodynamic and
> electromagnetic marvel.
>
> "bulk's physics of chaotic randomness does NOT support this concentration
> of energy"
>
>  *Air + Water Vapor = 9.6 Megatons* (600 Hiroshima Bombs) from the latest
> Oklahoma tornado mentioned by scientists 
> here
>
> *Snowball +  Empty Space >= 1 Megaton* (Greater than Million times
> Nuclear Brightness Magnitude Increase) from Comet Holmes mentioned by 
> Scientists
> here
>  and
> researched to be from “exotic ice” here 
> (that
> research must have been dreamt up while smoking something exotic)
>
> *Rock/Metal + Air = 30 Megaton*s 
> (Tunguska),
> unfortunately they can’t find the pieces, just a lake and some sinkholes
>
> *Rock/Metal + Air =480 Kilotons* 
> (Chelyabinsk),
> Unfortunately they are mostly left with a large hole in the ice and some
> itty bitty pieces.
>
> *Air + Water Vapor = 95.6 Megatons* (Annual Total of lightning striking
> Earth) from 
> here,
> you can check my conversion 
> here
>
> *Air + Water Vapor = 12428 MEGATONS* (Energy Released DAILY FROM A
> HURRICANE).  You can find it here
>
> *Rock + Rock = 2390 Megatons* (Annual Energy from Earthquakes – 23 ergs).
> You can find it 
> here
>
> In summary, I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of the "bulk"
> unless you just limit it to the physics of a local area of spacetime.
> Stewart
> darkmattersalot.com
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:22 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
>
>> Mornin' Jones!
>>
>> NAE might imply to some 'nuclear', but I qualified it with , "..in or
>> around
>> the NAE, *whatever they turn out to be*,"
>>
>> I use the term NAE more in a general sense to refer to the localized areas
>> that are conducive to the reaction/process... it obviously is quite
>> different than the bulk, or else there would be a big hole in the earth,
>> instead of the tabletop!
>> ;-)
>>
>> Processes in the bulk can be considered random and disordered, and
>> therefore
>> one must use QM and probabilities to predict behaviors.   I would bet that
>> once we understand what is going on in NAEs (generally speaking), it will
>> NOT be random, and

[Vo]: More in the press today

[Andrew]

http://www.universetoday.com/102398/cold-fusion-experiment-maybe-holds-promise-possibly-hang-on-a-sec/
A tentative thumbs-up from the Fleischmann Memorial website. And as usual, the 
comments are also interesting.

Andrew

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments

[David Roberson]

The report included a couple of graphs on page 27.   One was power out per 
their measurement, the other power in.  The mere fact that the power out versus 
time is clearly modulated proves that the input is not constant.   The duty 
cycle can also be determined from that chart.   I am not sure that there is any 
evidence that could support their claim better.

 It does no good to assume that Rossi is scamming and you guys should 
concentrate on proving that there is a problem with the measurements.  I assume 
that you understand my explanation why the DC is not important to the input 
power measurement.  That is basic electronics.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 6:21 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments


Check out these 2 videos. It's a clear demonstration of how full power can be 
transferred to a resistive load without registering current on either clamp-on 
or in-line ammeters. I don't know how it's done but I suspect high frequency, 
but the point is that just because I can't explain it, doesn't mean I must 
conclude that cheese can supply the power.


This switch could emulate Rossi's on/off cycling, and judging from input 
measurements one would conclude a duty cycle of 1/3, but looking at the 
resistive load, it would be 1:1.






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovGXDDvc3ck


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frp03muquAo






On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:55 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

If you do not understand what I have already written then it is not going to 
help to go over it again.   I leave this discussion by asking you one pertinent 
question.  Where do you think the power comes from that ends up in the 
resistor?  There is only one source and it is the AC mains.  Power from an AC 
source can only be extracted by the fundamental component of that source, 
period.  All others, including DC balance out over the long run and can not 
make a long term contribution.  Once you realize that this is true, which is 
common theory, it will become clear to you that a measurement of these two 
waveforms is all that is required.
 
Forget the nonsense about diodes faking out good AC true RMS instruments.  It 
don't happen.
 
Dave
 

-Original Message-
From: Duncan Cumming 
To: vortex-l 


Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 4:32 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments


  

OK, I will tackle this problem head-on  using the Socratic method in 
stages. 
  
  First, consider a wire carrying 100 amps of direct current, plus  one 
amp of pure sinusoidal AC current at 60Hz. What is the AC  component of the 
current?
  
  Duncan
  
  P.S. Don't worry, we will get to the diode later.
  
  On 5/27/2013 11:57 AM, David Roberson wrote:



Duncan, I hate to keep repeatingmyself that the power can be 
measured by analyzing the ACcomponents only.  When will you guys 
show why this is nottrue?  I suggest that you start with the simple 
system youproposed of a diode in series with a resistor driven by 
anAC wall socket.  Explain how it works as you say and I
promise to show you the error of your calculations.

 

Dave

-Original Message-
  From: Duncan Cumming 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 2:38 pm
  Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power  
measurments
  
  

  
I am not sure if I count as askeptic, because I am not saying 
that any kind of scamwas perpetrated. I am certainly not 
suggesting thatthere was a DC power supply hidden in the wall! 
Mydoubts are related to the electrical engineering skills   
 evident in the published paper, attempting the
notoriously difficult task of measuring three phase non
sinusoidal power. Not only is the waveform nonsinusoidal, it is 
a trade secret!

I am merely saying that rectification will cause a  
  misleadingly low value of current to be registered usinga 
clamp on ammeter. Since the DC is not smooth, therewill, 
indeed, be a small reading from the ammeter butsubstantially 
lower than the actual current. This will,in turn, lead to a 
misleadingly low power measurement.

Duncan

On 5/26/2013 8:46 PM, David Roberson wrote:
  
  
  
Robin,
  
 
  
The problem at hand is that the skeptic claimsthat power 
due to the DC current can be very largeand not detected.  
There has be

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

This document stands as its own rebuttal.
>

I think that overstates things.  After reading through the comments,
Ekstrom brings up a number of details that could plausibly be remedied in
any followup test.  I think we have exaggerated the deficiencies in his
comments (e.g., the reference to the emissivity of stainless steal, the
assumption of a longtime friendship between Levi and Rossi, etc.) and
played down the good points he brings up.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi

[Andrew]

Are we talking about the bulk of theoretical physics? If so, then it's simply 
everything that's not on the brane. I like to conceptualise it as an embedding 
space of higher dimension than the brane we inhabit.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: ChemE Stewart 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 4:11 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi


  Mark,


  Just to comment on your comments to the "Bulk".  


   "it obviously is quite different than the bulk, or else there would be a big 
hole in the earth,instead of the tabletop! "


  We do get lots of large holes in the bulk, we call them "sinkholes"  some are 
very large and strange.  I have been tracking approx. 120 along with the 
weather patterns.  Here is an interesting one from 2011
  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/sinkhole-found-under-guatemalan-womans-bed/2011/07/21/gIQAw3ThRI_blog.html



  "Processes in the bulk can be considered random and disordered, and therefore 
one must use QM and probabilities to predict behaviors"



  Our weather patterns on Earth are not random and disordered, in fact when 
nature creates waterspouts, tornadoes, hurricanes and severe cold fronts from 
originally a random and disordered gas she is showing us her ability to 
organize random gasseous environment into a thermodynamic and electromagnetic 
marvel.


  "bulk's physics of chaotic randomness does NOT support this concentration of 
energy"



  Air + Water Vapor = 9.6 Megatons (600 Hiroshima Bombs) from the latest 
Oklahoma tornado mentioned by scientists here

  Snowball +  Empty Space >= 1 Megaton (Greater than Million times Nuclear 
Brightness Magnitude Increase) from Comet Holmes mentioned by Scientists here 
and researched to be from “exotic ice” here (that research must have been 
dreamt up while smoking something exotic)

  Rock/Metal + Air = 30 Megatons (Tunguska), unfortunately they can’t find the 
pieces, just a lake and some sinkholes

  Rock/Metal + Air =480 Kilotons (Chelyabinsk), Unfortunately they are mostly 
left with a large hole in the ice and some itty bitty pieces.

  Air + Water Vapor = 95.6 Megatons (Annual Total of lightning striking Earth) 
from here, you can check my conversion here

  Air + Water Vapor = 12428 MEGATONS (Energy Released DAILY FROM A HURRICANE).  
You can find it here

  Rock + Rock = 2390 Megatons (Annual Energy from Earthquakes – 23 ergs). You 
can find it here

  In summary, I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of the "bulk" 
unless you just limit it to the physics of a local area of spacetime.

  Stewart
  darkmattersalot.com





  On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:22 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  
wrote:

Mornin' Jones!

