date:20130529

Harry/Dave:

Andrew is borderline pathological skeptic. when challenged by Dave to do a
Spice model so they could compare them to see if they get the same results,
and if not, why, what does Andrew do?   He starts with the insults and name
calling.  Typical for a pathoskep who is called out on the carpet and has no
place to hide, so he attacks the opponent personally. tries to propagate the
perception that his opponent is not competent.  Fortunately, postings on
this forum cannot be deleted/edited, and forum members can make up their own
minds as to who is right/wrong; as will history.

 

-Mark Iverson

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spice model explains eCat non-exponential waveform,
supports David Roberson's linear-response theory

 

OK Harry, perhaps I took his comment the wrong way.   I value your ideas and
hope that you keep spreading them my direction.  There is no place on this
list for personal insults.

 

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 1:46 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spice model explains eCat non-exponential waveform,
supports David Roberson's linear-response theory

dave,

I am not offended.

I find his reaction kinda funny.

On this list we are allowed to think outside our respective disciplines...
or self-disciplines ;-)

 

 

harry

 

 

 

 

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:29 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Harry, please do not be offended by that guy.  Remember, I was not able to
teach him elementary electronic theory.

 

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 1:19 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spice model explains eCat non-exponential waveform,
supports David Roberson's linear-response theory

Please read what I write.

I drew an analogy between the two types of circuits diagrams.

 

 

Harry

 

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:

I think you are ridiculously irrational. Look at the circuit diagram. What
precisely is wrong with you? That you are not an EE and cannot interpret the
funny symbols?  Good grief. There sure are some ripe steamers on this
list. Roberson was bad enough. Then there's ...ah fergeddit.

 

Andrew

- Original Message - 

From: Harry Veeder mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com  

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:08 PM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spice model explains eCat non-exponential waveform,
supports David Roberson's linear-response theory

 

I think you are bluffing.

 

 

harry

 

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:

It's a capacitor in parallel with a resistor. I am underwhelmed.

 

Andrew

- Original Message - 

From: Harry Veeder mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com  

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:55 PM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spice model explains eCat non-exponential waveform,
supports David Roberson's linear-response theory

 

 

The diagram reminds me of constructions consisting of springs and dashpots
in series and parallel which are used to model viscoelastic materials.

see e.g. 


http://gertrude-old.case.edu/276/materials/5.fig/05.htm6.gif

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0023643808000790-gr1.jpg

 

His circuit diagram could be considered an electric model of force
interaction at the atomic scale within the Ecat's fuel.

 

 

 

 

harry

 

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:

Let's make sure I understand these 4 plots. I understand your diagram thus:

 

The blue square wave goes through your toy model and emerges as the green
double exponential. 

The blue triangular wave goes through your toy model and emerges as the
green curve that looks very like the power curve in the report.

The toy model describes a thermal simulation which translates electrical
input to the device to radiant power output.

 

OK so far?

 

Assuming yes, here's what I think you've shown.  The control box consumes
power as a square wave (which is what the report measures on the input
side), and outputs a triangular wave to the device. The device's output
power profile (radiant heat) comes out as per the report. Bazinga.

 

The only problem is that the cable between the control box and the device
contains secrets. That's your next reverse-engineering mission :)

 

Andrew

 

- Original Message - 

From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:37 PM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spice model explains eCat non-exponential waveform,
supports David Roberson's linear-response theory

 

 From: Andrew andrew...@att.net
 Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:53:45 PM
 That's a nice piece of reverse engineering - Kudos. My only issue
 with it is
 the plot in the report, which definitely shows square waves. Mind
 you,

Re: [Vo]:Why scam???

I won't bet a cent on papp engine, but unlike magnetic motors, if papp
engine is working is is visibly a nuclear energy source, like LENR in
hydride...

question on papp, like LENR, is not whether it is allowed to exist, but
whether it works.

I'm fed up with people mixing nonconventional nuclear energy sources, and
over-unity TD1 /TD2 law-breakers...

by the way, I'm also fed up with theories in patents. not the place.
patent should stay patent.
If there is no known corpus of data about a technology, then the patent
have to be very precise, or be void... if there is known phenomenological
model or theoretical model, description may be more implicit as expert in
the domain will quickly fill the holes in the description.
an nobody should deduce something is real from a patent.
and patent office should check only that fact, take more care to protect
from patent troll than for overunity devices.

2013/5/29 Andrew andrew...@att.net

 **
 *Papp's engine was an over-unity device* - really?
 Have you ever seen his utility bill?

 Andrew

 - Original Message -
 *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:11 PM
 *Subject:* [Vo]:Why scam???

  The US patent office has placed a ban on patents covering over unity
 devices, perpetual motion machines, and inventions based on pseudoscience.
 LENR inventions have been ban.



 Rossi may be doing these tests to provide proof that his device works to
 support his patent application.





 Jo Papp was awarded two patents for the Papp engine when he supplied proof
 that his engine worked to the US Patent office even though his invention
 was an over-unity device.



 Rossi does not understand how his invention works yet. The LENR engineering
 problems will be overcome well beyond the time that the scientific
 operating principles are sufficiently understood in detail.




 Rossi has sold his IP to a US company. He has not scam incentive to keep
 the fraud going, so why do a six month test in the near future?



 Rossi needs proof of function to get a patent. The decision to demonstrate
 function must have been made by the new IP owner in order to get US patent
 protection. Rossi cannot make business decisions now.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

to be clear the test is a blackbox test from the entry of the controller to
the heat irradiated.

The cable may be an exotic alien cable including pixie dust and antimatter
hidden wires, and the test will be valid anyway...

there are some people that don't understand what is a blackbox, and what is
an evidence...
they mix fact with understanding of how it works.

brain soup.

2013/5/29 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com

 so the secret cable is a high voltage cable?

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:More delusional scientists, and over 60,000 publications!

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Mark Iverson markiver...@charter.netwrote:

 There have been more than 60,000 papers published on high-temperature
 superconductive material since its discovery in 1986, said Jak Chakhalian,
 professor of physics at the University of Arkansas. Unfortunately, as of
 today we have **zero theoretical understanding** of the mechanism behind
 this enigmatic phenomenon. In my mind, the high-temperature
 superconductivity is the most important unsolved mystery of condensed
 matter physics.

 ** **

 After over 6 published papers, way more than LENR, and as the expert
 himself says, 

“we have zero theoretical understanding of the mechanism…”

 ** **

 sarcasm ON

 ** **

 Obviously they don’t know how to make simple measurements, and must be
 engaged in a massive instance of self-delusion/group-think, or the grandest
 conspiracy to maintain their funding…

 ** **

 Makes LENR look like small potatoes…

 ** **

 sarcasm OFF

 ** **



I wonder what your point is. I like to use this example to show that in
fact science embraces new and surprising results, even when there is no
theory to explain them, contrary to the common rationalization from true
believers that cold fusion is rejected because there is no theory.

Superconductivity itself (low temperature) took decades before a detailed
theory appeared.

The difference is quality evidence. High temperature superconductivity has
it in spades, whereas it is absent in cold fusion.

No one rejects cold fusion just because there is no theory. It's rejected
because there is no good evidence for it, and it is contrary to
generalizations that are based on 60 years of copious, robust, and
consistent experimental evidence.

In fact, it was obvious in 1989 that science was fully prepared to embrace
cold fusion in spite of the lack of a theory (or that it was contrary to
theory). That's why scientists by the thousands suspended their research
and started doing electrolysis of palladium in heavy water, and why Pons
got a standing ovation from thousands of scientists at the ACS meeting, and
why PF became instant celebrities, and so on. The rejection came later,
when the claims did not stand up to scrutiny.

No one accuses high Tc superconductivity scientists of errors of
measurement or delusion because the measurements are consistent and
reproducible. This should *add*, not weaken, confidence in the claims of
the same people who do not accept the far more lame results from cold
fusion claimants. After all, cold fusion has much greater potential
benefits for everyone than superconductivity, which is also why it was
greeted with even more enthusiasm in 1989 than High Tc SC was in 1986.

Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:51 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
 zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

 And JC is WELL aware of this, yet asks the question as to why they used
 3-phase power in their tests… the second test was SINGLE phase power, so JC
 is misleading people… but he has a very long history of taking some
 questionable issue in one test, and making statements that imply that that
 same issue was present in other tests…


 I didn't realize they used single phase power for the March 2013
 experiment; I had assumed they were using three-phase power.



I'm almost certain they were using 3-phase power on the input to the box.
They write: a control circuit having three-phase power input and
single-phase output. And it's on the input that the power measurement is
made, and so that's where it's relevant. That also forces a particular line
to be used, and makes much higher power available, which may have been
necessary for the glowing red experiment.

I think Mark was mistaken about this, and his failure to acknowledge it
suggests he is deliberately trying to mislead people, and he appears to
have succeeded in your case.

RE: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

2013-05-29 Thread Charles Francis

Surely the control box is an integral part of the Rossi system under test?
Why then insist on internal sub-system measurements? Why not analyse the
Rossi system cleanly by just considering external inputs and outputs without
regard to internals? After all, an engineer doesn't break open an unknown
transistor or integrated circuit to determine its characteristics. 

 

Charles

 

From: Andrew [mailto:andrew...@att.net] 
Sent: 29 May 2013 01:59
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

 

NO, NO, NO.

 

The cable I'm referring to, which I've described three times now, os the
other one - the one between the control box and the device.

 

Good Grief.

- Original Message - 

From: MarkI-ZeroPoint mailto:zeropo...@charter.net  

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:36 PM

Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

 

I think there is some confusion on the issue of cables, what cables, and
'bringing your own cables' and I want to make sure we are all on the same
page.  correct any misunderstandings in the following so we all understand
the details and importance of each.

 

First, the cable Andrew is referring to is the one from the AC wall plug to
the control box.  The REASON why Andrew and others are asking if Rossi would
allow the scientists to use their own AC power cable is because of the
diagram on this page which is immediately following the pie chart of
Natural Nickel Composition:

 
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-peo
ple-are-still-falling-for-it/

The diagram is by Peter Thieberger, a particle physicist.  It shows how some
'rewiring ' of a power cable can be done so that it will register NO current
on any meters monitoring the separate wires of the power cable.  I do not
know if this scenario is one that the test team thought about, but if
someone can present them with the diagram and find out if their measurements
can eliminate this possibility, that'd be great.  If they did not account
for this scenario, then we need to make sure they are aware of it so the
next test can eliminate this possibility of fraud.

 

Second, when someone (Rossi) said,  . they could bring their own cables.,
I got the impression that this was only referring to the cables which attach
the measurement instruments to the system (e.g., the cables from the Power
Analyzer to the AC power cable), NOT the AC power cable.  So let's not get
confused as to 'what cables' are being referred to.

 

-Mark Iverson

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:28 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

 

Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:

 

The cable is what connects the control box to the device.  It appears from
the report that they did not examine it for anomalies.

 

They did not examine it. That would reveal trade secrets, as noted in the
report.

 

 

  So, are the researchers free to replace it with one of their own, or not?

 

Of course not. They do not even have the specs for it.

 

What happens in the cable and controller is irrelevant to the energy
balance.

 

Despite the discussions here, there is no way what occurs in the controller
box or the cable can steal electricity without the meters detecting it.
That would violate the conservation of energy. When electric power is
consumed, either the amperage or the voltage must rise.

 

You might hide input power from some types of meter by changing the output
from the electric plug. However, there has been a great of nonsense about
that here, as well. You can't do that merely by raising voltage. When
voltage exceeds the meter's limits, the meter does not ignore that. It
displays a message such as  or OUT OF RANGE.

 

 

The March dummy calibration run, according to the report, involved placing
voltage probes across the device while the control box was switched on in
non-pulsed mode.

 

You are right. It says:

 

Resistor coil power consumption was measured by placing the instrument in
single-phase directly on the coil input cables, and was found to be, on
average, about 810 W. From this one derives that the power consumption of
the control box was approximately = 

110-120 W.

 

In this case they were using the coils as joule heaters in a conventional
step-by-step calibration.

 

 

So your statement that At no point did they measure output from the
controller contradicts that. Please clarify.

 

I got that wrong.

 

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:More delusional scientists, and over 60,000 publications!

2013-05-29 Thread Peter Gluck

Both HTSC and CF were discovered before their time both
are very different from what was thought in the moments
of discovery and both need new tools, concepts and ideas
in order to be understood..
For LENR I recommend you to watch very carefully and without
prejudices what our colleague Axil says.
Peter


On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Mark Iverson markiver...@charter.netwrote:

 There have been more than 60,000 papers published on high-temperature
 superconductive material since its discovery in 1986, said Jak Chakhalian,
 professor of physics at the University of Arkansas. Unfortunately, as of
 today we have **zero theoretical understanding** of the mechanism behind
 this enigmatic phenomenon. In my mind, the high-temperature
 superconductivity is the most important unsolved mystery of condensed
 matter physics.

 ** **

 After over 6 published papers, way more than LENR, and as the expert
 himself says, 

“we have zero theoretical understanding of the mechanism…”

 ** **

 sarcasm ON

 ** **

 Obviously they don’t know how to make simple measurements, and must be
 engaged in a massive instance of self-delusion/group-think, or the grandest
 conspiracy to maintain their funding…

 ** **

 Makes LENR look like small potatoes…

 ** **

 sarcasm OFF

 ** **



 I wonder what your point is. I like to use this example to show that in
 fact science embraces new and surprising results, even when there is no
 theory to explain them, contrary to the common rationalization from true
 believers that cold fusion is rejected because there is no theory.

 Superconductivity itself (low temperature) took decades before a detailed
 theory appeared.

 The difference is quality evidence. High temperature superconductivity has
 it in spades, whereas it is absent in cold fusion.

 No one rejects cold fusion just because there is no theory. It's rejected
 because there is no good evidence for it, and it is contrary to
 generalizations that are based on 60 years of copious, robust, and
 consistent experimental evidence.

 In fact, it was obvious in 1989 that science was fully prepared to embrace
 cold fusion in spite of the lack of a theory (or that it was contrary to
 theory). That's why scientists by the thousands suspended their research
 and started doing electrolysis of palladium in heavy water, and why Pons
 got a standing ovation from thousands of scientists at the ACS meeting, and
 why PF became instant celebrities, and so on. The rejection came later,
 when the claims did not stand up to scrutiny.

 No one accuses high Tc superconductivity scientists of errors of
 measurement or delusion because the measurements are consistent and
 reproducible. This should *add*, not weaken, confidence in the claims of
 the same people who do not accept the far more lame results from cold
 fusion claimants. After all, cold fusion has much greater potential
 benefits for everyone than superconductivity, which is also why it was
 greeted with even more enthusiasm in 1989 than High Tc SC was in 1986.









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

Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:32 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
 zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

 You left out the more important part of my posting:

 “And JC is WELL aware of this, yet asks the question as to why they used
 3-phase power in their tests… the second test was SINGLE phase power, so *
 *JC is misleading people**…”


 We should try not to let this get personal.


Especially when you're mistaken.





 We should appreciate the additional prodding we're getting to get our
 facts straight.  I didn't read closely enough to catch on to the
 single-phase power in the March 2013 test.  I assume the same is the case
 for Joshua.


Did you not read my reply? Even Jed read it and acknowledged the mistake.
The paper says they used 3-phase power for the input to the box. That's all
I claimed, and it appears to be right.

Don't you agree that a control circuit having three-phase power input and
single-phase output means they use 3-phase power at the input? My argument
required only that.

Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:39 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Eric, I agree with what Mark is saying.


You agree with him that 3-phase was not used in the March run when the
paper says a control circuit having three-phase power input and
single-phase output.