NAE might imply to some 'nuclear', but I qualified it with , "..in or around
the NAE, *whatever they turn out to be*,"

I use the term NAE more in a general sense to refer to the localized areas
that are conducive to the reaction/process... it obviously is quite
different than the bulk, or else there would be a big hole in the earth,
instead of the tabletop!
;-)

Processes in the bulk can be considered random and disordered, and therefore
one must use QM and probabilities to predict behaviors.   I would bet that
once we understand what is going on in NAEs (generally speaking), it will
NOT be random, and will be modeled in a more classical manner.

I see much discussion about the conditions necessary to overcome the coulomb
barrier.  In trying to think their way thru it, they apply some scientific
'rules' so as to propose something that is at least reasonable, and
rightfully so.  However, the 'rules' seem to me to be taken from what's
expected of the bulk properties, and I take issue with that.  The concept of
resonances and coherent (or in-phase) oscillatory systems can cause
long-term localized regions which concentrate energy; the bulk's physics of
chaotic randomness does NOT support this concentration of energy.  For the
localized areas (NAEs), is the concentration of energy enough to overcome
the coulomb barrier?  Time will tell.  Tesla was generating potentials of
tens of millions of volts in his secondary from only a few hundred volts in
his primary, so amplification factors of 4 to 6 orders of magnitude are
perfectly reasonable...


-Mark
_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]

Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 9:54 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi



Mark,

Yes - the "energy localization" aspect of Ahern/Dicke/Preparata and the
superradiance modality could apply to any secondary reaction which benefits
from local mechanical pressure at the nm geometry.

However, the "NAE" implies a nuclear reaction, which may not be necessary.

The absence of gamma radiation presents the pri

Re: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi

[ChemE Stewart]

Mark,

Just to comment on your comments to the "Bulk".

 "it obviously is quite different than the bulk, or else there would be a
big hole in the earth,instead of the tabletop! "

We do get lots of large holes in the bulk, we call them "sinkholes"  some
are very large and strange.  I have been tracking approx. 120 along with
the weather patterns.  Here is an interesting one from 2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/sinkhole-found-under-guatemalan-womans-bed/2011/07/21/gIQAw3ThRI_blog.html

"Processes in the bulk can be considered random and disordered, and
therefore one must use QM and probabilities to predict behaviors"

Our weather patterns on Earth are not random and disordered, in fact when
nature creates waterspouts, tornadoes, hurricanes and severe cold fronts
from originally a random and disordered gas she is showing us her ability
to organize random gasseous environment into a thermodynamic and
electromagnetic marvel.

"bulk's physics of chaotic randomness does NOT support this concentration
of energy"

*Air + Water Vapor = 9.6 Megatons* (600 Hiroshima Bombs) from the latest
Oklahoma tornado mentioned by scientists
here

*Snowball +  Empty Space >= 1 Megaton* (Greater than Million times Nuclear
Brightness Magnitude Increase) from Comet Holmes mentioned by Scientists
here
and
researched to be from “exotic ice” here
(that
research must have been dreamt up while smoking something exotic)

*Rock/Metal + Air = 30 Megaton*s
(Tunguska),
unfortunately they can’t find the pieces, just a lake and some sinkholes

*Rock/Metal + Air =480 Kilotons*
(Chelyabinsk),
Unfortunately they are mostly left with a large hole in the ice and some
itty bitty pieces.

*Air + Water Vapor = 95.6 Megatons* (Annual Total of lightning striking
Earth) from 
here,
you can check my conversion
here

*Air + Water Vapor = 12428 MEGATONS* (Energy Released DAILY FROM A
HURRICANE).  You can find it here

*Rock + Rock = 2390 Megatons* (Annual Energy from Earthquakes – 23 ergs).
You can find it
here

In summary, I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of the "bulk"
unless you just limit it to the physics of a local area of spacetime.
Stewart
darkmattersalot.com



On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:22 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

> Mornin' Jones!
>
> NAE might imply to some 'nuclear', but I qualified it with , "..in or
> around
> the NAE, *whatever they turn out to be*,"
>
> I use the term NAE more in a general sense to refer to the localized areas
> that are conducive to the reaction/process... it obviously is quite
> different than the bulk, or else there would be a big hole in the earth,
> instead of the tabletop!
> ;-)
>
> Processes in the bulk can be considered random and disordered, and
> therefore
> one must use QM and probabilities to predict behaviors.   I would bet that
> once we understand what is going on in NAEs (generally speaking), it will
> NOT be random, and will be modeled in a more classical manner.
>
> I see much discussion about the conditions necessary to overcome the
> coulomb
> barrier.  In trying to think their way thru it, they apply some scientific
> 'rules' so as to propose something that is at least reasonable, and
> rightfully so.  However, the 'rules' seem to me to be taken from what's
> expected of the bulk properties, and I take issue with that.  The concept
> of
> resonances and coherent (or in-phase) oscillatory systems can cause
> long-term localized regions which concentrate energy; the bulk's physics of
> chaotic randomness does NOT support this concentration of energy.  For the
> localized areas (NAEs), is the concentration of energy enough to overcome
> the coulomb barrier?  Time will tell.  Tesla was generating potentials of
> tens of millions of volts in his secondary from only a few hundred volts in
> his primary, so amplification factors of 4 to 6 orders of magnitude are
> perfectly reasonable...
>
> -Mark
> _
> From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 9:54 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Water Window, Hexavalency, Bergius and Rossi
>
>
> Mark,
>
> Yes - the "energy localization" aspect of Ahern/Dicke/Preparata and the
> superradiance modality could apply to any secondary reaction which benefits
> from local mechanical pressure a

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments

[Andrew]

"Power from an AC source can only be extracted by the fundamental component of 
that source, period. "

An uneducated and completely incorrect statement like that disqualifies you, in 
my view, from making any further comments about the EE aspects of this 
experiment. If you do, I urge anyone reading them to ignore them, because in 
all likelihood they will also be wrong.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 1:55 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments


  If you do not understand what I have already written then it is not going to 
help to go over it again.   I leave this discussion by asking you one pertinent 
question.  Where do you think the power comes from that ends up in the 
resistor?  There is only one source and it is the AC mains.  Power from an AC 
source can only be extracted by the fundamental component of that source, 
period.  All others, including DC balance out over the long run and can not 
make a long term contribution.  Once you realize that this is true, which is 
common theory, it will become clear to you that a measurement of these two 
waveforms is all that is required.

  Forget the nonsense about diodes faking out good AC true RMS instruments.  It 
don't happen.

  Dave

  -Original Message-
  From: Duncan Cumming 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 4:32 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments


  OK, I will tackle this problem head-on using the Socratic method in stages. 

  First, consider a wire carrying 100 amps of direct current, plus one amp of 
pure sinusoidal AC current at 60Hz. What is the AC component of the current?

  Duncan

  P.S. Don't worry, we will get to the diode later.

  On 5/27/2013 11:57 AM, David Roberson wrote:

Duncan, I hate to keep repeating myself that the power can be measured by 
analyzing the AC components only.  When will you guys show why this is not 
true?  I suggest that you start with the simple system you proposed of a diode 
in series with a resistor driven by an AC wall socket.  Explain how it works as 
you say and I promise to show you the error of your calculations.

Dave
-Original Message-
From: Duncan Cumming 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 2:38 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments


I am not sure if I count as a skeptic, because I am not saying that any 
kind of scam was perpetrated. I am certainly not suggesting that there was a DC 
power supply hidden in the wall! My doubts are related to the electrical 
engineering skills evident in the published paper, attempting the notoriously 
difficult task of measuring three phase non sinusoidal power. Not only is the 
waveform non sinusoidal, it is a trade secret!

I am merely saying that rectification will cause a misleadingly low value 
of current to be registered using a clamp on ammeter. Since the DC is not 
smooth, there will, indeed, be a small reading from the ammeter but 
substantially lower than the actual current. This will, in turn, lead to a 
misleadingly low power measurement.

Duncan

On 5/26/2013 8:46 PM, David Roberson wrote:

  Robin,

  The problem at hand is that the skeptic claims that power due to the DC 
current can be very large and not detected.  There has been no discussion of 
the AC current reading being affected by the DC so far.  That is a different 
issue entirely.

  I would like for them to answer the questions because then they might 
realize that their position is invalid.  I can explain this if required.  No 
one is suggesting that Rossi actually has a DC power supply hidden within the 
wall I hope.  This would be beyond reality since it would be so easy to measure 
with a voltmeter or any monitor that looks at the voltage.  The testers did a 
visual look at the voltage from what I have determined.

  So, skeptics, what say you?

  Dave
  -Original Message-
  From: mixent 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 11:08 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes 
power measurments


In reply to  David Roberson's message of Sun, 26 May 2013 22:35:09 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,

This is a little different. A full bridge rectifier will allow for both halves
of the AC current to pass, and so it should be measured as little different to a
purely resistive load. However a single diode will only allow one half to pass,
which *may* mess up magnetic field based current measurements.
(I guess whether if does or not depends on the sophistication of the device.)
>
>Assume that you have a bridge rectifier in the blue box.  This is followed by 
>a 
filtering capacitor.  The DC is then used by the electronics connected to the 
capacitor.  Are you saying that it is not possible to determine the power input 
to this type of network by measuring 

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>>
>> But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the December
>> test was, nor whether it was wavelength dependent.  There may be a paint
>> for which an assumption of emissivity of 1 greatly overestimates the power.
>> A few measurements could have excluded this possibility.
>>
>>
>
>
> This book
>
> _Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles_
>
> says for a body to have an emissivity > 1 it can't be much bigger than the
> wavelength it radiates.
>



I'm not suggesting emissivity greater than 1. I'm suggesting we don't know
how the correction for a limited wavelength range goes for low emissivity
(this could be answered with a bit of effort, or by an expert in the area),
and more importantly, we don't know if the surface has a wavelength
dependent emissivity, in which case, an assumption of unity could err on
either side of the true value of the power depending on the particular
dependence.

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:18 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

> So Josh,
>
> Why do you **ignore** the FACT that Ekstrom and others are using the
> emissivity of stainless when that is irrelevant???
>
> Why not the same critical comments from you about those so-called
> ‘experts’ who make such an obvious mistake???
>
> **
>

Well, I wasn't replying to them, or defending them. They did make some
simple mistakes.

Why do I not criticize them? If they were claiming to revolutionize
science, and made mistakes like that in the claims, I might just. But
they're not. They're writing blogs in response to such claims. Some
hastiness is to be forgiven in that context. In the context of Levi's
claims, I would expect greater care.



> **
>
> RE: unknown emissivity of the paint in the December test…
>
> Yes, as they have explained, they analyzed the December test, realized
> some weaknesses, took measures in the March test to eliminate/calibrate for
> those weaknesses, and will be improving their instrumentation and
> procedures for the next test. 
>
> ** **
>
>
>
RIght, but why even bother reporting the December test in that case? And
while they improved the emissivity question, they made the question of
input murkier.

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

> > From: "Joshua Cude" 
> > Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:59:16 PM
>
> > And we don't know what this would be for an emissivity of 0.2.
>
> Who cares? It's NOT metal. There's no way that BLACK PAINT can have an
> emissivity of 0.2
>
>
I'm no expert, but the table at the site below lists thermafin's black
crystal selective surface coating with an emissivity of 0.08 to 0.25. I
don't know if you can paint with it, or what, but this was after 3 minutes
of searching.

I don't put much weight on the Levi-only run anyway. I'm just trying to say
that it's not as simple as some people claim, and it points out some pretty
sloppy work by these people we're supposed to trust with respect to a
scientific revolution.

http://www.solarmirror.com/fom/fom-serve/cache/43.html

Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

The BEC is known from experience and theory to only form near absolute zero.
***How quickly you forget having logged onto this thread:

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room
Temperature
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg76596.html

And this thread was greeted with a yawn:
[Vo]:Re: Superheated Bose-Einstein condensate exists above critical
temperature
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg78827.html

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Andrew]

I got it right first, and today, briefly, I believed Ekstrom. Then I returned 
to sanity
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:12 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.


  For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the "e" 
(emissivity) ratio. He wrote:

  "The emissivity for stainless steel could have any value from 0.8 to 0.075 
[2]. The lower value would
  obviously yield a much lower net power, in fact it could easily make COP=1."


  He has this backwards. The lower value would yield a much higher temperature, 
meaning higher power. The most conservative setting is 1.


  Not only did Ekström get this wrong, so did Cude (it goes without saying), 
some blogger named Motl, and Andrew. Andrew realized his mistake. Ekström, Cude 
and Motl will never admit they were wrong.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Andrew]

2nd test it's trustworthy was the meaning
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:04 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.


  Andrew  wrote:



You're saying that the measured emissivity value is trustworthy, and I'm 
willing to buy that . . .


  Then you completely misunderstand. In the first test, the number is not 
"trustworthy." It is arbitrary. It is set to the lowest possible value.


  In the second test it is set to the actual value. We know this is trustworthy 
because they confirmed the calculated surface temperature by measuring the 
actual surface temperature directly with a thermocouple.


  WHY is this so difficult to understand?!? Many things in cold fusion 
experiments are difficult to grasp, but this is grade-school level science.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Randy Wuller" 
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:13:36 PM

 > The bottom line using a different emissivity in the 2 estimates
> (calculations) would be crazy and in actuality for all intents they
> most likely offset each other.

See my post on the P = a . e . T^4 calculation.  0.85 <= e <= 1
Even Cude agrees with my calculation.

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Edmund Storms]

Robin, the amount of tritium produced is sensitive to the D/H ratio,  
increasing to a maximum rate as the ratio approaches 1. The maximum  
rate does not occur when the ratio is exactly unity in the gas because  
the reaction is controlled by the ratio in the NAE. The ratio in the  
NAE is unknown, but crudely related to the ratio in the gas, a  
behavior that has been observed.  Therefore, D and H are both  
reactants for the production of tritium. However, tritium does not  
result when H+D fuse.  To get tritium rather than He3, an electron has  
to be added.  This is why He3 is not detected while tritium is.


Of course, a clever person can find complicated ways to avoid this  
conclusion, but the simplest conclusion is that tritium results from D 
+H+e fusion.


If this is the way tritium forms, than H+H+e will produce deuterium.  
I'm waiting for this measurement to be made while heat is produced in  
the Ni+H2 system. If deuterium is found to be correlated with the  
heat, the expectation of electron capture will be confirmed.  Until  
then, people can believe whatever they want.  Apparently they want to  
believe the heat results from transmutation. This conflict will only  
be resolved if someone who can make heat using Ni+H2 looks for  
deuterium rather than transmutation products.   Hopefully, someone  
will make the measurement.


Cheers,

Ed Storms


On May 27, 2013, at 3:41 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Mon, 27 May 2013 06:58:29  
-0600:

Hi Ed,
[snip]

It apparently
results from D+H+e fusion, which was proposed as early as 1996 based
on the effect of the D/H ratio.


Could you explain how the effect of D/H ratio proves that this is  
the mechanism?


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Joshua Cude" 
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:02:02 PM

> I'm talking about the December test, when a different paint was used.
> I don't think we know anything about the emissivity of that paint,
> nor it's dependence on wavelength.
 
Then forget about  the December test. The authors admit that it had certain 
deficiencies, which were corrected in March.

> In the March test, the power estimate was better, though far from
> good, but the input was dodgier.

OK --- so you agree that the March output is correct to  say 25% ? 50%  ?

Then  comes down to the input. 

EITHER : 

a) It was AC and the measurements are fine  (say to 10%)
b) Rossi used a wire or DC or ... fake
c) They're all bought and paid by Rossi.

 

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:18 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:


> 
>
> Why not the same critical comments from you about those so-called
> ‘experts’ who make such an obvious mistake???
>

Confirmation bias. ;)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Harry Veeder]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>
> But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the December
> test was, nor whether it was wavelength dependent.  There may be a paint
> for which an assumption of emissivity of 1 greatly overestimates the power.
> A few measurements could have excluded this possibility.
>
>


This book

_Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles_

says for a body to have an emissivity > 1 it can't be much bigger than the
wavelength it radiates.
Futhermore, if the surface is covered with such bodies the surface
 emissivity will not be greater than one.

Here is specific page where this is stated:

http://tinyurl.com/o6gdvt9

Harry

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments

[Joshua Cude]

Check out these 2 videos. It's a clear demonstration of how full power can
be transferred to a resistive load without registering current on either
clamp-on or in-line ammeters. I don't know how it's done but I suspect high
frequency, but the point is that just because I can't explain it, doesn't
mean I must conclude that cheese can supply the power.