I never claimed 3-phase power went to the ecat. In fact I said the 3-phase
input to the box was particularly unnecessary *because* only single-phase
was used for the box.

I think I got this right, and Mark's misleading accusation got 3 other true
believers to get it wrong.

And if you agree with him that I'm being deliberately misleading, you need
a different example, because this one suggests that Mark is being
deliberately misleading.

Re: [Vo]:More delusional scientists, and over 60,000 publications!

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 Both HTSC and CF were discovered before their time both
 are very different from what was thought in the moments
 of discovery and both need new tools, concepts and ideas
 in order to be understood..


The validity of the HTSC evidence says nothing about the validity of the
cold fusion evidence though.

HTSC shows that mainstream science is perfectly willing to accept
experimental results without a theory to explain them. Therefore the
rejection by the same mainstream of cold fusion-- a far more desirable
phenomenon -- should be given *more* credence, not less.

Re: [Vo]:More delusional scientists, and over 60,000 publications!

2013-05-29 Thread Peter Gluck

It was parallel thinking, I well know each field has its own
characteristics and fate. Cold Fusion had the problem of reproducibility
from the very start this
is the real cause of its bad reputation. Theoretical weakness has just added
to the problem- it seems to be so intellectual.
I understand your position and role, you will not agree officially so
please do
not answer- I tell you that Rossi has discovered a new kind, a new level
of LENR, working with a different mechanism  that gives more intense
excess heat. Rossi has excess heat, it is true  he has tried to show he
has more than it is actually there. But excess heat is certain in the
2011 series of experiments and this test of the Professors too. You
are highly intelleigent and creative and able to invent all kind of
imaginary flaws.
Time will pass, new experiments will come more and more convincing, then
LENR+ devices will enter the market and any resistence will be futile.
You, Mary Yugo and Gary Wright are outsider Rosssi killers and who knows
your real identity.. you will disappear with discretion from the sight.
Remember
my words when it will happen and drink a glass of what-you-like for my soul
and memory.
Steve Krivit is an other case, his professional suicide is a tragic event.
You can do with this message what you wish, save answering to it.
Peter


On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote:

 Both HTSC and CF were discovered before their time both
 are very different from what was thought in the moments
 of discovery and both need new tools, concepts and ideas
 in order to be understood..


 The validity of the HTSC evidence says nothing about the validity of the
 cold fusion evidence though.

 HTSC shows that mainstream science is perfectly willing to accept
 experimental results without a theory to explain them. Therefore the
 rejection by the same mainstream of cold fusion-- a far more desirable
 phenomenon -- should be given *more* credence, not less.





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

[Vo]:The First Image Ever of a Hydrogen Atom's Orbital Structure

2013-05-29 Thread Charles Francis

http://io9.com/the-first-image-ever-of-a-hydrogen-atoms-orbital-struc-509684
901

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

   Then they have not considered the obvious. Unless there is fraud at the
 felony level, then Rossi has probably discovered something valid, and
 incredibly important to Society


 It's the implications that get people caught up in the conspiracy
 theories. The implications are too much for people to handle.


I disagree. The implications of cold fusion are what got the world in a
tizzy in 1989. Everyone, including many (if not most) scientists were
prepared to embrace cold fusion *because* of the implications. Thousands of
scientists cheered and experimented, and wanted the revolution to be true,
and wanted to be part of it. It was the failure of the claims to stand up
to scrutiny that caused skepticism.

And I think you use the term conspiracy theory incorrectly. In the case
of the ecat, it's really a just run-of-the-mill deception on the scale of
John Ernst Worrell Keely (whose lab was full of concealed tricks) or Papp
or Stoern or Madison Priest (who ran a secret cable across a river) or
countless others, and on a rather smaller scale than Bre-X or Madoff. A
conspiracy theory, as I usually see it used, refers to a far more
comprehensive plot involving the complicity of an entire segment of
society, like the alleged AGW conspiracy or the alleged cold fusion
suppression conspiracy, both of which would require complicity of nearly
all of academia. The ecat involves Rossi and maybe a few accomplices. That
ain't no conspiracy in my books.



 They make it hard to give objective, reasonable consideration to fairly
 mundane experiments and to apply Occam's razor to the evidence.  The most
 reasonable explanation is not that there was wire fake or massive output
 over-calculation or fraud or sloppy, incompetent scientists.  These are all
 possibilities, one presumes, but to a fair-minded observer, the most likely
 explanation at this point is that there's could be some new science to be
 worked out.


That's not the opinion of the majority of observers of the case. Deception
on this scale -- frauds and scams -- are utterly common. Scientific
revolutions like this are very rare, especially from someone like Rossi.

So, Occam's razor here favors deception as the explanation.


Perhaps there was some sloppiness.  Or perhaps the details we've been glued
 to are the kinds of flaw that normal scientists introduce in the course of
 normal scientific work and that are normally addressed behind
 the scenes during peer review.  I'm sure there are many papers uploaded to
 ArXiv that suffer from defects, and those flaws are gradually ironed out
 over the course of peer review.  This paper is different, since there is a
 whole industry of Rossi watchers waiting to pounce on it.  Let's be fair.
  How many papers subjected to this kind of scathing attention, out in the
 open?


The monitoring of the input was comically inadequate, if there is any
possibility of deception, the blank run used a different power regimen, the
claims of power density 100 times that of nuclear fuel without cooling and
without melting are totally implausible, the lack of calorimetry is
completely inexplicable. This is not some sloppiness. This is far below
ordinary scientific standards, particularly for a claim like this.

And all of this is assuming you accept their word. The biggest difference
between this paper and most scientific literature, is that no one can check
the claims. Claims of this importance will not be accepted if they can't be
tested, no matter how distinguished the 7 authors are, and they're not very.

The idea that an energy density of MJ/g or higher in a small-scale
experiment, with a COP of 3 or higher, and hundreds of watts can't be
demonstrated in a way that leaves no opportunity for the sort of objections
being raised is simply too far-fetched for most scientists to accept.

First, the fact that this *source* of energy thousands of times more dense
than chemical has to be plugged in (to a high power line, no less) will
turn most observers away. But even if it really does need to add power,
then they could use some source of finite input power, and use the output
to do some really visual amount of work or heating, and do it in a neutral
location. Most scientists, I expect, believe that a completely unequivocal
demonstration of claims of Rossi's magnitude would be a trivial thing to
stage, and would bear no resemblance to the farce that we are seeing.

So, once again, Occam's razor favors deception or incompetence.



 The potential downstream consequences drive smart people bonkers.  They
 lose their cool and put in place requirements to which they would never
 hold the establishment of another empirical phenomenon such as
 superconductivity or cloning.


That's manifestly wrong, as was shown in 1989. The potential downstream
consequences are the reason cold fusion was given

Re: [Vo]:More delusional scientists, and over 60,000 publications!

2013-05-29 Thread John Berry

Reproducibility is indeed the crux of most alt/fringe science technologies.

Conventional science is not so willing to accept hard to reproduce effects
as real, effects where not all of the requirements for reproducibility are
known or readily controllable.

This does not mean that these effects can't become reliably reproducible,
but it means that a reliable recipe must be found, and preferably the
action behind it understood.

John


On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 It was parallel thinking, I well know each field has its own
 characteristics and fate. Cold Fusion had the problem of reproducibility
 from the very start this
 is the real cause of its bad reputation. Theoretical weakness has just
 added
 to the problem- it seems to be so intellectual.
 I understand your position and role, you will not agree officially so
 please do
 not answer- I tell you that Rossi has discovered a new kind, a new level
 of LENR, working with a different mechanism  that gives more intense
 excess heat. Rossi has excess heat, it is true  he has tried to show he
 has more than it is actually there. But excess heat is certain in the
 2011 series of experiments and this test of the Professors too. You
 are highly intelleigent and creative and able to invent all kind of
 imaginary flaws.
 Time will pass, new experiments will come more and more convincing, then
 LENR+ devices will enter the market and any resistence will be futile.
 You, Mary Yugo and Gary Wright are outsider Rosssi killers and who knows
 your real identity.. you will disappear with discretion from the sight.
 Remember
 my words when it will happen and drink a glass of what-you-like for my
 soul and memory.
 Steve Krivit is an other case, his professional suicide is a tragic event.
 You can do with this message what you wish, save answering to it.
 Peter


 On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote:

 Both HTSC and CF were discovered before their time both
 are very different from what was thought in the moments
 of discovery and both need new tools, concepts and ideas
 in order to be understood..


 The validity of the HTSC evidence says nothing about the validity of the
 cold fusion evidence though.

 HTSC shows that mainstream science is perfectly willing to accept
 experimental results without a theory to explain them. Therefore the
 rejection by the same mainstream of cold fusion-- a far more desirable
 phenomenon -- should be given *more* credence, not less.





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

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

2013-05-29 Thread Vorl Bek

On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:46:34 -0700
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:

 Thank you for being straightforward on both points. 
 
 And now we definitively know that the cable itself is secret.
 
 Of course, that will not bother the majority of people here. Move along, 
 nothing to see here.

I thought that what counted was the amount of power coming from
the mains, and the problem was whether or not Rossi had rigged
them so that there was 'hidden' power of some kind - DC or hf AC.

If the experimenters have ruled that out, and they have an
accurate idea of how much power is coming from the mains, what
difference does it make if the cable from the black box is secret,
or what the 'waveform' looks like?

The discussion here sounds like it has degenerated into a spat
about who knows more about electricity.

Whether or not they have ruled it out, nobody in his right mind
would let this single test convert him to a belief in lenr.

Re: [Vo]:More delusional scientists, and over 60,000 publications!

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:49 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:


 But excess heat is certain in the
 2011 series of experiments and this test of the Professors too.


You mean *you* are certain. Others are not. To say something is certain
should mean that certainty represents some kind of consensus, and in this
case, it certainly does not.


  You
 are highly intelleigent and creative and able to invent all kind of
 imaginary flaws.


The flaws are real, but it's not about that. It's not necessary to be able
to explain artifacts or tricks to be skeptical of the claims, any more than
it is necessary for you to be able to explain the reactions that produce
the heat to be a true believer.

What's necessary is an experimental design that explicitly excludes
deception and artifacts, and that is publicly accessible or testable. Given
the claims, this should be dead easy, but is never done. If it weren't dead
easy, then claims of a potential energy revolution are nonsense.


 Time will pass, new experiments will come more and more convincing, then
 LENR+ devices will enter the market and any resistence will be futile.
 You, Mary Yugo and Gary Wright are outsider Rosssi killers and who knows
 your real identity.. you will disappear with discretion from the sight.
 Remember
 my words when it will happen and drink a glass of what-you-like for my
 soul and memory.


I've heard versions of this for 24 years, from Pons predicting a commercial
product within a year in 1989, to Mallove and Rothwell predicting cold
fusion cars by year 2000, to true believers saying 2 years ago that Rossi's
ecat would be in home depot by now.

It's difficult to conceive of experimental results that would disabuse true
believers of cold fusion, so I will not predict that you will ever be
forced to concede to the likes of me. But I will predict that there will be
no significant change on the ecat front in a year, 2 years, and 5 years.
Maybe Rossi will be exposed, maybe he'll hang on for 20 years like Mills.
But true believers will almost certainly live out their lives without
vindication. Clinging to your pseudoscience though may be the only way to
avoid the regret that being rational would involve. Fortunately for you,
the complexities and vagaries and the multiplicity of configurations
involved in cold fusion make it rather easy to fool yourself, and rest easy
in your delusion.

Re:[Vo]:PCE-830 manual and 3 phases measurement

2013-05-29 Thread Claudio C Fiorini

Rob wrote:


It should read 3P3W mode (page 12) and not in 3P4W mode



Yes indeed. But why are the tensions around 237 V and not around 400 V
AC? They switched the instrument in 3P3W mode, but being incompetent
(my opinion) they connected only two wires to the phases but one to
the neutral. The result can be seen on the display of the PCE830
computer: a complete garbage. Frequency: 5.3 Hz! a negative pf, V31
beeing 6.3 V AC and so on. Never seen such a garbage on a similar
instrument. And nobody of the experts present and co-authors saw this,
only internet blogger weeks later. And only because swiss associates
of Rossi published proudly the picture on their Net journal and
someone else showed the embarassing an revealing picture on another
page (later replaced by James Bond and Dr. No).


By the way: it is now obvious, that the resistors were placed between
the phases. Look at picture figure 5 in the Levi report. We see that
two white cable of two different resistors (2 out of 3 in total, the
third is on the right side) are connected to a single wire of the
power supply. If you connect 3 resistors from phase to neutral, you
would expect in one case 3 white wires connected to one point
(neutral) and every other white cable would be connected to a single
wire of the power supply.


This is confirmed by the fact that they switched the instrument in
3P3W mode (V12 V23 V31). It is also confirmend by Rossi himself who
spoke about 380 V.


I conclude that the test in december was made so badly, that the
authors should retract. The youger among them are risking their future
career.


And about the march test, i have also a hypothesis. But i prefer to wait.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:

 On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:46:34 -0700
 Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:

  Thank you for being straightforward on both points.
 
  And now we definitively know that the cable itself is secret.
 
  Of course, that will not bother the majority of people here. Move along,
 nothing to see here.

 I thought that what counted was the amount of power coming from
 the mains, and the problem was whether or not Rossi had rigged
 them so that there was 'hidden' power of some kind - DC or hf AC.


That is indeed what counts. The point is that the measurements reported
fall far short of excluding some kind of deception on the input, including
hidden wires (coax for example) or some other way to trick the meters. And
the blank run inexplicably used a different power regimen, so it means
nothing. Essen says they ruled out dc, but doesn't say how, and it's not
ruled out by the reported measurements. I don't have a lot of confidence,
given the reported measurements that Rossi can't fools the likes of Essen.

But as in the cheese power videos, one does not have to understand the
trick to be pretty sure there is one, because of how unlikely cheese power
actually is. The point is that it would be easy to design a test of the
cheese claim that would exclude tricks. But the ecat circuit is set up by
Rossi, just like the cheese circuit is set up by Tinsel, and so tricks are
likely.

I think the questions about the other wires from the box to the ecat are
simply about detecting tricks at the input, since the measurements are
inadequate to do so. If, e.g., when they say they are cylcing the power
off, it is actually still on, then there is a trick on the input.



 If the experimenters have ruled that out, and they have an
 accurate idea of how much power is coming from the mains,


I think the point is that they have not ruled it out to the satisfaction of
skeptics. And it would be rather easy to do so.

Re: [Vo]:Perfect response to Gugliemi

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:

 Jed:

 His two questions can easily be answered.

 1) Since the science community currently believes a positive result to be
 impossible (cold fusion is pseudoscience), such a result would change a
 potential misperception by the scientific community. Which in point of fact
 is a much more significant advance of knowledge than any detailed advance
 may produce.


He didn't ask how the result would advance knowledge, but how the paper
would. Since the claim is not testable, the paper does *not* serve to
change the misperception, as should be obvious by now. What he's saying is
that for this exercise to advance knowledge, it is necessary for others to
be able to test the claims, and that's not possible.


 2) Mankind.


Mankind will not benefit from this paper. If the claim is real, mankind
would benefit from the technology. He admits that. But this paper will not
promote that. Something else is needed. Something testable. As it stands,
it benefits Rossi's ability to attract investment, and he's got several
academic stooges to help him do it.

If Rossi has what he claims, then he has to show the world in a way that
they will believer

Re: [Vo]:Spice model explains eCat non-exponential waveform, supports David Roberson's linear-response theory

I think the analysis of the curve shapes is gross over-interpretation.
First of all, it's not clear from the paper that the square wave at the
input really represents a measurement, or an artist's conception. As far as
I understand, it's taken from the video, but all they really say is what
the peak value is, and what the cycle timing is. They don't say it drops to
zero between the peaks, and they don't say how rapidly the change is. I got
the impression that they just drew a square waving using the measured cycle
times and the peak voltage.

Second, we don't know what other loads may be in the circuit inside the
box, since there is no measurement on the output of the box.

The observed cycling of the temperature is entirely consistent with a
cycling on the input to the ecat between two levels very far from zero, and
therefore representing much higher input power than claimed. And the cheese
video shows how easy it would be to fool the meters into showing zero input
during part of the cycle. It doesn't mean they used the same method, only
that meters are not difficult to trick. Since it's clear the wiring was set
up by Rossi, since it was already running when they came in, there is no
transparency here at all. The blank run used a different power regimen.
What's the use of that? It's a first class farce. Nothing more.



On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

 http://lenr.qumbu.com/130528_waveform_04.png

 The strange shape results because the eCat's heat is not a square-wave
 response: it's triangular.

 The actual shape is probably a superposition of the square-wave (resistor
 heating) and triangular (ecat).

 (My curve shows what happens when the on/off cycle is too slow.)

Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

2013-05-29 Thread Claudio C Fiorini

Joshua Cude wrote:


...I'm almost certain they were using 3-phase power on the input to the box.

They write: a control circuit having three-phase power input and
single-phase output. And it's on the input that the power measurement
is made, and so that's where it's relevant. That also forces a
particular line to be used, and makes much higher power available,
which may have been necessary for the glowing red experiment...


What if they used 3 phase power to the control box, and a single phase
to the resistors, but not as you write forces a particular line to be
used, but two. I mean two phase lines. The result is a single phase
signal but with a significant higher voltage then using one single
phase line and the neutral pole. Tension would be greater by factor
1.73. The current would also increase according to the Ohm law and
would increase by factor 1.73. The power dissipated would increase by
1.73 x 1.73 = 2.66.

Re: [Vo]:Spice model explains eCat non-exponential waveform, supports David Roberson's linear-response theory

2013-05-29 Thread Terry Blanton

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:18 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
 Harry/Dave:

 Andrew is borderline pathological skeptic… when challenged by Dave to do a
 Spice model so they could compare them to see if they get the same results,
 and if not, why, what does Andrew do?   He starts with the insults and name
 calling.  Typical for a pathoskep who is called out on the carpet and has no
 place to hide, so he attacks the opponent personally… tries to propagate the
 perception that his opponent is not competent.  Fortunately, postings on
 this forum cannot be deleted/edited, and forum members can make up their own
 minds as to who is right/wrong; as will history.

It was his calling Dave's modelling efforts a toy that ticked me
off.  I don't think Andrew, EE, will bother us in the future.  ;)

Re: [Vo]:More delusional scientists, and over 60,000 publications!

that point merit some correction
http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?815-Celani-discovery-of-High-Temp-Superconduction-rejectedhttp://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?815-Celani-discovery-of-High-Temp-Superconduction-rejectedhighlight=celani+superconduction

Celani found HTSC as an anomaly, and as Kuhn explain, anomalies are
rejected as long as possible...
mainstream accept HTSC when is was so undeniable ... and by the way it is
not so shocking, not so far from the usual paradigm...

- (1983-1987). After the experience with silicon detectors (sensitivity
of about 1e-/3.6eV energy released), I decided to study innovative
detectors having an equivalent sensitivity thousand times larger. So I
started to study Superconducting Tunnel Junctions (Ni-Pb; T=4.2K), in
collaboration with Salerno University, having an intrinsic energy gap of
only few meV. Found some quite intriguing results using thick junctions on
1985. One of these were contaminated (by chance) from several other
elements and showed behaviour similar to superconductivity even at
temperature as large as 77K (LN2). It was stated a multi-disciplinary
Commission in order to clarify the origin of such signals. *Unfortunately
the results were rejected, a-priori, because in disagreement with the BCS
model/theory* (i.e. max temperature of superconductivity stated at 32K).
One year later Bednorz and Muller (from IBM, Zurich), independently (and
starting from different points of view), found similar results in Cuprate
Oxides mixed with rare-hearts and got Nobel Prize.

It is funny as the myth of teleological and materialist science is denied
by evidences.

2013/5/29 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote:

Both HTSC and CF were discovered before their time both
are very different from what was thought in the moments
of discovery and both need new tools, concepts and ideas
in order to be understood..

The validity of the HTSC evidence says nothing about the validity of the
cold fusion evidence though.

HTSC shows that mainstream science is perfectly willing to accept
experimental results without a theory to explain them. Therefore the
rejection by the same mainstream of cold fusion-- a far more desirable
phenomenon -- should be given *more* credence, not less.

Re: [Vo]:More delusional scientists, and over 60,000 publications!

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote:

that point merit some correction

http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?815-Celani-discovery-of-High-Temp-Superconduction-rejectedhttp://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?815-Celani-discovery-of-High-Temp-Superconduction-rejectedhighlight=celani+superconduction

- (1983-1987). After the experience with silicon detectors
(sensitivity of about 1e-/3.6eV energy released), I decided to study
innovative detectors having an equivalent sensitivity thousand times
larger. So I started to study Superconducting Tunnel Junctions (Ni-Pb;
T=4.2K), in collaboration with Salerno University, having an intrinsic
energy gap of only few meV. Found some quite intriguing results using thick
junctions on 1985. One of these were contaminated (by chance) from several
other elements and showed behaviour similar to superconductivity even at
temperature as large as 77K (LN2). It was stated a multi-disciplinary
Commission in order to clarify the origin of such signals. *Unfortunately
the results were rejected, a-priori, because in disagreement with the BCS
model/theory* (i.e. max temperature of superconductivity stated at
32K). One year later Bednorz and Muller (from IBM, Zurich), independently
(and starting from different points of view), found similar results in
Cuprate Oxides mixed with rare-hearts and got Nobel Prize.

It is funny as the myth of teleological and materialist science is denied
by evidences.

It demonstrates how quickly the mainstream accepts unexpected results when
the evidence is good. In one year, they got the Nobel prize for results
that had not theoretical support. Kind of shoots down the claim that cold
fusion is rejected because of the absence of theoretical support. In 24
years, the evidence for cold fusion has not improved. Only the number of
claims from people looking for investment has increased.

[Vo]:look how nice my book flips now, I love Amazon

2013-05-29 Thread fznidarsic








http://www.amazon.com/Energy-Cold-Fusion-Antigravity-Znidarsic/dp/1480270237/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=apsie=UTF8qid=1369831335sr=1-1-catcorrkeywords=%22znidarsic+science+books%22




this is fun


Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:Perfect response to Gugliemi

2013-05-29 Thread Ransom Wuller

Cude:

Why do you bother to respond when you post replies like that.

The result of the paper is different than the paper?  Come now, the result
of the paper is a component of the paper, as a component, if it advances
knowledge, then the whole advances knowledge.  Didn't you take logic in
your training? Whether the viewer deems it credible enough is for the
viewer.  You wouldn't deem a paper on this topic credible enough under any
circumstances, so your opinion is hardly instructive or representative.
And citing a view vocal outliers (Guglielmi) is hardly a census of the
reaction.

As far as benefiting mankind, waiting for Rossi to achieve a working
product might (even if the report is accurate) be a long wait (in fact
there is no assurances he will even succeed), but you don't need to
understand the mechanism to determine if a new form of energy has been
achieved.  So the scientific community need not wait on the inventor.

And of course for the scientific community to wait for an inventor to
school them is a sad commentary on the discipline.

If this report is insufficient to confirm a new source of energy the
testers should be encouraged to do the tests again with modified
methodology. It is certainly sufficient to raise the possibility of a new
source of energy (the need to interpose a theory of fraud proves it's
sufficiency)

Ransom

 On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:

 Jed:

 His two questions can easily be answered.

 1) Since the science community currently believes a positive result to
 be
 impossible (cold fusion is pseudoscience), such a result would change a
 potential misperception by the scientific community. Which in point of
 fact
 is a much more significant advance of knowledge than any detailed
 advance
 may produce.


 He didn't ask how the result would advance knowledge, but how the paper
 would. Since the claim is not testable, the paper does *not* serve to
 change the misperception, as should be obvious by now. What he's saying is
 that for this exercise to advance knowledge, it is necessary for others to
 be able to test the claims, and that's not possible.


 2) Mankind.


 Mankind will not benefit from this paper. If the claim is real, mankind
 would benefit from the technology. He admits that. But this paper will not
 promote that. Something else is needed. Something testable. As it stands,
 it benefits Rossi's ability to attract investment, and he's got several
 academic stooges to help him do it.

 If Rossi has what he claims, then he has to show the world in a way that
 they will believer

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

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:

 **
 Oh, and I haven't seen any links to videos. Any chance you could post
 them again? Is this cheese power, perchance? If so, I've seen them, and I
 have a theory about how they're done. Should I give that out?


 I already sussed it out.  It's in a set of comments and replies with
 Tinsel Koala.


Regardless of how it's done, or whether Rossi used the same method, the
demonstration is very nice illustration that meters can be fooled quite
easily when there is a little infrastructure to hide things, and that when
an extraordinary claim like cheese-power is made, the assumption
immediately falls to trickery, even if the trickery is not understood.

True believers insist on an explanation of how deception might explain the
alleged observations, but do not hold themselves to the same standard to
give an explanation for how NiH could produce 100 times the power density
of nuclear fuel without melting.

It would be easy for anyone with elementary knowledge of electricity to set
up an experiment to demonstrate cheese-power unequivocally, if it were
real. Likewise, the same could be done for the ecat. But when they use
3-phase, when single would do, when the wiring is in place ahead of time,
when close associates chose the instruments which are completely
inadequate, when the blank run uses different conditions, when the input
timing is determined from a video tape, and when the claim is as unlikely
as cheese-power, it is ok to be suspicious.

Re: [Vo]:look how nice my book flips now, I love Amazon

2013-05-29 Thread Craig

Frank, is there an electronic version of your book? I clicked on your
link below thinking that I could buy a version for my Kindle, but it
only seems to be in paper.

Craig

On 05/29/2013 08:45 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:



 http://www.amazon.com/Energy-Cold-Fusion-Antigravity-Znidarsic/dp/1480270237/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=apsie=UTF8qid=1369831335sr=1-1-catcorrkeywords=%22znidarsic+science+books%22



 this is fun

 Frank Znidarsic

Re:[Vo]:PCE-830 manual and 3 phases measurement

2013-05-29 Thread Harvey Norris

Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

--- On Wed, 5/29/13, Claudio C Fiorini claudio.c.fior...@gmail.com wrote:

From: Claudio C Fiorini claudio.c.fior...@gmail.com
Subject: Re:[Vo]:PCE-830 manual and 3 phases measurement
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 7:19 AM

Rob wrote:

It should read 3P3W mode (page 12) and not in 3P4W mode

Yes indeed. But why are the tensions around 237 V and not around 400 V AC? 
Perhaps this is a form of interphasal voltage measurement. I see here that  the 
numbers are close to a 1/1.7 ratio. Sometimes these things(interphasal Circuit 
experimentation) take unusual pathways of the circuits displaying a zero point 
value, and yet being part of a seeming conveyance of energy, and it still seems 
remarkable that the voltage does not distribute itself linearly so that the 
delivery wires share in  losses in the reaching of a load. However if a 
load was inserted at this point, the intervening capacitors would then be 
obliged to share the currents and voltage distribution.
Say I have two capacitors, each with only one side hooked to the power supply 
and they both read zero volts. Now I take a third voltage meter and measure the 
ends of those caps reading zero volts across them. Is there anyone who thinks 
that only zero volts must come out the other free endings? Well I did this with 
an 11 volt alternator demo. We wanted to see what the open circuit voltage 
delivery from the source would be, so we disabled each delta load at the 
midpoints, so that no amperage was permitted on that phase. These were LC 
resonant circuits exhibiting voltage rise, so those meters were labeled V(i) 
for internal voltage rise, and they were placed across the caps. The other 
meters are cap open lead voltage readings. So what happens is that we have 
three 11 volt sources attached on one side only to three caps labeled 
1V(i),2V(i),3V(i) all reading zero. Now attached to the former endings are the 
interphasal voltage meters (1-2),(2-3),(1-3) ALL
 READING 11 VOLTS AND OVER. This shown at 1:30 in the video ~60% Voltage 
Kickback from Load to Stator Source(ph3) http://youtu.be/8LUVyus1Yzg
SO APPARENTLY TWO ZERO VOLT SIGNALS EACH SOURCED FROM DIFFERENT TIME ZONES 
OF ACTION, CAN STILL CONVEY THE INSTANTANEOUS VOLTAGE DIFFERENCES PRESENT 
BETWEEN THOSE SOURCES PRODUCING ZERO VOLTS! So then we can have both a voltage 
made by charge separation or motionally induced emf as in the three phase 
alternator case, AND an extra voltage present due to time separation of 
signals.However the special thing about this is there must be an internal 
voltage rise against itself within the phase itself as the LC components 
midpoint rise in voltage; for that quantity to be measured with respect to the 
timing of another phase having the same resonant rise of voltage, where 
duplication of phase angles would be considered the norm. Thus having three 1 
volt signals each having acting Q factors of 10 would show 10 volts on the 
outer phasal triangle, and 17 volts on the inner 
phasal interior triangle.

They switched the instrument in 3P3W mode, but being incompetent (my opinion) 
they connected only two wires to the phases but one to the neutral. The result 
can be seen on the display of the PCE830 computer: a complete garbage. 
Frequency: 5.3 Hz! a negative pf, V31 beeing 6.3 V AC and so on. Never seen 
such a garbage on a similar instrument. And nobody of the experts present and 
co-authors saw this, only internet blogger weeks later. And only because swiss 
associates of Rossi published proudly the picture on their Net journal and 
someone else showed the embarassing an revealing picture on another page (later 
replaced by James Bond and Dr. No).

By the way: it is now obvious, that the resistors were placed between the 
phases. Look at picture figure 5 in the Levi report. We see that two white 
cable of two different resistors (2 out of 3 in total, the third is on the 
right side) are connected to a single wire of the power supply. If you connect 
3 resistors from phase to neutral, you would expect in one case 3 white wires 
connected to one point (neutral) and every other white cable would be connected 
to a single wire of the power supply. 

This is confirmed by the fact that they switched the instrument in 3P3W mode 
(V12 V23 V31). It is also confirmend by Rossi himself who spoke about 380 V.
I conclude that the test in december was made so badly, that the authors should 
retract. The youger among them are risking their future career. 

And about the march test, i have also a hypothesis. But i prefer to wait.

[Vo]:spooky action through time -on fractional molecules?