This switch could emulate Rossi's on/off cycling, and judging from input
measurements one would conclude a duty cycle of 1/3, but looking at the
resistive load, it would be 1:1.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovGXDDvc3ck


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frp03muquAo


On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:55 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> If you do not understand what I have already written then it is not going
> to help to go over it again.   I leave this discussion by asking you one
> pertinent question.  Where do you think the power comes from that ends up
> in the resistor?  There is only one source and it is the AC mains.  Power
> from an AC source can only be extracted by the fundamental component of
> that source, period.  All others, including DC balance out over the long
> run and can not make a long term contribution.  Once you realize that this
> is true, which is common theory, it will become clear to you that a
> measurement of these two waveforms is all that is required.
>
> Forget the nonsense about diodes faking out good AC true RMS instruments.
> It don't happen.
>
> Dave
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Duncan Cumming 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 4:32 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
>
>  OK, I will tackle this problem head-on using the Socratic method in
> stages.
>
> First, consider a wire carrying 100 amps of direct current, plus one amp
> of pure sinusoidal AC current at 60Hz. What is the AC component of the
> current?
>
> Duncan
>
> P.S. Don't worry, we will get to the diode later.
>
> On 5/27/2013 11:57 AM, David Roberson wrote:
>
> Duncan, I hate to keep repeating myself that the power can be measured by
> analyzing the AC components only.  When will you guys show why this is not
> true?  I suggest that you start with the simple system you proposed of a
> diode in series with a resistor driven by an AC wall socket.  Explain how
> it works as you say and I promise to show you the error of your
> calculations.
>
> Dave
> -Original Message-
> From: Duncan Cumming  
> To: vortex-l  
> Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 2:38 pm
> Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
>
>  I am not sure if I count as a skeptic, because I am not saying that any
> kind of scam was perpetrated. I am certainly not suggesting that there was
> a DC power supply hidden in the wall! My doubts are related to the
> electrical engineering skills evident in the published paper, attempting
> the notoriously difficult task of measuring three phase non sinusoidal
> power. Not only is the waveform non sinusoidal, it is a trade secret!
>
> I am merely saying that rectification will cause a misleadingly low value
> of current to be registered using a clamp on ammeter. Since the DC is not
> smooth, there will, indeed, be a small reading from the ammeter but
> substantially lower than the actual current. This will, in turn, lead to a
> misleadingly low power measurement.
>
> Duncan
>
> On 5/26/2013 8:46 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
> Robin,
>
> The problem at hand is that the skeptic claims that power due to the DC
> current can be very large and not detected.  There has been no discussion
> of the AC current reading being affected by the DC so far.  That is a
> different issue entirely.
>
> I would like for them to answer the questions because then they might
> realize that their position is invalid.  I can explain this if required.
> No one is suggesting that Rossi actually has a DC power supply hidden
> within the wall I hope.  This would be beyond reality since it would be so
> easy to measure with a voltmeter or any monitor that looks at the voltage.
> The testers did a visual look at the voltage from what I have determined.
>
> So, skeptics, what say you?
>
> Dave
> -Original Message-
> From: mixent  
> To: vortex-l  
> Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 11:08 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes
> power measurments
>
>  In reply to  David Roberson's message of Sun, 26 May 2013 22:35:09 -0400 
> (EDT):
> Hi,
>
> This is a little different. A full bridge rectifier will allow for both halves
> of the AC current to pass, and so it should be measured as little different 
> to a
> purely resistive load. However a single diode will only allow one half to 
> pass,
> which *may* mess up magnetic field based current measurements.
> (I guess whether if does or not depends on the sophistication of the device.)
> >
> >Assume that you have a bridge rectifier in the blue box.  This is followed 
> >by a
> filtering capacitor.  The DC is then used by the electronics connec

RE: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

So Josh,

Why do you *ignore* the FACT that Ekstrom and others are using the
emissivity of stainless when that is irrelevant???

Why not the same critical comments from you about those so-called 'experts'
who make such an obvious mistake???

 

RE: unknown emissivity of the paint in the December test.

Yes, as they have explained, they analyzed the December test, realized some
weaknesses, took measures in the March test to eliminate/calibrate for those
weaknesses, and will be improving their instrumentation and procedures for
the next test. 

 

-Mark

 

From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:45 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

 

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:33 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
wrote:

Jed:

More importantly, why is he using the emissivity of stainless steel, when
the outer cylinder is painted ceramic, NOT stainless steel!!!

Since it's painted, it doesn't make any difference what was painted.

Yes, all metals have low emissivity, but that is irrelevant when a metal is
NOT what is 'emissiviting' (to coin a word)! J  

Ceramics have a much higher emissivity.

But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the December
test was, nor whether it was wavelength dependent.  There may be a paint for
which an assumption of emissivity of 1 greatly overestimates the power. A
few measurements could have excluded this possibility.

 

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Joshua Cude" 
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:59:16 PM

> And we don't know what this would be for an emissivity of 0.2. 

Who cares? It's NOT metal. There's no way that BLACK PAINT can have an 
emissivity of 0.2

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Randy Wuller]

Jed:

There are really 2 issues regarding the emissivity.  When the Thermal Scanner 
takes a reading it is imaging from the object.  In order to convert that image 
to temperature one must know the emissivity.  The scanner has a formula based 
on the emissivity.  You are absolutely right that by inputting an emissivity of 
1 the calculated temperature is at the lowest level calculated by the scanner 
and thus the most conservative.  Thus the temperature calculated in the study 
is conservative.

If that was the end of it, the use of 1 for emissivity would be quite 
conservative. 

However, for the report that isn't the end.  To calculate the energy from the 
reactor this temperature is used in the Stefan boltzmann constant and 
emissivity has to again be input to calculate the energy. Using an emissivity 
in this formula of 1. At any given temperature gives an inflated value of 
energy for a body with an emissivity less than 1.   In this calculation using 
an emissivity of 1 is not conservative but inflating.

The bottom line using a different emissivity in the 2 estimates (calculations) 
would be crazy and in actuality for all intents they most likely offset each 
other.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

On May 27, 2013, at 4:12 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the "e" 
> (emissivity) ratio. He wrote:
> 
> "The emissivity for stainless steel could have any value from 0.8 to 0.075 
> [2]. The lower value would
> obviously yield a much lower net power, in fact it could easily make COP=1."
> 
> He has this backwards. The lower value would yield a much higher temperature, 
> meaning higher power. The most conservative setting is 1.
> 
> Not only did Ekström get this wrong, so did Cude (it goes without saying), 
> some blogger named Motl, and Andrew. Andrew realized his mistake. Ekström, 
> Cude and Motl will never admit they were wrong.
> 
> - Jed
> 

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments

[Rob Dingemans]

Hi,

On 27-5-2013 20:44, Andrew wrote:
The measurement task has been made unnecessarily difficult by 
specifying 3-phase input to the control box.  Normal single-phase 
input would suffice here, given the power levels.


Not necessarily, if all three phases have a balanced load, then the 
current through Neutral is 0 Amp!

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-phase

Here is an interesting circuit: http://www.nbtv.wyenet.co.uk/6-fasen.gif
with these voltage and current 
http://www.nbtv.wyenet.co.uk/3-fasenspanning+stroom.jpg
It "converts" the 50 Hz three phases into one of 300 Hz, which is (as 
many EE knows) a lot easier due to the smaller capacitor needed to be 
directed into DC.


For those of you who can read Dutch this circuit is discussed at this 
page: http://www.circuitsonline.net/forum/view/65574/2


Kind regards,

Rob

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

> > From: "Joshua Cude" 
> > Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:41:34 PM
>
> > And just in case you're wondering how e effects the calculated power
> >
> > P = a . e . (T1^4 - T0^4) -- T1 actual, T0 ambient
> >
> > a e Tc Tk P
> > area 18 1.00E-10 0.8 564.1 837.1 38.84 <=== lower "e" OVER-estimates the
> power
> > area 19 1.00E-10 1 496.6 769.6 34.52
> > area 20 1.00E-10 0.95 511.7 784.7 35.49
>
> > You're right. I did that calculation too. But the reason they're not
> > equal is because they use an effective exponent not equal to 4 when
> > they calculate temperature. It's not clear what that effective
> > exponent would be if the emissivity were set to 0.2, and so we don't
> > know what the effect would be there. And in particular, we don't
> > know what the effect would be if the emissivity depended on
> > wavelength. The literature warns about poor accuracy in such cases.
>
> But it's NOT metal : it's metal-ceramic-paint.
> AND the "blank" test was in the same temperature range as the "live" test.
>
> They checked it with a) DOTS of known emissivity and b) A thermocouple --
> giving results in reasonable agreement with the calorimeter.
>
>

I'm talking about the December test, when a different paint was used. I
don't think we know anything about the emissivity of that paint, nor it's
dependence on wavelength.

In the March test, the power estimate was better, though far from good, but
the input was dodgier.

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the "e"
> (emissivity) ratio. He wrote:
>
> "The emissivity for stainless steel could have any value from 0.8 to 0.075
> [2]. The lower value would
> obviously yield a much lower net power, in fact it could easily make
> COP=1."
>
> He has this backwards. The lower value would yield a much higher
> temperature, meaning higher power.
>

Both temperature and emissivity enter the equation for power. So, higher
temperature, yes, but lower emissivity. The net result can be both higher
or lower power depending on the effective exponent use by the instrument's
software. And we don't know what this would be for an emissivity of 0.2. We
only know that for 0.8 and 0.95, the correction gives higher power.


> The most conservative setting is 1.
>

That's not obvious from the company literature, even for grey bodies, and
it can go either way for bodies that are not grey -- that have wavelength
dependent emissivities. Metals are examples of this, and presumably there
are paints that can emulate metals.