2013-05-29 Thread Roarty, Francis X

Axil's citation does support a 4d perspective of time sharing a spatial axis. 
We sort of see this in the paradox twin where both twins exist at a different 
angle between time and space and neither is locally aware of any differences in 
either axis until they return to the same frame and compare elapsed time. This 
argues that we have a hidden spatial dimension pushed flat into an ant farm 
because it is the same axis that time flows through. You speak of photon 
entanglement so I may be hijacking this thread and therefore will rename it.. 
It got me thinking about Professor Naudts paper describing relativistic 
hydrogen inside the Mill's catalyst coined a dihydrino..same as Rossi's 
hydrogen in nano powders or Ed's hydroton in NAE... or Jones fractional 
hydrogen molecule. could these also be entangled?... If Nafud's is correct 
that these gas atoms are relativistic then they are experiencing time 
differently according to their fractional value ..can they form a molecule if 
at a different fractional value? And if so what happens as the molecule tries 
to leave the NAE responsible for the fractional values? Does the covalent bond 
weaken? Does it retain the difference in fractional values as it translates 
from extreme fractional value back to normal?  Can it even translate to 
different fractional values leaving the cavity or does the translation force a 
disassociation every so many fractional steps and then let the molecule reform 
at a common lesser fractional value? IMHO Naudt's perspective would mean the 
fractional orbits are the results of Lorentzian contraction . a very local 
tapestry of bubbles in the isotropy where the pressure differential is 
maintained by quantum geometries and migrating gas atoms experience changes in 
equivalent acceleration like the paradox twins without the displacement or slow 
square law requirements of gravity. The gas atoms in these bubbles are 
similarly unaware of the paradox and from their perspective still move about 
normally - randomly based on HUP even while at another scale these same vacuum 
fluctuations responsible for Casimir effect interact with the cavity walls to 
create these bubble-breaches in isotropy. Forcing mother nature to disassociate 
molecules moving between bubbles?
Fran

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:33 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:spooky action through time


It is possible to entangle photons through both space and time. Entanglement 
ignores time as a factor in causation. You can entangle a photon with another 
even if the second does not yet exist.





http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.4191v1.pdf



Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

[Vo]:Re: look how nice my book flips now, I love Amazon

2013-05-29 Thread fznidarsic

Ed,  Why does your book not flip?



-Original Message-
From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 8:45 am
Subject: look how nice my book flips now,  I love Amazon








http://www.amazon.com/Energy-Cold-Fusion-Antigravity-Znidarsic/dp/1480270237/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=apsie=UTF8qid=1369831335sr=1-1-catcorrkeywords=%22znidarsic+science+books%22




this is fun


Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question


Andrew wrote:


*And now we definitively know that the cable itself is secret.*
**
Of course, that will not bother the majority of people here. Move
along, nothing to see here.



Obviously I mean the waveform is secret. Not the physical cable itself. 
Levi et al. made this clear.


Please do not write snide comments pretending to misunderstand things. 
Please do not nitpick. This is disruptive.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:More delusional scientists, and over 60,000 publications!

maye be they could change their position because a board of physicist did
not publish a Fatwa claiming tha HTSC was pseudo-science and crook job, and
because it was easier to reproduce...

the pattern of thing that are accepted are qite clear :
- fact should be so huge that it is stupid to deny
- ther should be at least an embryon of theory that let this as possible

maybe the specificity of LENR is the Fatwa of MIT, linked to previous
enthusiasm of the press...

maybe also materia science is more open to the unknown tha particle
physics, too focused on theory.
this is another axis to dig...
I'm from that culture (lower level), and sure having a definitive opinion
in material science is best way to be stupid. In particle physics, you can
play with strings and symmetry, but not with more day-to-day practices
(twobody, BO...) you can escape from the top, not the bottom.

You raise good point that the pattern of scientific denial of anomalies as
described by Kuhn, is clear at the beginning, but LENR seems to be out of
usual rules afterward...
It reach the denial of Wegener, Semmelweis, germanium P/N spurious
junction... but not like 5symetry, and even of plane...

long denial mean something specific...
LENR have many caracteristics that make it hard to swallow :
- really unexplanable today (yet not forbidden, but for many
theory-centered people non explanation is impossible to exist)
- uncontrolled until recently (like germanium P/N)
- potentially really important impact on real life (energy!, not like SC)
- really no impact until recently
- huge impact in bigscience/planned budget (hot fusion), in fashion
research (green)
- dirty technology (chemistry and other cooking jobs), facing pure brain
science (physics). It remind me semmelweis.
- media deliria and public insults (I feel it is the biggest fact - maybe
something to remember not to do).

2013/5/29 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote:

that point merit some correction

- (1983-1987). After the experience with silicon detectors
(sensitivity of about 1e-/3.6eV energy released), I decided to study
innovative detectors having an equivalent sensitivity thousand times
larger. So I started to study Superconducting Tunnel Junctions (Ni-Pb;
T=4.2K), in collaboration with Salerno University, having an intrinsic
energy gap of only few meV. Found some quite intriguing results using
thick
junctions on 1985. One of these were contaminated (by chance) from several
other elements and showed behaviour similar to superconductivity even at
temperature as large as 77K (LN2). It was stated a multi-disciplinary
Commission in order to clarify the origin of such signals. *Unfortunately
the results were rejected, a-priori, because in disagreement with the BCS
model/theory* (i.e. max temperature of superconductivity stated at
32K). One year later Bednorz and Muller (from IBM, Zurich), independently
(and starting from different points of view), found similar results in
Cuprate Oxides mixed with rare-hearts and got Nobel Prize.

It is funny as the myth of teleological and materialist science is denied
by evidences.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question


Vorl Bek wrote:


Whether or not they have ruled it out, nobody in his right mind
would let this single test convert him to a belief in lenr.


Perhaps. But anyone in his right mind who looks at all of the 
experimental evidence for LENR will be convinced. As Mallove wrote in 
1991: . . . to believe that hundreds of scientists around the world 
have made scores of systematic mistakes about the nuclear and 
nuclear-seeming anomalies that they have reported is to stretch 
credulity to the breaking point – to distort the meaning of scientific 
evidence to absurd limits.


Furthermore, it makes no sense to suggest that even though these other 
experiments are real, this one is not.


The hypothesis that Rossi is engaged in fraud is based on people's 
intuitive feelings about politics, business, human nature and social 
behavior. It is an evaluation based on Rossi's previous dodgy behavior, 
and his flamboyant personality. There is no experimental evidence for 
this hypothesis. If you believe it, you are trusting your own evaluation 
of human behavior. That is a legitimate judgment, but you should not 
imagine that you have some technical reason to believe this. There is 
not now and there never has been a shred of evidence that he cheated or 
that the electricity in the wall is secretly changed to sneak more 
power into the device. The notion that you can insert a circuit into an 
electronic device which allows it to steal electricity from an ordinary 
AC circuit without raising either amperage or voltage is a violation of 
the conservation of energy. If you could do this, you would either have 
a perpetual motion machine, or you would have an invention that 
instrument makers and electric power companies would pay millions for.


I know Rossi and I know the people who have independently tested his 
devices, so I can rule out the fraud hypothesis. This is privileged 
information so I cannot expect others to accept it.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:PCE-830 manual and 3 phases measurement


Hi,

Last night I've been breaking my brain on this matter as well and I 
think I know what possibly maybe going on.


On 29-5-2013 13:19, Claudio C Fiorini wrote:


Yes indeed. But why are the tensions around 237 V and not around 400 V AC? They 
switched the instrument in 3P3W mode, but being incompetent (my opinion) they 
connected only two wires to the phases but one to the neutral.


That's what I thought initially as well, but thinking it through this 
seems not feasible to me, as the display would most likely have shown 
different readings.
It would most likely have shown TWO almost zero voltages and ONE with a 
voltage around 230 or 400 VAC (based upon European power system) or 110 
or 190 V AC (based upon US power system) !
Yes, I would not be surprised if Andrea is maybe using a power supply 
system with 110 VAC 60Hz.



The result can be seen on the display of the PCE830 computer: a complete 
garbage. Frequency: 5.3 Hz!


I suspect this maybe the resulting feedback from the control box and 
system due to the phase-cutting (duty-cycle) with Triacs.
The display shows an A which means it's operating in autodetect mode 
for the overall frequency.



a negative pf, V31 beeing 6.3 V AC and so on.


This could be the result of the huge phase shifting of the inserted 
power signals.



Never seen such a garbage on a similar instrument.


I think that the phase shift of the control box and system is such that 
these very strange readings do appear.

Andrea is doing things other people would probably normally not dear to try.


By the way: it is now obvious, that the resistors were placed between the phases. Look at 
picture figure 5 in the Levi report. We see that two white cable of two 
different resistors (2 out of 3 in total, the third is on the right side) are connected 
to a single wire of the power supply. If you connect 3 resistors from phase to neutral, 
you would expect in one case 3 white wires connected to one point (neutral) and every 
other white cable would be connected to a single wire of the power supply.


I suspect that Andrea has at TWO sides of the triangle resistors 
connected and between the phases at the third side a coil for a very 
specific frequency range, which causes the huge phase shift of all the 
power signals.
A similar thing happens when you use a coil for a TubeLight, which 
should be corrected with a capacitor, and this is possibly what Andrea 
has not done with his control box!


If the control-box/system contains a coil it could maybe be the key to 
the resonance created in the reactor vessel, which on it's turn be the 
principle that is responsible for the fusion and LENR effect.
As is suspected by now (ref. Inaccuracy 1 at 
http://coldfusionnow.org/discovery-news-misinforms-on-cold-fusion-again/ 
), resonance is a driving force for both cold and hot fusion to take place!


Kind regards,

Rob

RE: [Vo]:More delusional scientists, and over 60,000 publications!

2013-05-29 Thread DJ Cravens

Does this means that they should not accept the Higgs boson work until it is 
duplicated by entirely independent researchers (ones that have never worked at 
CERN or with anyone who has worked there) at a second independent lab? Or to 
accept it until it is seen in close to 100% of the shots?
 
However, that being said, I do think that is important that people try to 
reproduce the effect.  I also think that people should help those doing 
experiments and not just spend time trying to find fault.  I worked for a year 
trying to get just plain Ni and H to work but saw nothing but short term 
flashes and sintering at the bottom of the tubes.  I got better replications 
with Fibrex nickel (back in the days) and CETI beads than with the raw Ni 
powders. However, other configurations have been giving indications of some 
effects. 
 
D2 - a delusional, frustrated experimenter. 
 
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 22:54:15 +1200
Subject: Re: [Vo]:More delusional scientists, and over 60,000 publications!
From: berry.joh...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Reproducibility is indeed the crux of most alt/fringe science technologies.
Conventional science is not so willing to accept hard to reproduce effects as 
real, effects where not all of the requirements for reproducibility are known 
or readily controllable.

This does not mean that these effects can't become reliably reproducible, but 
it means that a reliable recipe must be found, and preferably the action behind 
it understood.

John

[Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

2013-05-29 Thread Bob Higgins

I  would like to submit my speculation about the latest Rossi hotCat for
discussion on Vortex-l.

   - We are told that the central reactor core is a 310 stainless steel
   cylinder ( 3cm by 33cm).  There is no port for introduction of H2.  The
   ends are cold welded closed.


   - When the test device was sawed open, only a miniscule amount of powder
   came out.  This cannot be the active powder - it would have melted as loose
   powder rather than conveying the heat out of the cylinder.


   - It is highly desirable to have high thermal conductivity between the
   NAEs and the outer metal cylinder.  You wouldn't get this with loose powder
   on the inside.


   - 310 stainless is ~25% chromium, ~21% Ni, and the balance mostly iron

Consider what Celani has done - taken a Ni-Cu alloy wire and etched out the
Cu to realize the surface nanotexturing, thus creating NAEs on the wire
outer surface.  Suppose we took the 310 stainless cylinder and used a
chromium etch on the inner surface.  Chrome etches typically contain nitric
acid which will also attack the iron, but not the nickel.  The result could
be a nanotextured Ni inner surface of the 310 SS cylinder with perhaps a
micro-scale Ni fur in *high thermal contact with the cylinder*.  There
may be further chemical texturing of the inner surface or nanopowder added
as part of a thermo-chemical modification of the surface to create the NAEs
in high number on the inner textured Ni surface.

Then, cold weld one end of the cylinder closed.  Calculate the amount of
metal hydride needed to release the desired pressure of H2 into the
cylinder when it is heated and put this powder inside the cylinder.  Cold
weld seal the second end closed.  Viola!  You have a hotCat reactor core.

Rossi has also described his cat and mouse where the mouse was added to
enhance the performance of the hotCat.  An easy speculation for this would
be that he could take some of his previous Rossi micro-Ni + catalyst powder
and add that as well to the hotCat as a means to help the reaction begin
from a lower temperature.

I believe the cylindrical outer heaters are just resistor coils embedded in
a high thermal conductivity ceramic.

Comments?

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

I wrote:


 But anyone in his right mind who looks at all of the experimental evidence
 for LENR will be convinced.


I mean the totality of the evidence, as Mallove called it. People such as
Cude deny that there is such a thing as a totality of evidence. They do not
believe in the concept of supporting evidence. They say the tritium has
nothing to do with excess heat and neither of them has any connection to
the helium. They selectively deny one piece of evidence at a time, slicing
the problem into many bite-sized portions so they can raise imaginary
objections to one fact a time.

This is an unscientific approach.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

2013-05-29 Thread Berke Durak

 In fact I said the 3-phase input to the box was particularly unnecessary 
 *because* only single-phase was used for the box.

There are legitimate reasons to prefer 3-phase input.  If the output
of the control box is a pulse width-modulated DC signal, then you need
a high-power DC source.
There might be requirements on the control waveform.

Using three phases you can get DC with decent ripple using only a
handful of diodes.  The power never goes to zero, whereas it would go
to zero 100 times a second if you were using a full-wave rectifier
with single-phase input.  If the peak power required by the e-CAT is
around 1 kW, then you would need caps supplying up to 1 kW.  We're
talking ~100 µF caps rated at 350V supplying 3.5A.  Such large caps
are difficult to find and it makes more sense to go with multiple caps
in parallel to supply that current.  These caps would dissipate a
couple watts each.  Temperature very quickly shortens the lifetime of
aluminum electrolytic caps.  Hence, if you use them you reduce the
reliability of your device, which could be a problem for the e-Cat.
And the above assumes the peak power is 1 kW.

So I don't think you can say that 3-phase input is particularly
unnecessary, unless you know things about the e-Cat we don't know.

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Claudio C Fiorini
claudio.c.fior...@gmail.com wrote:
 Joshua Cude wrote:


 ...I'm almost certain they were using 3-phase power on the input to the box.

 They write: a control circuit having three-phase power input and
 single-phase output. And it's on the input that the power measurement is
 made, and so that's where it's relevant. That also forces a particular line
 to be used, and makes much higher power available, which may have been
 necessary for the glowing red experiment...


 What if they used 3 phase power to the control box, and a single phase to
 the resistors, but not as you write forces a particular line to be used,
 but two. I mean two phase lines. The result is a single phase signal but
 with a significant higher voltage then using one single phase line and the
 neutral pole. Tension would be greater by factor 1.73. The current would
 also increase according to the Ohm law and would increase by factor 1.73.
 The power dissipated would increase by 1.73 x 1.73 = 2.66.

Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat


Hi,

On 29-5-2013 16:29, Bob Higgins wrote:
Consider what Celani has done - taken a Ni-Cu alloy wire and etched 
out the Cu to realize the surface nanotexturing, thus creating NAEs on 
the wire outer surface.


What if this wire is wound in a coil shape?

I believe the cylindrical outer heaters are just resistor coils 
embedded in a high thermal conductivity ceramic.


I suspect that Andrea has at TWO sides of the power triangle more or 
less regular resistors connected and between the phases at the third 
side a resistor coil for a very specific frequency range. This may cause 
the huge phase shift of all the phases of the power signals and possibly 
also an oscillation needed for a resonance inside the reactor?


Kind regards,

Rob

Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test


Hi,

On 29-5-2013 16:47, Berke Durak wrote:

Using three phases you can get DC with decent ripple using only a
handful of diodes.  The power never goes to zero, whereas it would go
to zero 100 times a second if you were using a full-wave rectifier
with single-phase input.  If the peak power required by the e-CAT is
around 1 kW, then you would need caps supplying up to 1 kW.  We're
talking ~100 µF caps rated at 350V supplying 3.5A.  Such large caps
are difficult to find and it makes more sense to go with multiple caps
in parallel to supply that current.  These caps would dissipate a
couple watts each.  Temperature very quickly shortens the lifetime of
aluminum electrolytic caps.  Hence, if you use them you reduce the
reliability of your device, which could be a problem for the e-Cat.
And the above assumes the peak power is 1 kW.


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 three 50 Hz phases into one output of 300 Hz  :-) , 
which is a lot easier due to the smaller capacitor needed to be directed 
into DC!


Kind regards,

Rob

Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

*The powder is still the active agent of the reaction. In the December
test, the powder was concentrated in two places. This concentration
produced hot spots, uneven distribution of heat who control was difficult
leading to a meltdown.*

* *

* *

*If the active agent were produced on the inside wall of the reaction tube,
this powder concentration would not have caused the meltdown.*

* *

* *

*Therefore, the reaction is still centered on the powder as the active
agent of the reaction.*


On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote:

 I  would like to submit my speculation about the latest Rossi hotCat for
 discussion on Vortex-l.

- We are told that the central reactor core is a 310 stainless steel
cylinder ( 3cm by 33cm).  There is no port for introduction of H2.  The
ends are cold welded closed.


- When the test device was sawed open, only a miniscule amount of
powder came out.  This cannot be the active powder - it would have melted
as loose powder rather than conveying the heat out of the cylinder.


- It is highly desirable to have high thermal conductivity between the
NAEs and the outer metal cylinder.  You wouldn't get this with loose powder
on the inside.


- 310 stainless is ~25% chromium, ~21% Ni, and the balance mostly iron

 Consider what Celani has done - taken a Ni-Cu alloy wire and etched out
 the Cu to realize the surface nanotexturing, thus creating NAEs on the wire
 outer surface.  Suppose we took the 310 stainless cylinder and used a
 chromium etch on the inner surface.  Chrome etches typically contain nitric
 acid which will also attack the iron, but not the nickel.  The result could
 be a nanotextured Ni inner surface of the 310 SS cylinder with perhaps a
 micro-scale Ni fur in *high thermal contact with the cylinder*.  There
 may be further chemical texturing of the inner surface or nanopowder added
 as part of a thermo-chemical modification of the surface to create the NAEs
 in high number on the inner textured Ni surface.

 Then, cold weld one end of the cylinder closed.  Calculate the amount of
 metal hydride needed to release the desired pressure of H2 into the
 cylinder when it is heated and put this powder inside the cylinder.  Cold
 weld seal the second end closed.  Viola!  You have a hotCat reactor core.

 Rossi has also described his cat and mouse where the mouse was added
 to enhance the performance of the hotCat.  An easy speculation for this
 would be that he could take some of his previous Rossi micro-Ni + catalyst
 powder and add that as well to the hotCat as a means to help the reaction
 begin from a lower temperature.

 I believe the cylindrical outer heaters are just resistor coils embedded
 in a high thermal conductivity ceramic.

 Comments?

Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

2013-05-29 Thread Bob Higgins

  I believe the cylindrical outer heaters are just resistor coils embedded
 in a high thermal conductivity ceramic.


 I suspect that Andrea has at TWO sides of the power triangle more or less
 regular resistors connected and between the phases at the third side a
 resistor coil for a very specific frequency range. This may cause the huge
 phase shift of all the phases of the power signals and possibly also an
 oscillation needed for a resonance inside the reactor?

 Because the central cylinder is a thick, closed conductive cylinder, any
AC (oscillatory) signals in the heater surrounding the cylinder will be
reflected or absorbed as heat before reaching the inner confines of the
cell where the H2 is.  There will be a huge attenuation from the outside to
the inside.  If the exterior AC/RF is increased in amplitude, by the time
enough RF energy is deposited into the H2 to cause any disassociation, you
would probably have melted the stainless cell from the amount of RF that
the cell converted to heat (absorbed in skin resistance).  I just don't
think this form of H2 excitation is possible with the present
configuration.  I think his reaction is being stimulated by heat (perhaps
cycled heating).

Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...

Harry, you need to examine the situation as a chemical problem. The  
protons are normally in the metal lattice as H+ ions. These would go  
into the gap ONLY if Gibbs energy were created. In other words, the  
protons MUST be in a lower energy state in the gap compared to the  
lattice for them to move into the gap. Once in the gap, the protons  
are held there by this bonding energy. The bonding energy is created  
by electrons forming a 2p electron state with the protons to form a  
covalent structure. This bonding state is only stable because of the  
large negative charge in the gap.  The electrons are part of this  
structure and are also trapped. Nevertheless, the electrons can move  
freely within each Hydroton, thereby acting as if the Hydroton were  
superconducting.


Ed Storms


On May 28, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:


Ed,
do you agree that what primarily keeps the protons in the gap is  
their repulsion with the lattice nuclei and what primarily keeps  
electrons in the gap is their repulsion with the electron shells  
around the lattice nuclei?


harry


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Dave, you are adding ideas that have no relationship to what I'm  
describing.  Conductivity has no relationship to the the gap, its  
role, or its lifetime. The gap width is the ONLY variable that  
determines whether it will be a NAE. Once the gap has grown too big,  
it no longer allows formation of the Hydroton and, instead, normal  
H2 forms. It can grow too big if the stress that made the gap in the  
first place continues to increase. I suggest this is why most  
successful production of excess energy eventually stops.


The Hydroton acts like a superconductor because the electron is free  
to move within the structure because it is not bound to a single  
nucleus. The gap itself is not superconducting.


The effect of nano-structures on concentrating energy (aka Axil) is  
an entirely different phenomenon that has no relationship to LENR  
according to my model. Axil obviously has a different model.


Ed Storms


On May 28, 2013, at 6:22 PM, David Roberson wrote:

I believe that I see what you are describing Ed.  This effect must  
go away at some size when the metal begins to have conductivity on  
the inside surfaces of the cavities.  Could this be the mechanism  
that limits how large the NAE can become?


Does anyone know how large a metallic structure has to be before it  
looks like a resistor?  Perhaps I am stretching it to assume that a  
structure which only has a small number of associated atoms behaves  
like a superconductor.  If not, what mechanism determines the  
resistive parameter?


If a small collection of atoms behaves like a superconductor then  
that would explain why the field generated by tiny Axil antennas  
can become of great magnitude.


Dave
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 6:16 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...

Mark, you are describing a large container. The gap is not a large  
container. It consists of two surfaces with a gap that is on the  
atomic scale.


Start by imagining what a lattice consist of. It is created by a  
regular arrangement of electron shells, each surrounding a nucleus.  
These atoms are at a distance determined by a symmetrical electron  
interaction between each neighbor . Now move the atoms apart along  
a line. Immediately, the electron cloud surrounding each atom in  
the wall is unbalanced. The electron cloud of each atom pushed into  
the gap. This same effect happens on a clean surface and accounts  
for the surface energy that attracts absorbed atoms.


Is this clearer?

Ed Storms
On May 28, 2013, at 3:53 PM, David Roberson wrote:

Ed, I recall the Van de Graaff generators which had a vacuum or  
just air inside and a conductive outside.  One of the  
demonstrations that I saw was that there is no electric field  
within the shielding outer surface.  Why does this not happen  
within the NAE?  It looks a lot like one of those devices since a  
metallic conductor surrounds the cavity.  Am I missing something  
about the shape?


Dave
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 5:38 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...

Mark, when the gap initially forms, nothing is present.  It is a  
void, a space without substance, a vacuum if you wish. However, it  
contains strong negative fields and it contains electrons. Does a  
vacuum contain electrons?  The gap is too small for a gas molecule  
to enter. It can accommodate only hydron ions, which when they  
enter, react with each other.   At this point in the discussion,  
I'm describing pure chemical conditions that can be calculated  
using conventional theory.

Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat


Hi,

On 29-5-2013 17:11, Bob Higgins wrote:
I think his reaction is being stimulated by heat (perhaps cycled 
heating). 


That's were the two more or less regular resistors play their role to 
heat up the system, while the third coil is responsible for the oscillation.


Kind regards,

Rob

Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat


Hi,

What if the vessel is acting as a kind of capacitor and in conjunction 
with the coil creates the ideal oscillation circuit?


Kind regards,

Rob

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

I see that behavior on conspiracy sites...
9/11 for example... but in many extremist opponents...

in facts Nassim Nicholas Taleb explain tha in real life, increasing the
volume of details, reduce the capacity to take the good decision.
big picture is often raising the best vision...

I recognize tha pathoskeptics have also their big picture, with huge blind
zone, and use hyper-criticism method only to manipulate open-mind people...

for example on that affair of the e-cat rapport I don't get into the
details, my questions are simply whether the testerts were free to test
enough points to rule-out fraud, even if they did not test it...

I put more weight on the opinion of Aldo Proia, Truchard, of the founder of
Logitech, Duncan, of Nelson notes on his freedom confirmed by Gibbs, than
on details in any report...

the public name on the e-cat report , the claim of freedom, are the most
important element...
rest is noise.

and beside that, what I see about business (not all is public), make me
happy and confident.

businessmen have no other choice that to find what is the real reality, and
have no interest to safely stay dubious just to wait others to move, like
the academics.

What you see at NIWeek2013 and ICCF18, (sponsoring, participant), let no
doubt that businessmen are not delusioned like academics.

2013/5/29 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

 I wrote:

 I mean the totality of the evidence, as Mallove called it. People such as
 Cude deny that there is such a thing as a totality of evidence. They do not
 believe in the concept of supporting evidence. They say the tritium has
 nothing to do with excess heat and neither of them has any connection to
 the helium. They selectively deny one piece of evidence at a time, slicing
 the problem into many bite-sized portions so they can raise imaginary
 objections to one fact a time.

 This is an unscientific approach.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

*Are you saying that the oscillations set up in the mouse (outer cylinder)
induces oscillations inside the cat (inner cylinder)?*

* *

*The mouse pulls the cats tail?*


On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.comwrote:

 Hi,

 What if the vessel is acting as a kind of capacitor and in conjunction
 with the coil creates the ideal oscillation circuit?

 Kind regards,

 Rob

Re: [Vo]:Perfect response to Gugliemi

2013-05-29 Thread Randy wuller

Joshua:

Your initial response was to my reply to Guglielmi's claim of an ethical 
violation because the paper wouldn't advance knowledge. You have now come full 
circle.

You said he was talking about the paper not the results. Now all you are saying 
is that the methodology used by the testers wasn't sufficient to advance 
knowledge. That means Guglielmis criticism is misplaced and he should not have 
been talking about ethics but instead methodology. The paper could have 
advanced knowledge if the methodology had been as you later proposed or in many 
other ways.

To further the point, if Rossi can, as you have mentioned a number of times, 
perform a demonstration that would convince the world, surely the scientific 
community can perform a black box test that does the same. So Guglielmi is 
wrong about the issue of ethics, the paper can advance scientific knowledge as 
I stated and the only thing that is required is a proper methodology.

Of course, that raises the real issue. There is nothing scientifically wrong 
with the methodology used in this test. You haven't been able to scientifically 
criticize the output energy so the need to heat a tub of water is unnecessary 
and one of your many red herrings. The methodology to measure input is also 
acceptable unless fraud is occurring, so to be determinative, all the testers 
need do is tighten the input measures to assure your requirement for an 
isolated location (that is what you really mean). So again the issue isn't an 
ethical one but instead one of tightening the methodology to eliminate the 
concern for fraud.

However, the idea that the scientific community can ignore results which absent 
fraud prove a new energy source is quite telling. It tells me the scientific 
community has slipped into dogma and abandoned science, which is patently 
obvious to a non scientist looking from the outside in and especially for a 
lawyer who specializes in proof and it's levels. While a test which fails to 
eliminate every possibility of fraud may not be determinative, it is a level of 
real proof and would stand in any court of law. Further absent any real 
evidence of fraud the proof is actually even stronger. It clearly is sufficient 
to put the scientific community on notice to pay closer attention to the issues 
and to demand further tests which will result in a conclusive determination. 
Anything less from them would likely be deemed negligence and I would be happy 
to prosecute the claim (assuming one could do so in some imaginary court of 
human progress). 

Ransom

- Original Message - 
  From: Joshua Cude 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 6:46 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perfect response to Gugliemi


  On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:

Jed:


His two questions can easily be answered.


1) Since the science community currently believes a positive result to be 
impossible (cold fusion is pseudoscience), such a result would change a 
potential misperception by the scientific community. Which in point of fact is 
a much more significant advance of knowledge than any detailed advance may 
produce.




  He didn't ask how the result would advance knowledge, but how the paper 
would. Since the claim is not testable, the paper does *not* serve to change 
the misperception, as should be obvious by now. What he's saying is that for 
this exercise to advance knowledge, it is necessary for others to be able to 
test the claims, and that's not possible.

2) Mankind.




  Mankind will not benefit from this paper. If the claim is real, mankind would 
benefit from the technology. He admits that. But this paper will not promote 
that. Something else is needed. Something testable. As it stands, it benefits 
Rossi's ability to attract investment, and he's got several academic stooges to 
help him do it.


  If Rossi has what he claims, then he has to show the world in a way that they 
will believer




  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2012.0.2242 / Virus Database: 3184/5865 - Release Date: 05/28/13

Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat


Hi,

On 29-5-2013 17:24, Axil Axil wrote:


*Are you saying that the oscillations set up in the mouse (outer 
cylinder) induces oscillations inside the cat (inner cylinder)?*


**

*The mouse pulls the cats tail?*


On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com 
mailto:manonbrid...@aim.com wrote:


What if the vessel is acting as a kind of capacitor and in
conjunction with the coil creates the ideal oscillation circuit?



Who knows, but if my memory serves me right, then Andrea hinted 
something similar.


Kind regards,

Rob

Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

2013-05-29 Thread David Roberson


You make a good point.  Three phase rectification and filtering is far easier 
than single phase and that might be his reasoning.  I suspect that sooner or 
later he will begin using power factor correction electronics to get the 
present relatively poor value of .5 up to standards.

The present poor pf could be due to triac timing or perhaps rectification and 
filtering where the peak input current from the power line is large.  I suspect 
that Rossi is working with a rectified and then filtered source for his 
internal power electronics.  This allows him to adjust the resistor drive 
waveforms to shapes that optimize performance.

The power factor with a rectification system suffers for a good reason.  The 
bridge diodes are only conducting for a relatively short part of the cycle and 
that generates large harmonic currents in the primary circuit.  As I have 
posted earlier, only the fundamental component of the primary current waveform 
can extract power from the sine wave source.

 DC or harmonic currents flowing from the wall socket contribute to the RMS 
current reading of the measurements but can not extract energy from that 
source.  I realize that this is difficult to grasp and has lead to plenty of 
confusion in the recent dialogs.  This can be simulated in spice or calculated 
by taking the integral of the product of the instantaneous voltage times 
current from a source.  You will see that power due to harmonic currents 
balances out over a fundamental voltage cycle.  This is an interesting exercise 
for anyone that wants to look into the issue further.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 11:05 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test


Hi,

On 29-5-2013 16:47, Berke Durak wrote:
 Using three phases you can get DC with decent ripple using only a
 handful of diodes.  The power never goes to zero, whereas it would go
 to zero 100 times a second if you were using a full-wave rectifier
 with single-phase input.  If the peak power required by the e-CAT is
 around 1 kW, then you would need caps supplying up to 1 kW.  We're
 talking ~100 µF caps rated at 350V supplying 3.5A.  Such large caps
 are difficult to find and it makes more sense to go with multiple caps
 in parallel to supply that current.  These caps would dissipate a
 couple watts each.  Temperature very quickly shortens the lifetime of
 aluminum electrolytic caps.  Hence, if you use them you reduce the
 reliability of your device, which could be a problem for the e-Cat.
 And the above assumes the peak power is 1 kW.

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 three 50 Hz phases into one output of 300 Hz  :-) , 
which is a lot easier due to the smaller capacitor needed to be directed 
into DC!