>
> Not only did Ekström get this wrong, so did Cude (it goes without saying),
> some blogger named Motl, and Andrew. Andrew realized his mistake. Ekström,
> Cude and Motl will never admit they were wrong.
>
>
>
I don't think you've actually grasped how emissivity comes into the final
calculation of power. Fletcher has, or at least he's much closer than you.
Start by reading the company's literature on temperature calculation.

I have agreed from the beginning that if the emissivity were 0.8 or 0.95,
and the object behaved as a grey body, then using e = 1 would underestimate
the power. You can check my first posting on the subject.

What happens for much lower emissivities and non grey bodies is far from
obvious is all I've said. And from the description in the literature, it
can go either way.

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Joshua Cude" 
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:41:34 PM

> And just in case you're wondering how e effects the calculated power
> 
> P = a . e . (T1^4 - T0^4) -- T1 actual, T0 ambient
> 
> a e Tc Tk P
> area 18 1.00E-10 0.8 564.1 837.1 38.84 <=== lower "e" OVER-estimates the power
> area 19 1.00E-10 1 496.6 769.6 34.52
> area 20 1.00E-10 0.95 511.7 784.7 35.49
 
> You're right. I did that calculation too. But the reason they're not
> equal is because they use an effective exponent not equal to 4 when
> they calculate temperature. It's not clear what that effective
> exponent would be if the emissivity were set to 0.2, and so we don't
> know what the effect would be there. And in particular, we don't
> know what the effect would be if the emissivity depended on
> wavelength. The literature warns about poor accuracy in such cases.

But it's NOT metal : it's metal-ceramic-paint.
AND the "blank" test was in the same temperature range as the "live" test.

They checked it with a) DOTS of known emissivity and b) A thermocouple -- 
giving results in reasonable agreement with the calorimeter.

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:33 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

> Jed:
>
> More importantly, why is he using the emissivity of stainless steel, when
> the outer cylinder is painted ceramic, NOT stainless steel!!!
>

Since it's painted, it doesn't make any difference what was painted.




> ** **
>
> Yes, all metals have low emissivity, but that is irrelevant when a metal
> is NOT what is ‘emissiviting’ (to coin a word)! J  
>
> Ceramics have a much higher emissivity.
>
> **
>

But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the December
test was, nor whether it was wavelength dependent.  There may be a paint
for which an assumption of emissivity of 1 greatly overestimates the power.
A few measurements could have excluded this possibility.

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

>
> And just in case you're wondering how e effects the calculated power
>
> P = a . e . (T1^4 - T0^4)   -- T1 actual, T0 ambient
>
>ae   Tc  Tk  P
> area 18 1.00E-100.8 564.1   837.1   38.84  <=== lower "e"
> OVER-estimates the power
> area 19 1.00E-101   496.6   769.6   34.52
> area 20 1.00E-100.95511.7   784.7   35.49
>
>
>
You're right. I did that calculation too. But the reason they're not equal
is because they use an effective exponent not equal to 4 when they
calculate temperature. It's not clear what that effective  exponent would
be if the emissivity were set to 0.2, and so we don't know what the effect
would be there. And in particular, we don't know what the effect would be
if the emissivity depended on wavelength. The literature warns about poor
accuracy in such cases.

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[mixent]

In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Mon, 27 May 2013 06:58:29 -0600:
Hi Ed,
[snip]
>It apparently  
>results from D+H+e fusion, which was proposed as early as 1996 based  
>on the effect of the D/H ratio.

Could you explain how the effect of D/H ratio proves that this is the mechanism?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments

[Duncan Cumming]

Why this hangup about fundamental components? I can extract current from 
an AC waveform any way I want. Switched mode power supplies usually do 
this at 20kHz or so, even though the fundamental component is 60Hz.


But you are right about one thing - we may as well end this discussion. 
It is like trying to explain the purpose and function of a Dewar vessel 
to an ant!


Duncan

On 5/27/2013 1:55 PM, David Roberson wrote:
If you do not understand what I have already written then it is not 
going to help to go over it again.   I leave this discussion by asking 
you one pertinent question.  Where do you think the power comes from 
that ends up in the resistor? There is only one source and it is the 
AC mains.  Power from an AC source can only be extracted by the 
fundamental component of that source, period.  All others, including 
DC balance out over the long run and can not make a long term 
contribution.  Once you realize that this is true, which is common 
theory, it will become clear to you that a measurement of these two 
waveforms is all that is required.
Forget the nonsense about diodes faking out good AC true RMS 
instruments.  It don't happen.

Dave
-Original Message-
From: Duncan Cumming 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 4:32 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments

OK, I will tackle this problem head-on using the Socratic method in 
stages.


First, consider a wire carrying 100 amps of direct current, plus one 
amp of pure sinusoidal AC current at 60Hz. What is the AC component of 
the current?


Duncan

P.S. Don't worry, we will get to the diode later.

On 5/27/2013 11:57 AM, David Roberson wrote:
Duncan, I hate to keep repeating myself that the power can be 
measured by analyzing the AC components only. When will you guys show 
why this is not true?  I suggest that you start with the simple 
system you proposed of a diode in series with a resistor driven by an 
AC wall socket.  Explain how it works as you say and I promise to 
show you the error of your calculations.

Dave
-Original Message-
From: Duncan Cumming 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 2:38 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments

I am not sure if I count as a skeptic, because I am not saying that 
any kind of scam was perpetrated. I am certainly not suggesting that 
there was a DC power supply hidden in the wall! My doubts are related 
to the electrical engineering skills evident in the published paper, 
attempting the notoriously difficult task of measuring three phase 
non sinusoidal power. Not only is the waveform non sinusoidal, it is 
a trade secret!


I am merely saying that rectification will cause a misleadingly low 
value of current to be registered using a clamp on ammeter. Since the 
DC is not smooth, there will, indeed, be a small reading from the 
ammeter but substantially lower than the actual current. This will, 
in turn, lead to a misleadingly low power measurement.


Duncan

On 5/26/2013 8:46 PM, David Roberson wrote:

Robin,
The problem at hand is that the skeptic claims that power due to the 
DC current can be very large and not detected.  There has been no 
discussion of the AC current reading being affected by the DC so 
far. That is a different issue entirely.
I would like for them to answer the questions because then they 
might realize that their position is invalid.  I can explain this if 
required.  No one is suggesting that Rossi actually has a DC power 
supply hidden within the wall I hope.  This would be beyond reality 
since it would be so easy to measure with a voltmeter or any monitor 
that looks at the voltage.  The testers did a visual look at the 
voltage from what I have determined.

So, skeptics, what say you?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 11:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman 
describes power measurments


In reply to  David Roberson's message of Sun, 26 May 2013 22:35:09 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,

This is a little different. A full bridge rectifier will allow for both halves
of the AC current to pass, and so it should be measured as little different to a
purely resistive load. However a single diode will only allow one half to pass,
which *may* mess up magnetic field based current measurements.
(I guess whether if does or not depends on the sophistication of the device.)
>
>Assume that you have a bridge rectifier in the blue box.  This is followed by a
filtering capacitor.  The DC is then used by the electronics connected to the
capacitor.  Are you saying that it is not possible to determine the power input
to this type of network by measuring the input AC voltage and current?  Or are
you saying that someone has performed a scam and put a DC supply in series with
the normal AC voltage?
>
>You do know that this could easily be measured by a simple DC voltmeter, right?
>
>Dave
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Joshua Cude  wrote:
>
>
>> It is positive in that case, but it's not obvious that it's always
>> positive, because the way they choose the effective exponent is not given
>> quantitatively. The paper does not report trying the same thing at lower
>> emissivity like 0.2.
>>
>
> This is an *equation* for crying out loud. Not an experiment. You do not
> have to "try" anything. You just plug the number into the equation. The
> temperature is inversely proportional to the emissivity number. The close
> to zero, the higher the calculated temperature. They have it set to 1 which
> gives you the lowest possible calculated temperature.
>

I think you're mistaken. The emissivity comes in twice. Once when you
calculate the temperature from the power, and then again when you calculate
the power from the temperature. And it's not inversely proportional; the
temperature is proportional to the emissivity to the (-1/4) power, for a
given emissive power. So, yes, 1 gives the lowest temperature, but the
highest power when you calculate the power from the temperature. You see,
that equation gets used twice; once the lower emissivity gives a higher
temperature, and once the lower emissivity gives a lower output power.

If the power were measured by the camera over the entire spectrum, the
result of this would be a complete wash. There would be no effect of
emissivity on the resulting power, because of course the camera measures
*power*.

The reason it's not a wash is because the power is measured in a restricted
wavelength range, and to correct for that the camera's software uses an
effective value of the exponent on the temperature. This effective value
depends on the temperature itself, and since the company literature does
not disclose how that exponent is determined, we can't know what power
would have resulted if an emissivity of 0.2 had been used. Furthermore, if
the emissivity is dependent on wavelength, then the effective exponent is
just wrong, because it assumes a grey body.