Kind regards,

Rob

RE: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

Morning Vorts,

Can I have a little time to look into it?

I do have a life and other responsibilities which consume a lot of time.

If indeed both tests used 3ph power INTO the control box, then I have no
problem with acknowledging the error!

I will reread the report later today.

-mark 

 

From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:03 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat
test

 

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:51 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
wrote:

 

And JC is WELL aware of this, yet asks the question as to why they used
3-phase power in their tests. the second test was SINGLE phase power, so JC
is misleading people. but he has a very long history of taking some
questionable issue in one test, and making statements that imply that that
same issue was present in other tests.

 

I didn't realize they used single phase power for the March 2013 experiment;
I had assumed they were using three-phase power.

 

 

 

I'm almost certain they were using 3-phase power on the input to the box.
They write: a control circuit having three-phase power input and
single-phase output. And it's on the input that the power measurement is
made, and so that's where it's relevant. That also forces a particular line
to be used, and makes much higher power available, which may have been
necessary for the glowing red experiment.

 

I think Mark was mistaken about this, and his failure to acknowledge it
suggests he is deliberately trying to mislead people, and he appears to have
succeeded in your case.

Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

Bob, this is a good analysis of a possible design.  You are right, the  
powder must make good thermal contact with the wall for the nuclear  
reaction to be controlled by temperature. Just how Rossi makes this  
happen is unknown.  Nevertheless, most of the active nickel must be  
attached to the inner wall of the stainless tube. In addition, at the  
temperatures used, the Ni powder would sinter and not be easily to  
remove.


As for modifying the stainless using chemical etch, I doubt this would  
be effective.  This texture would have to be active initially and  
remain unchanged at high temperature. Such textures are not stable and  
would not survive the high temperature. Rossi has done something to  
the Ni powder that is very stable and not affected by high  
temperature.  This fact alone greatly reduces the possibilities to  
anyone familiar with the materials science of this material. Rossi is  
gradually letting the cat out of the bag, whether he wants to or not.


Ed Storms
On May 29, 2013, at 8:29 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:

I  would like to submit my speculation about the latest Rossi hotCat  
for discussion on Vortex-l.
We are told that the central reactor core is a 310 stainless steel  
cylinder ( 3cm by 33cm).  There is no port for introduction of H2.   
The ends are cold welded closed.
When the test device was sawed open, only a miniscule amount of  
powder came out.  This cannot be the active powder - it would have  
melted as loose powder rather than conveying the heat out of the  
cylinder.
It is highly desirable to have high thermal conductivity between the  
NAEs and the outer metal cylinder.  You wouldn't get this with loose  
powder on the inside.

310 stainless is ~25% chromium, ~21% Ni, and the balance mostly iron
Consider what Celani has done - taken a Ni-Cu alloy wire and etched  
out the Cu to realize the surface nanotexturing, thus creating NAEs  
on the wire outer surface.  Suppose we took the 310 stainless  
cylinder and used a chromium etch on the inner surface.  Chrome  
etches typically contain nitric acid which will also attack the  
iron, but not the nickel.  The result could be a nanotextured Ni  
inner surface of the 310 SS cylinder with perhaps a micro-scale Ni  
fur in high thermal contact with the cylinder.  There may be  
further chemical texturing of the inner surface or nanopowder added  
as part of a thermo-chemical modification of the surface to create  
the NAEs in high number on the inner textured Ni surface.


Then, cold weld one end of the cylinder closed.  Calculate the  
amount of metal hydride needed to release the desired pressure of H2  
into the cylinder when it is heated and put this powder inside the  
cylinder.  Cold weld seal the second end closed.  Viola!  You have a  
hotCat reactor core.


Rossi has also described his cat and mouse where the mouse was  
added to enhance the performance of the hotCat.  An easy speculation  
for this would be that he could take some of his previous Rossi  
micro-Ni + catalyst powder and add that as well to the hotCat as a  
means to help the reaction begin from a lower temperature.


I believe the cylindrical outer heaters are just resistor coils  
embedded in a high thermal conductivity ceramic.


Comments?

Re: [Vo]:Perfect response to Gugliemi

It seems tha the scientific community have not slipped, but is in normal
science mode, as Thomas Kuhn explain...
if you cannot integrate the fact in the know paradigm, adjust a detail
keeping the main paradigm, then last alternative is denying facts...

when facts cannot be ignored, because you no more need a PhD to be sure of
the result, then they have to adapt...

until then, like a turkey in the death row, they gain time with imaginary
problems...

standard.

2013/5/29 Randy wuller rwul...@freeark.com

 **
  Joshua:

  However, the idea that the scientific community can ignore results which
 absent fraud prove a new energy source is quite telling. It tells me the
 scientific community has slipped into dogma and abandoned science, which is
 patently obvious to a non scientist looking from the outside in and
 especially for a lawyer who specializes in proof and it's levels. While a
 test which fails to eliminate every possibility of fraud may not be
 determinative, it is a level of real proof and would stand in any court of
 law. Further absent any real evidence of fraud the proof is actually even
 stronger. It clearly is sufficient to put the scientific community on
 notice to pay closer attention to the issues and to demand further tests
 which will result in a conclusive determination. Anything less from them
 would likely be deemed negligence and I would be happy to prosecute the
 claim (assuming one could do so in some imaginary court of human progress).

  Ransom

[Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

2013-05-29 Thread DJ Cravens

He doesn't have to have constant stable sites. Perhaps instead it is a constant 
creation of sites.  For example (there must be many), he could be creating and 
then creating sites with something like Nickel carbonyl that would could create 
sites and the CO then be allowed to react again.  However, it would take the 
right kind of kinetics- I am not sure carbonyl would allow for the correct temp 
cycles.
 
D2

 
CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com
From: stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 09:42:32 -0600

Bob, this is a good analysis of a possible design.  You are right, the powder 
must make good thermal contact with the wall for the nuclear reaction to be 
controlled by temperature. Just how Rossi makes this happen is unknown.  
Nevertheless, most of the active nickel must be attached to the inner wall of 
the stainless tube. In addition, at the temperatures used, the Ni powder would 
sinter and not be easily to remove. 
As for modifying the stainless using chemical etch, I doubt this would be 
effective.  This texture would have to be active initially and remain unchanged 
at high temperature. Such textures are not stable and would not survive the 
high temperature. Rossi has done something to the Ni powder that is very stable 
and not affected by high temperature.  This fact alone greatly reduces the 
possibilities to anyone familiar with the materials science of this material. 
Rossi is gradually letting the cat out of the bag, whether he wants to or not.
Ed Storms

Re: [Vo]:Perfect response to Gugliemi

2013-05-29 Thread Kevin O'Malley

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:


 Well said. Go post that on the website. Why not?

***I tried posting 2 comments along the same vein.  They have not been
released.  In fact, it looks like no comments have been released for more
than a day.

RE: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

Ok, wanted to correct any errors on my part as soon as possible so I did a
quick search and this is where I got the impression of single-phase:

 

pg 15

The  E-Cat HT2's power supply departs from that of the device used in
December in that it is 

no  longer three-phase, but *single-phase*:  the TRIAC power supply has been
replaced by a control 

circuit  having  three-phase  power  input  and  single-phase  output,
mounted  within  a  box.

 

I work much better with images, so while reading, I build up a mental image.

I caught the first part of that sentence and changed my mental picture for
the March test, and did not catch the clarification that it was the OUTPUT
that changed to single-phase. So they were driving the resistance heaters
with a 3ph arrangement in the Dec test, and that was changed to a single-ph
arrangement for the March test.

 

Yes, my error!

 

-Mark

 

 

From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 8:41 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat
test

 

Morning Vorts,

Can I have a little time to look into it?

I do have a life and other responsibilities which consume a lot of time.

If indeed both tests used 3ph power INTO the control box, then I have no
problem with acknowledging the error!

I will reread the report later today.

-mark 

 

From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:03 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat
test

 

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:51 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
wrote:

 

And JC is WELL aware of this, yet asks the question as to why they used
3-phase power in their tests. the second test was SINGLE phase power, so JC
is misleading people. but he has a very long history of taking some
questionable issue in one test, and making statements that imply that that
same issue was present in other tests.

 

I didn't realize they used single phase power for the March 2013 experiment;
I had assumed they were using three-phase power.

 

 

 

I'm almost certain they were using 3-phase power on the input to the box.
They write: a control circuit having three-phase power input and
single-phase output. And it's on the input that the power measurement is
made, and so that's where it's relevant. That also forces a particular line
to be used, and makes much higher power available, which may have been
necessary for the glowing red experiment.

 

I think Mark was mistaken about this, and his failure to acknowledge it
suggests he is deliberately trying to mislead people, and he appears to have
succeeded in your case.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

2013-05-29 Thread Vorl Bek

On Wed, 29 May 2013 09:49:26 -0400
Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Vorl Bek wrote:
 
  Whether or not they have ruled it out, nobody in his right mind
  would let this single test convert him to a belief in lenr.
 
 Perhaps. But anyone in his right mind who looks at all of the 
 experimental evidence for LENR will be convinced.

A lot of intelligent people at wavewatching and elsewhere,
don't seem to be impressed with the experimental evidence. Since
nothing much has been accomplished since 1989, my guess is they
are right to be unimpressed.

Nobody has been able to shoot this latest test down, as far as I
can tell, but so what? If the test that has been done was to
compare the efficiency of a couple of coffee makers, I would be
happy to accept the results if I thought the testers were
competent and disinterested.

But lenr is a lot more unlikely to be true from what I read, and
there is a lot more at stake with it, so I am not going to believe
that the announced results of this test are correct no matter how
good a job the testers seem to have done.

It is going take several successful tests by different groups of
people before I stop thinking Rossi is probably a crook or
is deluded.

Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

Dennis, I do not believe a process of continuous creation and  
destruction of sites would be stable and would result in stable  
production of energy, The creation and destruction processes are  
independent of each other. Just by chance, one would get the upper  
hand over the other, resulting in unstable production. In any case,  
Rossi says he treats the Ni to a special treatment BEFORE  heat is  
produced.


Ed Storms
On May 29, 2013, at 10:19 AM, DJ Cravens wrote:

He doesn't have to have constant stable sites. Perhaps instead it is  
a constant creation of sites.  For example (there must be many), he  
could be creating and then creating sites with something like Nickel  
carbonyl that would could create sites and the CO then be allowed to  
react again.  However, it would take the right kind of kinetics- I  
am not sure carbonyl would allow for the correct temp cycles.


D2


CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com
From: stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 09:42:32 -0600

Bob, this is a good analysis of a possible design.  You are right,  
the powder must make good thermal contact with the wall for the  
nuclear reaction to be controlled by temperature. Just how Rossi  
makes this happen is unknown.  Nevertheless, most of the active  
nickel must be attached to the inner wall of the stainless tube. In  
addition, at the temperatures used, the Ni powder would sinter and  
not be easily to remove.


As for modifying the stainless using chemical etch, I doubt this  
would be effective.  This texture would have to be active initially  
and remain unchanged at high temperature. Such textures are not  
stable and would not survive the high temperature. Rossi has done  
something to the Ni powder that is very stable and not affected by  
high temperature.  This fact alone greatly reduces the possibilities  
to anyone familiar with the materials science of this material.  
Rossi is gradually letting the cat out of the bag, whether he wants  
to or not.


Ed Storms

Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

This is the dynamic NAE theory where ideally NAEs are formed and destroyed
at a constant rate. But the Dynamic NAEs are centered on the nickel powder
as a nucleating site.



The Nickel powder must be evenly distributed to keep the heat production
balanced. This is important, because this heat is the mechanism that
produces the Dynamic NAEs in the first place. If the temperature of the
reaction is kept close to constant, the production of NAE sites will remain
relatively constant.



If the heat increases too much, more NAE’s are produced in a positive
feedback mode and the reactor melts down.



If NAE’s were fixed in number, when the temperature increased, the NAEs
would simply destroy themselves with the increase in heat level and the
reaction would stop without melting the reactor down.


On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:19 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote:

 He doesn't have to have constant stable sites. Perhaps instead it is a
 constant creation of sites.  For example (there must be many), he could be
 creating and then creating sites with something like Nickel carbonyl that
 would could create sites and the CO then be allowed to react again.
 However, it would take the right kind of kinetics- I am not sure carbonyl
 would allow for the correct temp cycles.

 D2


 --
 CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com
 From: stor...@ix.netcom.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat
 Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 09:42:32 -0600


 Bob, this is a good analysis of a possible design.  You are right, the
 powder must make good thermal contact with the wall for the nuclear
 reaction to be controlled by temperature. Just how Rossi makes this happen
 is unknown.  Nevertheless, most of the active nickel must be attached to
 the inner wall of the stainless tube. In addition, at the temperatures
 used, the Ni powder would sinter and not be easily to remove.

 As for modifying the stainless using chemical etch, I doubt this would be
 effective.  This texture would have to be active initially and remain
 unchanged at high temperature. Such textures are not stable and would not
 survive the high temperature. Rossi has done something to the Ni powder
 that is very stable and not affected by high temperature.  This fact alone
 greatly reduces the possibilities to anyone familiar with the materials
 science of this material. Rossi is gradually letting the cat out of the
 bag, whether he wants to or not.

 Ed Storms

Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

2013-05-29 Thread torulf.greek



If there is carbonyl nickel inside the hot-cat, a leakage will be
extremely dangerous.  

Tetra carbonyl nickel is known as liquid death.


. 

On Wed, 29 May 2013 10:19:03 -0600, DJ Cravens  wrote:

He doesn't have to have constant stable sites. Perhaps instead it is a
constant creation of sites. For example (there must be many), he could
be creating and then creating sites with something like Nickel carbonyl
that would could create sites and the CO then be allowed to react again.
However, it would take the right kind of kinetics- I am not sure
carbonyl would allow for the correct temp
cycles.

D2

-
 CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com
From:
stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re:
[Vo]:Speculation about hotCat
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 09:42:32
-0600

Bob, this is a good analysis of a possible design. You are right,
the powder must make good thermal contact with the wall for the nuclear
reaction to be controlled by temperature. Just how Rossi makes this
happen is unknown. Nevertheless, most of the active nickel must be
attached to the inner wall of the stainless tube. In addition, at the
temperatures used, the Ni powder would sinter and not be easily to
remove. 

As for modifying the stainless using chemical etch, I doubt
this would be effective. This texture would have to be active initially
and remain unchanged at high temperature. Such textures are not stable
and would not survive the high temperature. Rossi has done something to
the Ni powder that is very stable and not affected by high temperature.
This fact alone greatly reduces the possibilities to anyone familiar
with the materials science of this material. Rossi is gradually letting
the cat out of the bag, whether he wants to or not. 

Ed Storms

Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test - 300Hz ripple

2013-05-29 Thread David L Babcock

I see a circuit that generates DC with 300 Hz ripple.  Good idea, ripple 
is so small that many DC loads would need no capacitors at all.


Be interesting to know the wt/power ratio, compared to the usual single 
phase and three phase cases.


Ol' Bab


On 5/29/2013 11:05 AM, Rob Dingemans wrote:

Hi,

snip

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 three 50 Hz phases into one output of 300 Hz :-) , 
which is a lot easier due to the smaller capacitor needed to be 
directed into DC!


Kind regards,

Rob

Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

2013-05-29 Thread Alan Fletcher

 From: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 7:29:30 AM
 
 I would like to submit my speculation about the latest Rossi hotCat
 for discussion on Vortex-l.

 The Penon report (Aug 2012 -- the first hotcat radiative test) 
 http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf
 says about (what is now the inner) cylinder :

   The module is consists of an assembly of four components, 
   plus the active charge (Nickel and catalyzer) and a tablet which
   acts as a hydrogen reserve. Tablet and charge masses are not
   known. 

The technology is probably identical, though the charge is now in the central 
cylinder.

On page 4 there's a picture of a ceramic/resistor assembly.  The ceramic IS 
mostly solid .. page 5 shows an end-view. The ceramic DOES seem to fit pretty 
tightly between the cylinders.

In that version it's not at all clear where the charge fits in.

As I posted earlier the bands on the meltdown picture are similar to the 
cogs on the ceramic, and may represent different conductivity (positive or 
negative, depending on your belief).

The nickel powder?  ... no idea. Where is the thermalization? Probably in the 
wall of the inner cylinder ... which will be filled with back-body radiation. 
Maybe it's Schrodinger powder ... a superposition of melted and unmelted 
powder, and Rossi has somehow rigged the system so that the cat always turns up 
live.

Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

2013-05-29 Thread Alan Fletcher

 From: Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com
 Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 8:19:03 AM

 What if the vessel is acting as a kind of capacitor and in
 conjunction with the coil creates the ideal oscillation circuit?

That's just like the (Biblical) Arc of the Covenant. A wood (cedar) insulator, 
with gold foil on each side .. and very clear instructions not to go near it.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:


 A lot of intelligent people at wavewatching and elsewhere,
 don't seem to be impressed with the experimental evidence.


None of these people has published a paper describing technical objections
to any experiment. They have no rational reason to doubt the results. The
reasons they give are based on politics, emotions, and nonsensical
misinterpretations of the literature. Most of them have either not read
anything, or they incapable of understanding what they read. So their
opinions count for nothing.



 Since nothing much has been accomplished since 1989, my guess is they are
 right to be unimpressed.


Your guess is wrong. A great deal has been accomplished since 1989. The
people who are unimpressed share your mistaken belief that nothing much has
been accomplished.



 It is going take several successful tests by different groups of
 people before I stop thinking Rossi is probably a crook or
 is deluded.


There have already been several successful tests by different groups. You
have no evidence for thinking he is a crook or deluded. There is no way he
or Levi could cash on on a fake experiment, so you have no reason to think
he is crooked. The others all agree the effect is real, so they would all
have to be deluded. That is unlikely.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

Lol.

That's a little bit redonculous.  Far more likely: neither he nor I have read 
the paper closely enough.

Eric

On May 29, 2013, at 2:02, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think Mark was mistaken about this, and his failure to acknowledge it 
 suggests he is deliberately trying to mislead people, and he appears to have 
 succeeded in your case.

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

Cude said:

And I think you use the term conspiracy theory incorrectly. In the case
of the ecat, it's really a just run-of-the-mill deception on the scale of
John Ernst Worrell Keely (whose lab was full of concealed tricks) or Papp
or Stoern or Madison Priest (who ran a secret cable across a river) or
countless others, and on a rather smaller scale than Bre-X or Madoff.

The Papp engine received a US patent when an independent third party test
proved that it produced gainful energy. It received adulation from the US
patent office as the best patent of the year. Rossi has not gotten that far
yet.


On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netwrote:

   Then they have not considered the obvious. Unless there is fraud at
 the felony level, then Rossi has probably discovered something valid, and
 incredibly important to Society


 It's the implications that get people caught up in the conspiracy
 theories. The implications are too much for people to handle.


 I disagree. The implications of cold fusion are what got the world in a
 tizzy in 1989. Everyone, including many (if not most) scientists were
 prepared to embrace cold fusion *because* of the implications. Thousands of
 scientists cheered and experimented, and wanted the revolution to be true,
 and wanted to be part of it. It was the failure of the claims to stand up
 to scrutiny that caused skepticism.

 And I think you use the term conspiracy theory incorrectly. In the case
 of the ecat, it's really a just run-of-the-mill deception on the scale of
 John Ernst Worrell Keely (whose lab was full of concealed tricks) or Papp
 or Stoern or Madison Priest (who ran a secret cable across a river) or
 countless others, and on a rather smaller scale than Bre-X or Madoff. A
 conspiracy theory, as I usually see it used, refers to a far more
 comprehensive plot involving the complicity of an entire segment of
 society, like the alleged AGW conspiracy or the alleged cold fusion
 suppression conspiracy, both of which would require complicity of nearly
 all of academia. The ecat involves Rossi and maybe a few accomplices. That
 ain't no conspiracy in my books.



 They make it hard to give objective, reasonable consideration to fairly
 mundane experiments and to apply Occam's razor to the evidence.  The most
 reasonable explanation is not that there was wire fake or massive output
 over-calculation or fraud or sloppy, incompetent scientists.  These are all
 possibilities, one presumes, but to a fair-minded observer, the most likely
 explanation at this point is that there's could be some new science to be
 worked out.


 That's not the opinion of the majority of observers of the case. Deception
 on this scale -- frauds and scams -- are utterly common. Scientific
 revolutions like this are very rare, especially from someone like Rossi.

 So, Occam's razor here favors deception as the explanation.


 Perhaps there was some sloppiness.  Or perhaps the details we've been
 glued to are the kinds of flaw that normal scientists introduce in the
 course of normal scientific work and that are normally addressed behind
 the scenes during peer review.  I'm sure there are many papers uploaded to
 ArXiv that suffer from defects, and those flaws are gradually ironed out
 over the course of peer review.  This paper is different, since there is a
 whole industry of Rossi watchers waiting to pounce on it.  Let's be fair.
  How many papers subjected to this kind of scathing attention, out in the
 open?


 The monitoring of the input was comically inadequate, if there is any
 possibility of deception, the blank run used a different power regimen, the
 claims of power density 100 times that of nuclear fuel without cooling and
 without melting are totally implausible, the lack of calorimetry is
 completely inexplicable. This is not some sloppiness. This is far below
 ordinary scientific standards, particularly for a claim like this.

 And all of this is assuming you accept their word. The biggest difference
 between this paper and most scientific literature, is that no one can check
 the claims. Claims of this importance will not be accepted if they can't be
 tested, no matter how distinguished the 7 authors are, and they're not very.

 The idea that an energy density of MJ/g or higher in a small-scale
 experiment, with a COP of 3 or higher, and hundreds of watts can't be
 demonstrated in a way that leaves no opportunity for the sort of objections
 being raised is simply too far-fetched for most scientists to accept.

 First, the fact that this *source* of energy thousands of times more dense
 than chemical has to be plugged in (to a high power line, no less) will
 turn most observers away. But even if it really does need to add power,
 then they could use some source of finite input power, and use the output
 to do

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

I disagree. The implications of cold fusion are what got the world in a
 tizzy in 1989. Everyone, including many (if not most) scientists were
 prepared to embrace cold fusion *because* of the implications. Thousands of
 scientists cheered and experimented, and wanted the revolution to be true,
 and wanted to be part of it. It was the failure of the claims to stand up
 to scrutiny that caused skepticism.


This argument is very familiar.  My apologies if I made a point that has
been rebutted several times already.


  And I think you use the term conspiracy theory incorrectly. In the
 case of the ecat, it's really a just run-of-the-mill deception on the scale
 of John Ernst Worrell Keely (whose lab was full of concealed tricks) or
 Papp or Stoern or Madison Priest (who ran a secret cable across a river) or
 countless others, and on a rather smaller scale than Bre-X or Madoff.


Your knowledge of hoaxsters is formidable.  One gets the impression that it
is a field of knowledge unto itself.

This narrow parsing of the term conspiracy theory does violence to its
use in everyday speech.

The monitoring of the input was comically inadequate, if there is any
 possibility of deception, the blank run used a different power regimen, the
 claims of power density 100 times that of nuclear fuel without cooling and
 without melting are totally implausible, the lack of calorimetry is
 completely inexplicable.


I don't see how you come to that conclusion.  I get the impression the
input monitoring was actually pretty good, and that there have been some
crossed signals with different authors of the report as to what
measurements were actually carried out.


 This is not some sloppiness. This is far below ordinary scientific
 standards, particularly for a claim like this.


I will defer to you on this one.


  Most scientists, I expect, believe that a completely unequivocal
 demonstration of claims of Rossi's magnitude would be a trivial thing to
 stage, and would bear no resemblance to the farce that we are seeing.


If there is any point of unanimity here (and there are very few), it is
that Rossi does himself no favors by being squirmy.  I don't think this is
a point that is contested.  Once that is acknowledged, the question is
whether he's simply being squirmy, or whether he's doing something more.  I
rather like the fact that people here generally proceed on an assumption of
innocence until such an assumption becomes untenable.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question


Hi,

On 29-5-2013 17:22, Alain Sepeda wrote:
in facts Nassim Nicholas Taleb explain tha in real life, increasing 
the volume of details, reduce the capacity to take the good decision.

big picture is often raising the best vision...

I recognize tha pathoskeptics have also their big picture, with huge 
blind zone, and use hyper-criticism method only to manipulate 
open-mind people...


Yep, and it's all part of the next step in the process that is being 
followed by the pathoskeptics.
You probably know the famous saying First they ignore you, then they 
ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.
It seems we are currently in the second stage and my instinct tells me 
we might soon be entering the next stage.


Kind regards,

Rob

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

2013-05-29 Thread Harry Veeder

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 I wrote:


 But anyone in his right mind who looks at all of the experimental
 evidence for LENR will be convinced.


 I mean the totality of the evidence, as Mallove called it. People such as
 Cude deny that there is such a thing as a totality of evidence. They do not
 believe in the concept of supporting evidence. They say the tritium has
 nothing to do with excess heat and neither of them has any connection to
 the helium. They selectively deny one piece of evidence at a time, slicing
 the problem into many bite-sized portions so they can raise imaginary
 objections to one fact a time.

 This is an unscientific approach.





Cheese-power is the enemy.

Wikipedia:
*Defeat in detail* is a military phrase referring to the tactic of bringing
a large portion of one's own force to bear on small enemy units in
sequence, rather than engaging the bulk of the enemy force all at once.
This exposes one's own units to a small risk, yet allows for the eventual
destruction of an entire enemy force.

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

That's not the opinion of the majority of observers of the case. Deception
 on this scale -- frauds and scams -- are utterly common. Scientific
 revolutions like this are very rare, especially from someone like Rossi.


Perhaps.  But I think we should refrain from speaking on behalf of most
observers (or scientists, or physicists) until a systematic poll is carried
out.

Eric

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

2013-05-29 Thread Roarty, Francis X

Ed,
you make a good case that something improves the thermal bond of the powder to 
the inner walls.. perhaps the function of the secret sauce.. I don't recall the 
volume of the powder used but am under the impression it fills most of the 
reactor tube and therefore must also have good thermal bond through it's own 
bulk to reach the reactor walls. I think the MAHG was a weak easily compromised 
cousin to this device with only a thin sputtered layer on the inner wall of the 
tube while Rossi has designed a way to stack NAE out into a bulk form away from 
the reactor wall.  I gathered from the thread that very little powder spilled 
out when they cut it open after destruction... so would assume the bonding held 
the powder inside as a foam or gelatinous solid? Can we assume the secret sauce 
must bind the powder into some form of solid. I am leaning toward an open foam 
like malted milk balls but a recent thread also suggested a gelatinous colloid.
Fran

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:43 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

Bob, this is a good analysis of a possible design.  You are right, the powder 
must make good thermal contact with the wall for the nuclear reaction to be 
controlled by temperature. Just how Rossi makes this happen is unknown.  
Nevertheless, most of the active nickel must be attached to the inner wall of 
the stainless tube. In addition, at the temperatures used, the Ni powder would 
sinter and not be easily to remove.

As for modifying the stainless using chemical etch, I doubt this would be 
effective.  This texture would have to be active initially and remain unchanged 
at high temperature. Such textures are not stable and would not survive the 
high temperature. Rossi has done something to the Ni powder that is very stable 
and not affected by high temperature.  This fact alone greatly reduces the 
possibilities to anyone familiar with the materials science of this material. 
Rossi is gradually letting the cat out of the bag, whether he wants to or not.

Ed Storms
On May 29, 2013, at 8:29 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:


I  would like to submit my speculation about the latest Rossi hotCat for 
discussion on Vortex-l.

  *   We are told that the central reactor core is a 310 stainless steel 
cylinder ( 3cm by 33cm).  There is no port for introduction of H2.  The ends 
are cold welded closed.

  *   When the test device was sawed open, only a miniscule amount of powder 
came out.  This cannot be the active powder - it would have melted as loose 
powder rather than conveying the heat out of the cylinder.

  *   It is highly desirable to have high thermal conductivity between the NAEs 
and the outer metal cylinder.  You wouldn't get this with loose powder on the 
inside.

  *   310 stainless is ~25% chromium, ~21% Ni, and the balance mostly iron
Consider what Celani has done - taken a Ni-Cu alloy wire and etched out the Cu 
to realize the surface nanotexturing, thus creating NAEs on the wire outer 
surface.  Suppose we took the 310 stainless cylinder and used a chromium etch 
on the inner surface.  Chrome etches typically contain nitric acid which will 
also attack the iron, but not the nickel.  The result could be a nanotextured 
Ni inner surface of the 310 SS cylinder with perhaps a micro-scale Ni fur in 
high thermal contact with the cylinder.  There may be further chemical 
texturing of the inner surface or nanopowder added as part of a thermo-chemical 
modification of the surface to create the NAEs in high number on the inner 
textured Ni surface.

Then, cold weld one end of the cylinder closed.  Calculate the amount of metal 
hydride needed to release the desired pressure of H2 into the cylinder when it 
is heated and put this powder inside the cylinder.  Cold weld seal the second 
end closed.  Viola!  You have a hotCat reactor core.

Rossi has also described his cat and mouse where the mouse was added to 
enhance the performance of the hotCat.  An easy speculation for this would be 
that he could take some of his previous Rossi micro-Ni + catalyst powder and 
add that as well to the hotCat as a means to help the reaction begin from a 
lower temperature.

I believe the cylindrical outer heaters are just resistor coils embedded in a 
high thermal conductivity ceramic.

Comments?

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question


Eric Walker wrote:


Most scientists, I expect, believe that a completely unequivocal
demonstration of claims of Rossi's magnitude would be a trivial
thing to stage, and would bear no resemblance to the farce that we
are seeing.


If there is any point of unanimity here (and there are very few), it 
is that Rossi does himself no favors by being squirmy.  I don't think 
this is a point that is contested.


I do not contest this in general but according to all participants these 
researchers had complete autonomy. If there are problems in the design 
of this experiment the fault is theirs alone. Rossi had no say in the 
matter, except as noted in the report he restricted access to parts of 
the experiment. These restrictions made the test a black box test of 
input and output. This is what many skeptics have been asking for. Now 
that they have been given what they asked for, they reject it, as I knew 
they would.


The engineers at Elforsk disagree with Cude. They do not think this was 
a farce. They know much more about measuring energy and electricity than 
he does, so I suppose they are correct and he is wrong.


- Jed

[Vo]:Fwd: look how nice my book flips now, I love Amazon

2013-05-29 Thread fznidarsic





Subject: Re: look how nice my book flips now,  I love Amazon


I have all versions linked below, however,  I checked the image and now it 
stopped spinning.  It only flips just like Ed's.


Cheated again!



http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-textfield-keywords=%22znidarsic+science+books%22rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3A%22znidarsic+science+books%22








thisx xisx was fun.  Its like cold fusion, it only works when no one is looking.


Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

First, the fact that this *source* of energy thousands of times more dense
 than chemical has to be plugged in (to a high power line, no less) will
 turn most observers away.


Fine, so most observers will be turned away by this.  From an engineering
perspective, I see perfectly good reasons for it.  Perhaps that puts me and
anyone else who agrees in the minority of observers.