>
>
>
>>  And none of this says anything about objects that don't behave like grey
>> bodies.
>>
>
> Nothing can produce a lower temperature per unit of emissivity than a
> black body. Grey would be better than black, not worse.
>
>
It's not just temperature though. The calculation of the final power also
involves emissivity and here a lower emissivity gives a *lower* power. The
two compensate, but not exactly because the correction is not known.

Yes, grey gives a higher temperature than black, but not necessarily higher
power. And furthermore, I'm talking about non-grey bodies, where the
emissivity depends on wavelength. In that case, the effective exponent used
is just wrong, and it can go either way. They say as much in their
literature.


>  So, in the December experiment, the actual power is very uncertain, and
>> not necessarily conservative. It's sloppy work, plain and simple.
>>
>
> It cannot be more conservative than e=1. You do not understand arithmetic.
>
>
>
Unfortunately, it's more than arithmetic, and you don't understand why.

RE: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Jones Beene]

An interesting point worth pursuing, at some point - is what nickel alloy has a 
Curie point in the range of the HotCat core, and is also known to be active 
with hydrogen? Is there a high temperature alloy with high CP which is also 
hexavalent?

 

The common alloys for high temperature Curie points include cobalt as the 
highest by far – but is Cobalt ever hexavalent? 

 

Wiki says no, maximum of 5 - but I say yes – cobalt is ferromagnetic with high 
Curie point and is hexavalent, despite the Wiki pronouncement. 

 

In fact, we all contain this factoid in our very essence (precious bodily 
fluids, even?)

 

Vitamin B12 is completely built around hexavalent cobalt. Case closed.

 

Wiki can be completely wrong on important details, on occasion.

 

Jones

 

There is a common phenomenon in LENR known as temperature ratcheting. Other 
names are used.

 

And yes, the “magic” does seem to occur when power is temporarily removed.

 

The best guess for “why” involves both strain - due to phase change and also 
spin changes, due possibly to near-field magnetic effects 

 

The level at which power is temporarily removed often corresponds to phase 
changes in nickel particularly around the Curie Temp.

 

One of the surprises of HotCat is its temperature is much higher than the Ni 
Curie point, which may indicate that a nickel alloy is now being used.

 

Jones

 

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Jed Rothwell]

Andrew  wrote:


> Plot 9 shows COP and the ON/OFF status of the resistor coils. Is it a
> coincidence that zero feeding for two thirds of the time results in COP=3,
> but constant feeding would yield COP=1?
>

No, it is not a coincidence. The red curve is normalized to fit the graph.
The ratio is meaningless. The text says:

"The blue curve in Plot 9 is the result of the analysis, and is reproduced
here together
with the red curve of power consumption normalized to 1."

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Jed:

More importantly, why is he using the emissivity of stainless steel, when
the outer cylinder is painted ceramic, NOT stainless steel!!!

 

Answer:

- he did not read the report, or just skimmed it.

- on the emissivity point, he ‘borrowed’ the basis of the argument from
someone else (Motl???) who also uses the emissivity of stainless steel and
not ceramic/paint.

 

Yes, all metals have low emissivity, but that is irrelevant when a metal is
NOT what is ‘emissiviting’ (to coin a word)! J  

Ceramics have a much higher emissivity.

 

I think it was Motl that initiated that erroneous line of reasoning; or was
it Gary Wright?

 

-Mark Iverson

 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:13 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

 

For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the "e"
(emissivity) ratio. He wrote:

"The emissivity for stainless steel could have any value from 0.8 to 0.075
[2]. The lower value would
obviously yield a much lower net power, in fact it could easily make COP=1."

 

He has this backwards. The lower value would yield a much higher
temperature, meaning higher power. The most conservative setting is 1.

 

Not only did Ekström get this wrong, so did Cude (it goes without saying),
some blogger named Motl, and Andrew. Andrew realized his mistake. Ekström,
Cude and Motl will never admit they were wrong.

 

- Jed

 

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Jed Rothwell" 
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:12:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
> 
> For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the
> "e" (emissivity) ratio. He wrote:
> 
> "The emissivity for stainless steel could have any value from 0.8 to
> 0.075 [2]. The lower value would
> obviously yield a much lower net power, in fact it could easily make
> COP=1."
> 
> 
> He has this backwards. The lower value would yield a much higher
> temperature, meaning higher power. The most conservative setting is
> 1.
> 
> 
> Not only did Ekström get this wrong, so did Cude (it goes without
> saying), some blogger named Motl, and Andrew. Andrew realized his
> mistake. Ekström, Cude and Motl will never admit they were wrong.
> 
> 
> - Jed

And just in case you're wondering how e effects the calculated power

P = a . e . (T1^4 - T0^4)   -- T1 actual, T0 ambient

   ae   Tc  Tk  P
area 18 1.00E-100.8 564.1   837.1   38.84  <=== lower "e" 
OVER-estimates the power
area 19 1.00E-101   496.6   769.6   34.52
area 20 1.00E-100.95511.7   784.7   35.49

(I set a to an arbitrary value just to make the numbers easy to see).

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Harry Veeder]

Andrew, remember the cop is a conservative estimate so it is just a
coincidence that the numbers happen to have those ratios.

Harry


On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Andrew  wrote:

> **
> Ekstrom makes the same point as I have failed to make with Dave (and upon
> which nobody else here has raised concern). Here it is
>
> Plot 9 shows COP and the ON/OFF status of the resistor coils. Is it a
> coincidence that zero feeding for two thirds of the time results in COP=3,
> but constant feeding would yield COP=1?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Jed Rothwell]

For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the "e"
(emissivity) ratio. He wrote:

"The emissivity for stainless steel could have any value from 0.8 to 0.075
[2]. The lower value would
obviously yield a much lower net power, in fact it could easily make COP=1."

He has this backwards. The lower value would yield a much higher
temperature, meaning higher power. The most conservative setting is 1.

Not only did Ekström get this wrong, so did Cude (it goes without saying),
some blogger named Motl, and Andrew. Andrew realized his mistake. Ekström,
Cude and Motl will never admit they were wrong.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Synchronization

[Jones Beene]

Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 

Yes, I noticed that too Terry.  Right most column, 2nd row.

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

Eric Walker wrote:

> Who would have known the metronomes are bosons and that they could 
> form a BEC?

Note the one, second row right, 180 degrees out of phase when all others are
synced.  Eventually forced into phase.


Ah, flashback to mid-sixties - Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri...

Drill Sergeant: "Everybody's out of step but..." 

Re: [Vo]:Synchronization

[Jouni Valkonen]

On May 27, 2013, at 8:39 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> And in more complex systems:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JWToUATLGzs
> 
> Does this apply to items of current interest?
> 
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>> How the world becomes lockstep:
>> 
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=W1TMZASCR-I
> 

Nice videos. I recommend to read Steven Strogatz's book Sync. There are more 
examples on synchronization:

Sync: The Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order
http://www.amazon.com/Sync-Emerging-Science-Spontaneous-ebook/dp/B002RI9XBU/ref=tmm_kin_title_0/184-4128830-1234214

―Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Jed Rothwell]

Andrew  wrote:

**
> You're saying that the measured emissivity value is trustworthy, and I'm
> willing to buy that . . .
>

Then you completely misunderstand. In the first test, the number is
*not*"trustworthy." It is arbitrary. It is set to the lowest possible
value.

In the second test it is set to the actual value. We know this is
trustworthy because they confirmed the calculated surface temperature by
measuring the actual surface temperature directly with a thermocouple.

WHY is this so difficult to understand?!? Many things in cold fusion
experiments are difficult to grasp, but this is grade-school level science.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Jed Rothwell]

Joshua Cude  wrote:


> It is positive in that case, but it's not obvious that it's always
> positive, because the way they choose the effective exponent is not given
> quantitatively. The paper does not report trying the same thing at lower
> emissivity like 0.2.
>

This is an *equation* for crying out loud. Not an experiment. You do not
have to "try" anything. You just plug the number into the equation. The
temperature is inversely proportional to the emissivity number. The close
to zero, the higher the calculated temperature. They have it set to 1 which
gives you the lowest possible calculated temperature.



>  And none of this says anything about objects that don't behave like grey
> bodies.
>

Nothing can produce a lower temperature per unit of emissivity than a black
body. Grey would be better than black, not worse.


So, in the December experiment, the actual power is very uncertain, and not
> necessarily conservative. It's sloppy work, plain and simple.
>

It cannot be more conservative than e=1. You do not understand arithmetic.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Synchronization

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Yes, I noticed that too Terry.  Right most column, 2nd row.

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 1:28 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Synchronization

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:
> Who would have known the metronomes are bosons and that they could 
> form a BEC?

Note the one, second row right, 180 degrees out of phase when all others are
synced.  Eventually forced into phase.

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments

[David Roberson]

If you do not understand what I have already written then it is not going to 
help to go over it again.   I leave this discussion by asking you one pertinent 
question.  Where do you think the power comes from that ends up in the 
resistor?  There is only one source and it is the AC mains.  Power from an AC 
source can only be extracted by the fundamental component of that source, 
period.  All others, including DC balance out over the long run and can not 
make a long term contribution.  Once you realize that this is true, which is 
common theory, it will become clear to you that a measurement of these two 
waveforms is all that is required.

Forget the nonsense about diodes faking out good AC true RMS instruments.  It 
don't happen.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Duncan Cumming 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 4:32 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments


  

OK, I will tackle this problem head-on  using the Socratic method in 
stages. 
  
  First, consider a wire carrying 100 amps of direct current, plus  one 
amp of pure sinusoidal AC current at 60Hz. What is the AC  component of the 
current?
  
  Duncan
  
  P.S. Don't worry, we will get to the diode later.
  
  On 5/27/2013 11:57 AM, David Roberson wrote:



Duncan, I hate to keep repeatingmyself that the power can be 
measured by analyzing the ACcomponents only.  When will you guys 
show why this is nottrue?  I suggest that you start with the simple 
system youproposed of a diode in series with a resistor driven by 
anAC wall socket.  Explain how it works as you say and I
promise to show you the error of your calculations.

 

Dave

-Original Message-
  From: Duncan Cumming 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 2:38 pm
  Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power  
measurments
  
  

  
I am not sure if I count as askeptic, because I am not saying 
that any kind of scamwas perpetrated. I am certainly not 
suggesting thatthere was a DC power supply hidden in the wall! 
Mydoubts are related to the electrical engineering skills   
 evident in the published paper, attempting the
notoriously difficult task of measuring three phase non
sinusoidal power. Not only is the waveform nonsinusoidal, it is 
a trade secret!

I am merely saying that rectification will cause a  
  misleadingly low value of current to be registered usinga 
clamp on ammeter. Since the DC is not smooth, therewill, 
indeed, be a small reading from the ammeter butsubstantially 
lower than the actual current. This will,in turn, lead to a 
misleadingly low power measurement.

Duncan

On 5/26/2013 8:46 PM, David Roberson wrote:
  
  
  
Robin,
  
 
  
The problem at hand is that the skeptic claimsthat power 
due to the DC current can be very largeand not detected.  
There has been no discussion ofthe AC current reading being 
affected by the DC sofar.  That is a different issue 
entirely.
  
 
  
I would like for them to answer the questionsbecause then 
they might realize that their positionis invalid.  I can 
explain this if required.  No oneis suggesting that Rossi 
actually has a DC powersupply hidden within the wall I 
hope.  This would bebeyond reality since it would be so 
easy to measurewith a voltmeter or any monitor that looks 
at thevoltage.  The testers did a visual look at the
voltage from what I have determined.
  
 
  
So, skeptics, what say you?
  
 
  
Dave
  
-OriginalMessage-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 11:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re:
[Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments


  
In reply to  David Roberson's message of Sun, 26 May 2013 22:35:09 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,

This is a little different. A full bridge rectifier will allow for both halves
of the AC current to pass, and so it should be measured as little differ

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>
>> The camera which calculates the temperature of HotCat is based on
>> converting radiance into a corresponding temperature – and that camera has
>> a setting for blackbody emissivity, which is usually near one at higher
>> temperature. 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Levi & the Swedes (sounds like the new ABBA) used the most conservative
>> setting – one.
>>
>
> This is clearly shown in Fig. 7, where they adjusted it from 1.0 down to
> 0.8 in the IR camera software. The estimated temperature rose from 496 to
> 564 deg C.
>
> We have been over this several times.
>
>
Yes, and still things are left out. The calculated temperature rises, but
when you use the same emissivity to calculate the power from the new
temperature, the net effect is small. It is positive in that case, but it's
not obvious that it's always positive, because the way they choose the
effective exponent is not given quantitatively. The paper does not report
trying the same thing at lower emissivity like 0.2.  And none of this says
anything about objects that don't behave like grey bodies. So, in the
December experiment, the actual power is very uncertain, and not
necessarily conservative. It's sloppy work, plain and simple.

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Jed Rothwell]

Andrew  wrote:

**
> There are 3 cases:
>
> 1. Pulse ON state, 35% of the time. COP=1 during this time
>

No, it is probably higher, but it cannot be measured with certainty because
we do not know the recovery rate. (This is not a calorimeter.)



> 2. Pulse OFF state,  65% of the time. COP > 1 during this time
>

Output increases at first and then falls.



> 3. Dummy, power ON 100% of the time. COP = 1.
>

No, it is never 1. It cannot be. All real devices that do not produce
energy (such as electric motors)  always produce a COP of less than 1. They
estimate they are recovering all but 58 W during the dummy run, which with
910 W input. So that is a COP of 0.93, which is pretty good. But not 1.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>  It seems likely that Rossi may be using cheese power for his energy.
>> Check out these two videos, where equal power is obtained without any
>> registration of current with a clamp-on or in-line ammeter. I don't know
>> how it works, but I'm pretty sure the power doesn't come from the cheese.
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovGXDDvc3ck
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frp03muquAo
>>
>
> It is undeniable that if we could draw that much current from cheese, it
> would be very good.
>
> I'm going to take a crack at this one -- this is a variation on the
> Theiberger setup [1], where there is silliness going on in the shielded
> cables feeding from the mains into the assembly.  And underneath the knife
> switch, there is wiring leading to the cheese leads, which closes a circuit
> from the mains when the knife switch is flipped to the cheese power.
>
>

There is clearly something underneath the knife switch, and possibly some
high frequency on the lines. But the point is, he gets the same power with
both meters reading zero as he does when they read current. If the Rossi's
on/off cycling uses a switch like that, they would calculate a duty cycle
of 1/3 when it should be 1:1.

It would be trivial to show the line is providing power by pulling the
plug. In Rossi's case, if they pulled the plug during the 4 minutes off,
would the temperature profile change? I guess we won't know because this
clever snake-oil video maker was not invited to the experiment.

But again, I don't have to know how that trick works to be suspicious that
the cheese does not provide power, so it's not necessary for me to describe
a deception to be suspicious that there is one in the case of the ecat.
There are many reasons to be suspicious, which would have been easy to
avoid if Rossi had wanted to.

RE: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Jones Beene]

Andrew,

 

It is worth of comment. You haven’t been paying attention apparently… probably 
due to an imbalance of the ratio between posting vs. listening.

 

There is a common phenomenon in LENR known as temperature ratcheting. Other 
names are used.

 

And yes, the “magic” does seem to occur when power is temporarily removed.

 

The best guess for “why” involves both strain - due to phase change and also 
spin changes, due possibly to near-field magnetic effects 

 

The level at which power is temporarily removed often corresponds to phase 
changes in nickel particularly around the Curie Temp.

 

One of the surprises of HotCat is its temperature is much higher than the Ni 
Curie point, which may indicate that a nickel alloy is now being used.

 

Jones

 

 

From: Andrew 

 

The magic is either due to a mischaracterisation of the true input power during 
the pulse OFF state, or it's due to genuine power generation of a non-chemical 
nature by the device, which only arises when power is removed.

 

This is surely worthy of comment, I would have thought.

 

Andrew

 

 

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments

[Duncan Cumming]

Although it is true that the DC component of voltage is 0, the DC 
component of current is not. Since the current is non-sinusoidal, it is 
not possible to analyze it using only the fundamental frequency. This is 
the whole issue of power supply design.


Consider an old-school power supply using a half wave rectifier (diode) 
a smoothing capacitor, and a load. This supply produces output power, 
even though the DC component of voltage at the input is zero. Where does 
this power come from, if not from the AC outlet?


The "fundamental component" of a non-sinusoidal waveform represents only 
a fraction of that waveform. The rest of it is represented by the 
harmonics. If you are interested in power supply design, the following 
text book is excellent:


http://www.amazon.com/Switching-Power-Supply-Design-ebook/dp/B001AO0GDG/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1

Duncan

On 5/27/2013 12:17 PM, David Roberson wrote:
That is a good try.  I agree with all that you say except for one key 
item.  1). No negative current flows due to the diode. 2). The 
instantaneous power being delivered to the resistor is I^2*R as you 
suggest. 3). The DC rated clamp on meter should measure the total RMS 
current provided it can handle distorted AC waveforms.  Now, here is 
where you have a problem with the measurement.  You say to multiply 
the true RMS current by the voltage and that is where the problem 
arises.   I am confident that you realized that as soon as you said it!
All of the power that is applied to the resistor comes from the wall 
socket.  The voltage at this location is a sinewave at the frequency 
supplied by the electrical service.  There is no DC voltage component, 
so the DC power being supplied is 0. The AC component of the input 
frequency is the only one that can have power supplied and that can 
only be given to current at its fundamental frequency.  So, to 
determine how much power the resistor absorbs you must take the 
fundamental current component and multiply it by the fundamental 
voltage supplied by the wall socket.  This needs to be corrected for 
phase shift if any exists with the product by the cosine of the 
difference in phase of the two components.
Therefore, the DC flowing through the rectifier does not contribute to 
the measurement.

Dave
-Original Message-
From: Duncan Cumming 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 2:56 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments

I will give it my best shot.

Consider a diode in series with a resistor, and connected to an AC 
outlet. For the first half of the cycle the diode conducts, and a 
positive current flows. For the second half, the diode does not 
conduct and NO NEGATIVE CURRENT FLOWS, even though a negative voltage 
is present. This is the function of a diode. So what you have is an 
intermittent flow of positive current, which delivers power to the 
load resistors. The magnitude of this power is given by I^2*R.


If you were to measure the current using a clamp on ammeter which is 
DC rated, then the current would be determined accurately and the RMS 
value determined by the digital voltmeter (which must be a true RMS 
type, of course). Multiplying this by the voltage gives the power 
dissipated in the resistor.


If you  were to measure the current using a clamp on ammeter which is 
NOT DC rated, then only the fluctuations in current would be measured, 
which fluctuations would be a lot less than the true value of current. 
So a misleadingly low value of current would be measured, leading to a 
substantial under estimate of the power dissipated in the resistor.


This is electrical engineering 101, but it shows some of the problems 
involved in measuring AC power with a non-sinusoidal waveform. There 
are those who assume that a commercially available "power meter" 
measures just that, but in fact this is a difficult task that should 
be undertaken by a qualified engineer with knowledge of the waveform 
that he is measuring. The specs of such an instrument clearly indicate 
the limitations to which it is subject, and one must be careful not to 
exceed these limitations. An absence of DC sensing capability is one 
such limitation.


In the diode example above, the diode itself does not provide any 
power whatever. It merely confuses some types of power meters.



On 5/26/2013 9:51 PM, David Roberson wrote:
It does not make any difference whether or not the instrument 
measures DC current through the input power cables.   That issue is 
dead unless someone wants to insist that Rossi or one of his partners 
hid a DC supply inside the wall, or in some other place which allows 
the DC to appear at the power input terminals. This would have been 
obvious to anyone looking at the voltage.
Andrew or Duncan please explain how the DC current through the input 
power cable is able to deliver a large power to the load resistors?   
It can not be done with any type of diode hidden within the blue 
box.  Are you ready to concede the point?

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> The camera which calculates the temperature of HotCat is based on
> converting radiance into a corresponding temperature – and that camera has
> a setting for blackbody emissivity, which is usually near one at higher
> temperature. 
>
> ** **
>
> Levi & the Swedes (sounds like the new ABBA) used the most conservative
> setting – one.
>

This is clearly shown in Fig. 7, where they adjusted it from 1.0 down to
0.8 in the IR camera software. The estimated temperature rose from 496 to
564 deg C.

We have been over this several times.

- Jed

[Vo]:Mats Lewan blog report on Levi et al.

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

http://matslew.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/criticism-praise-and-comments-on-the-swedish-italian-e-cat-report/

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Joshua Cude]

Keep in mind the possibility that the value of n depends on the wavelength,
and therefore presumably on the final calculated temperature, and so an
iterative procedure may be needed. In other words, the comparison will not
be between 2 emissivities for the same n, but for different n's, and the
company literature does not give the method of determining n.

And of course, none of this takes account of surfaces that are not grey
bodies.

The obvious solution would have been to use thermocouples in the December
run as well, but they didn't.



On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

> I'm putting the Optris calculations into a spreadsheet -- the following is
> documentation of the formulae used in readable form
>
> From the Optris "IR Basics" documentation  (Page 7)
>
>
> From the actual object temperature (To) and ambient (Ta)
>
> To  Actual temperature  e
>   emmisivity
> Ta  Actual ambient  C   a
> constant in the calorimeter
> Tp  Temperature of pyrometer
>  n   exponent -- depends on wavelenght
>
> U =  C *( e*To^n  + (1- e)*Ta^n - Tp^n)
>
> Measured temperature reported by the calorimeter
>
> Tm  Measured temperature
> Note : the optris equation uses the same
> symbol for Tm and To ---
>  so it seems to be self-referential
>
> Tm = root(n,(U  - C*Ta^n + C*e*Ta^n + C*Tp^n)/ C*e)
> Note that a lot of the "e" cancel out,
> leaving 1/e terms
> root(n,val) can be computed as
> power(val,1/n) -- some languages have problems with this
>
> Pm  Total power calculated from Tm
>
> Pm =a * e * ( Tm^4 - Ta^4)
>
> I'll put these equations into the spreadsheet and see what happens for
> various "n" (wavelength) and "e" emmisivity
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments

[Duncan Cumming]

OK, I will tackle this problem head-on using the Socratic method in stages.

First, consider a wire carrying 100 amps of direct current, plus one amp 
of pure sinusoidal AC current at 60Hz. What is the AC component of the 
current?


Duncan

P.S. Don't worry, we will get to the diode later.

On 5/27/2013 11:57 AM, David Roberson wrote:
Duncan, I hate to keep repeating myself that the power can be measured 
by analyzing the AC components only.  When will you guys show why this 
is not true?  I suggest that you start with the simple system you 
proposed of a diode in series with a resistor driven by an AC wall 
socket.  Explain how it works as you say and I promise to show you the 
error of your calculations.

Dave
-Original Message-
From: Duncan Cumming 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 2:38 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments

I am not sure if I count as a skeptic, because I am not saying that 
any kind of scam was perpetrated. I am certainly not suggesting that 
there was a DC power supply hidden in the wall! My doubts are related 
to the electrical engineering skills evident in the published paper, 
attempting the notoriously difficult task of measuring three phase non 
sinusoidal power. Not only is the waveform non sinusoidal, it is a 
trade secret!


I am merely saying that rectification will cause a misleadingly low 
value of current to be registered using a clamp on ammeter. Since the 
DC is not smooth, there will, indeed, be a small reading from the 
ammeter but substantially lower than the actual current. This will, in 
turn, lead to a misleadingly low power measurement.


Duncan

On 5/26/2013 8:46 PM, David Roberson wrote:

Robin,
The problem at hand is that the skeptic claims that power due to the 
DC current can be very large and not detected.  There has been no 
discussion of the AC current reading being affected by the DC so 
far.  That is a different issue entirely.
I would like for them to answer the questions because then they might 
realize that their position is invalid.  I can explain this if 
required.  No one is suggesting that Rossi actually has a DC power 
supply hidden within the wall I hope.  This would be beyond reality 
since it would be so easy to measure with a voltmeter or any monitor 
that looks at the voltage.  The testers did a visual look at the 
voltage from what I have determined.

So, skeptics, what say you?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 11:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman 
describes power measurments


In reply to  David Roberson's message of Sun, 26 May 2013 22:35:09 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,

This is a little different. A full bridge rectifier will allow for both halves
of the AC current to pass, and so it should be measured as little different to a
purely resistive load. However a single diode will only allow one half to pass,
which *may* mess up magnetic field based current measurements.
(I guess whether if does or not depends on the sophistication of the device.)
>
>Assume that you have a bridge rectifier in the blue box.  This is followed by a
filtering capacitor.  The DC is then used by the electronics connected to the
capacitor.  Are you saying that it is not possible to determine the power input
to this type of network by measuring the input AC voltage and current?  Or are
you saying that someone has performed a scam and put a DC supply in series with
the normal AC voltage?
>
>You do know that this could easily be measured by a simple DC voltmeter, right?
>
>Dave
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

 It seems likely that Rossi may be using cheese power for his energy. Check
> out these two videos, where equal power is obtained without any
> registration of current with a clamp-on or in-line ammeter. I don't know
> how it works, but I'm pretty sure the power doesn't come from the cheese.
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovGXDDvc3ck
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frp03muquAo
>

It is undeniable that if we could draw that much current from cheese, it
would be very good.

I'm going to take a crack at this one -- this is a variation on the
Theiberger setup [1], where there is silliness going on in the shielded
cables feeding from the mains into the assembly.  And underneath the knife
switch, there is wiring leading to the cheese leads, which closes a circuit
from the mains when the knife switch is flipped to the cheese power.

Eric


[1]
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2013/05/Power-Magic-1-600x515.jpeg

Re: [Vo]:Synchronization

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:
> Who would have known the metronomes are bosons and that they could form a
> BEC?

Note the one, second row right, 180 degrees out of phase when all
others are synced.  Eventually forced into phase.