Eric

[Vo]:MODERATOR: andrewppp removed

2013-05-29 Thread William Beaty



multiple violations of rule 2.

(I suspect that he didn't read the rules before subscribing.)



(( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

Fran, I would not guess how Rossi bonds the powder to the wall, only  
that this must be done. A secret sauce is applied before the Ni is  
placed in the e-Cat in order to create the NAE. You need to identify  
how many additional secret sauces you think are involved. He also  
places a hydride in the tube to supply hydrogen. This material also  
might have an effect.  I suggest speculation about things we have no  
way of knowing is not productive. Let's discuss what is real and  
required by nature for the observed effect to be produced.


We know Rossi activates the Ni before it is used, i.e. creates the NAE.
We know this powder must make good thermal contact with the wall.
We know that Ni powder sinters at the temperature being produced.
We know that the NAE is stable at these temperatures.
We know that the generated power increases with increased temperature.  
Therefore, a positive feedback is operating.
We know that Rossi attempts to control this feedback by controlling  
the temperature.
We know that the power source responds rapidly to the external  
temperature. Therefore, good thermal contact exists between the source  
and the thermal sink.
We can suspect that no additional source of energy or stimulation is  
applied to the power source other than temperature.


These are the only facts I can identify. Did I miss anything?

Ed Storms



On May 29, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:


Ed,
you make a good case that something improves the thermal bond of the  
powder to the inner walls.. perhaps the function of the secret  
sauce.. I don’t recall the volume of the powder used but am under  
the impression it fills most of the reactor tube and therefore must  
also have good thermal bond through it’s own bulk to reach the  
reactor walls. I think the MAHG was a weak easily compromised cousin  
to this device with only a thin sputtered layer on the inner wall of  
the tube while Rossi has designed a way to stack NAE out into a bulk  
form away from the reactor wall.  I gathered from the thread that  
very little powder spilled out when they cut it open after  
destruction… so would assume the bonding held the powder inside as a  
foam or gelatinous solid? Can we assume the secret sauce must bind  
the powder into some form of solid. I am leaning toward an open foam  
like malted milk balls but a recent thread also suggested a  
gelatinous colloid.

Fran

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:43 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

Bob, this is a good analysis of a possible design.  You are right,  
the powder must make good thermal contact with the wall for the  
nuclear reaction to be controlled by temperature. Just how Rossi  
makes this happen is unknown.  Nevertheless, most of the active  
nickel must be attached to the inner wall of the stainless tube. In  
addition, at the temperatures used, the Ni powder would sinter and  
not be easily to remove.


As for modifying the stainless using chemical etch, I doubt this  
would be effective.  This texture would have to be active initially  
and remain unchanged at high temperature. Such textures are not  
stable and would not survive the high temperature. Rossi has done  
something to the Ni powder that is very stable and not affected by  
high temperature.  This fact alone greatly reduces the possibilities  
to anyone familiar with the materials science of this material.  
Rossi is gradually letting the cat out of the bag, whether he wants  
to or not.


Ed Storms
On May 29, 2013, at 8:29 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:


I  would like to submit my speculation about the latest Rossi hotCat  
for discussion on Vortex-l.
We are told that the central reactor core is a 310 stainless steel  
cylinder ( 3cm by 33cm).  There is no port for introduction of H2.   
The ends are cold welded closed.
When the test device was sawed open, only a miniscule amount of  
powder came out.  This cannot be the active powder - it would have  
melted as loose powder rather than conveying the heat out of the  
cylinder.
It is highly desirable to have high thermal conductivity between the  
NAEs and the outer metal cylinder.  You wouldn't get this with loose  
powder on the inside.

310 stainless is ~25% chromium, ~21% Ni, and the balance mostly iron
Consider what Celani has done - taken a Ni-Cu alloy wire and etched  
out the Cu to realize the surface nanotexturing, thus creating NAEs  
on the wire outer surface.  Suppose we took the 310 stainless  
cylinder and used a chromium etch on the inner surface.  Chrome  
etches typically contain nitric acid which will also attack the  
iron, but not the nickel.  The result could be a nanotextured Ni  
inner surface of the 310 SS cylinder with perhaps a micro-scale Ni  
fur in high thermal contact with the cylinder.  There may be  
further chemical texturing of the inner surface or nanopowder added  
as part of a

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:


 First, the fact that this *source* of energy thousands of times more dense
 than chemical has to be plugged in (to a high power line, no less) will
 turn most observers away.


 Fine, so most observers will be turned away by this.  From an
 engineering perspective, I see perfectly good reasons for it.


It seems like a useful filter. Observers who turn away for this reason do
not understand the claim. They do not understand energy. It is better for
everyone if they turn away at an early stage.

However many turn away, I am sure large numbers will remain. The traffic
LENR-CANR.org reveals that there is widespread interest in this test.

Actually, the only observers who matter are the people at Elforsk. They
have already stated they believe the results. The measurements show that
the catalyst gives substantially more energy than can be explained by
ordinary chemical reactions. The results are very remarkable. Who cares
what anyone else thinks? We don't need a lot of supporters at this stage. A
few institutions such as Elforsk is all the support we need.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test

Eric/JC:
I've read the report twice fully, and a few other times only to verify a
specific statement.

I still did not catch the significance that it was the output of the control
box that was changed from 3ph to 1ph, not the input side.  I posted as soon
as I could to correct my error.

Josh:
I have always advocated for the fair treatment of individuals on vortex,
whether supportive or not of topics being discussed.  First and foremost, as
is clearly stated in forum rules, is respect for differing opinions, and no
personal attacks.  Thus, I do not make the kind of statements about
intentional misinformation often, nor lightly, and then only when there's
been a *pattern over time* with the person.  In the 5+ years of regular
contributions to this forum, I don't think there are any instances where I
have not corrected an error in my postings when I realized it myself, or if
pointed out, and therefore there is no pattern of misinformation on my part.

-Mark Iverson

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:42 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat
test

Lol.

That's a little bit redonculous.  Far more likely: neither he nor I have
read the paper closely enough.

Eric

On May 29, 2013, at 2:02, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think Mark was mistaken about this, and his failure to acknowledge it
suggests he is deliberately trying to mislead people, and he appears to have
succeeded in your case.

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

2013-05-29 Thread Arnaud Kodeck

Ed,

 

I think you forget to add the EM stimulation controlled by the black box
between wall socket and the eCat.

 

Arnaud

  _  

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: mercredi 29 mai 2013 21:53
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

 

Fran, I would not guess how Rossi bonds the powder to the wall, only that
this must be done. A secret sauce is applied before the Ni is placed in the
e-Cat in order to create the NAE. You need to identify how many additional
secret sauces you think are involved. He also places a hydride in the tube
to supply hydrogen. This material also might have an effect.  I suggest
speculation about things we have no way of knowing is not productive. Let's
discuss what is real and required by nature for the observed effect to be
produced. 

 

We know Rossi activates the Ni before it is used, i.e. creates the NAE.

We know this powder must make good thermal contact with the wall.

We know that Ni powder sinters at the temperature being produced.

We know that the NAE is stable at these temperatures. 

We know that the generated power increases with increased temperature.
Therefore, a positive feedback is operating.

We know that Rossi attempts to control this feedback by controlling the
temperature.

We know that the power source responds rapidly to the external temperature.
Therefore, good thermal contact exists between the source and the thermal
sink. 

We can suspect that no additional source of energy or stimulation is applied
to the power source other than temperature.

 

These are the only facts I can identify. Did I miss anything?

 

Ed Storms

 

 

 

On May 29, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:





Ed,

you make a good case that something improves the thermal bond of the powder
to the inner walls.. perhaps the function of the secret sauce.. I don't
recall the volume of the powder used but am under the impression it fills
most of the reactor tube and therefore must also have good thermal bond
through it's own bulk to reach the reactor walls. I think the MAHG was a
weak easily compromised cousin to this device with only a thin sputtered
layer on the inner wall of the tube while Rossi has designed a way to stack
NAE out into a bulk form away from the reactor wall.  I gathered from the
thread that very little powder spilled out when they cut it open after
destruction. so would assume the bonding held the powder inside as a foam or
gelatinous solid? Can we assume the secret sauce must bind the powder into
some form of solid. I am leaning toward an open foam like malted milk balls
but a recent thread also suggested a gelatinous colloid.

Fran

 

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:43 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

 

Bob, this is a good analysis of a possible design.  You are right, the
powder must make good thermal contact with the wall for the nuclear reaction
to be controlled by temperature. Just how Rossi makes this happen is
unknown.  Nevertheless, most of the active nickel must be attached to the
inner wall of the stainless tube. In addition, at the temperatures used, the
Ni powder would sinter and not be easily to remove. 

 

As for modifying the stainless using chemical etch, I doubt this would be
effective.  This texture would have to be active initially and remain
unchanged at high temperature. Such textures are not stable and would not
survive the high temperature. Rossi has done something to the Ni powder that
is very stable and not affected by high temperature.  This fact alone
greatly reduces the possibilities to anyone familiar with the materials
science of this material. Rossi is gradually letting the cat out of the bag,
whether he wants to or not.

 

Ed Storms

On May 29, 2013, at 8:29 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:






I  would like to submit my speculation about the latest Rossi hotCat for
discussion on Vortex-l.

* We are told that the central reactor core is a 310 stainless steel
cylinder ( 3cm by 33cm).  There is no port for introduction of H2.  The ends
are cold welded closed.

* When the test device was sawed open, only a miniscule amount of
powder came out.  This cannot be the active powder - it would have melted as
loose powder rather than conveying the heat out of the cylinder.

* It is highly desirable to have high thermal conductivity between
the NAEs and the outer metal cylinder.  You wouldn't get this with loose
powder on the inside.

* 310 stainless is ~25% chromium, ~21% Ni, and the balance mostly
iron

Consider what Celani has done - taken a Ni-Cu alloy wire and etched out the
Cu to realize the surface nanotexturing, thus creating NAEs on the wire
outer surface.  Suppose we took the 310 stainless cylinder and used a
chromium etch on the inner surface.  Chrome etches typically contain nitric
acid which will

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

If the reactor is entangled globally as indicated in nanoplasmonic theory,
heat transfer would be isothermal based on super fluidic heat transfer.

The hydrogen would be the same temperature as the powder. and so would the
walls of the inner reactor tube.

The secret sauce may be used to produce dynamic NAE formation through the
creation of nanoparticle strings. Alkali metals will serve this function in
the 500C to 1500C heat range.


On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Roarty, Francis X 
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:

  Ed,

 you make a good case that something improves the thermal bond of the
 powder to the inner walls.. perhaps the function of the secret sauce.. I
 don’t recall the volume of the powder used but am under the impression it
 fills most of the reactor tube and therefore must also have good thermal
 bond through it’s own bulk to reach the reactor walls. I think the MAHG was
 a weak easily compromised cousin to this device with only a thin sputtered
 layer on the inner wall of the tube while Rossi has designed a way to stack
 NAE out into a bulk form away from the reactor wall.  I gathered from the
 thread that very little powder spilled out when they cut it open after
 destruction… so would assume the bonding held the powder inside as a foam
 or gelatinous solid? Can we assume the secret sauce must bind the powder
 into some form of solid. I am leaning toward an open foam like malted milk
 balls but a recent thread also suggested a gelatinous colloid.

 Fran 

 ** **

 *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
 *Sent:* Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:43 AM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Cc:* Edmund Storms
 *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

 ** **

 Bob, this is a good analysis of a possible design.  You are right, the
 powder must make good thermal contact with the wall for the nuclear
 reaction to be controlled by temperature. Just how Rossi makes this happen
 is unknown.  Nevertheless, most of the active nickel must be attached to
 the inner wall of the stainless tube. In addition, at the temperatures
 used, the Ni powder would sinter and not be easily to remove. 

 ** **

 As for modifying the stainless using chemical etch, I doubt this would be
 effective.  This texture would have to be active initially and remain
 unchanged at high temperature. Such textures are not stable and would not
 survive the high temperature. Rossi has done something to the Ni powder
 that is very stable and not affected by high temperature.  This fact alone
 greatly reduces the possibilities to anyone familiar with the materials
 science of this material. Rossi is gradually letting the cat out of the
 bag, whether he wants to or not.

 ** **

 Ed Storms

 On May 29, 2013, at 8:29 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:



 

 I  would like to submit my speculation about the latest Rossi hotCat for
 discussion on Vortex-l.

- We are told that the central reactor core is a 310 stainless steel
cylinder ( 3cm by 33cm).  There is no port for introduction of H2.  The
ends are cold welded closed.


- When the test device was sawed open, only a miniscule amount of
powder came out.  This cannot be the active powder - it would have melted
as loose powder rather than conveying the heat out of the cylinder.


- It is highly desirable to have high thermal conductivity between the
NAEs and the outer metal cylinder.  You wouldn't get this with loose powder
on the inside.


- 310 stainless is ~25% chromium, ~21% Ni, and the balance mostly iron*
***

 Consider what Celani has done - taken a Ni-Cu alloy wire and etched out
 the Cu to realize the surface nanotexturing, thus creating NAEs on the wire
 outer surface.  Suppose we took the 310 stainless cylinder and used a
 chromium etch on the inner surface.  Chrome etches typically contain nitric
 acid which will also attack the iron, but not the nickel.  The result could
 be a nanotextured Ni inner surface of the 310 SS cylinder with perhaps a
 micro-scale Ni fur in *high thermal contact with the cylinder*.  There
 may be further chemical texturing of the inner surface or nanopowder added
 as part of a thermo-chemical modification of the surface to create the NAEs
 in high number on the inner textured Ni surface.

 ** **

 Then, cold weld one end of the cylinder closed.  Calculate the amount of
 metal hydride needed to release the desired pressure of H2 into the
 cylinder when it is heated and put this powder inside the cylinder.  Cold
 weld seal the second end closed.  Viola!  You have a hotCat reactor core.*
 ***

 ** **

 Rossi has also described his cat and mouse where the mouse was added
 to enhance the performance of the hotCat.  An easy speculation for this
 would be that he could take some of his previous Rossi micro-Ni + catalyst
 powder and add that as well to the hotCat as a means to help the reaction
 begin from a lower temperature.

 ** **

 I believe the

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: andrewppp removed

William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:


 multiple violations of rule 2.

 (I suspect that he didn't read the rules before subscribing.)


Whoa! That seems precipitous. He did not seem so bad to me.


Rule 2.  NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is
banned. Debunking or Pathological Skepticism is banned (see the link.)
 The tone here should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful
debate. . . .

http://www.amasci.com/weird/wvort.html#rules


Perhaps you can invite him back after a bit? Also maybe Abd? I miss him.

They might not swallow their pride and return. Maybe you should say I
acted too hastily, I apologize. Say this whether you mean it or not.
That's how they do things in Japan.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: andrewppp removed

2013-05-29 Thread leaking pen

I had to go through the past few threads that I honestly wasn't following
to see what was meant.  Yeah...  I wouldn't have tolerated him as long as
Bill did. It seemed he lived to say, Oh Really?



On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:


 multiple violations of rule 2.

 (I suspect that he didn't read the rules before subscribing.)


 Whoa! That seems precipitous. He did not seem so bad to me.


 Rule 2.  NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is
 banned. Debunking or Pathological Skepticism is banned (see the link.)
  The tone here should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful
 debate. . . .

 http://www.amasci.com/weird/wvort.html#rules


 Perhaps you can invite him back after a bit? Also maybe Abd? I miss him.

 They might not swallow their pride and return. Maybe you should say I
 acted too hastily, I apologize. Say this whether you mean it or not.
 That's how they do things in Japan.

 - Jed

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

2013-05-29 Thread Roarty, Francis X

Ed,
Is sintering necessarily bad? Could the sintering have also occurred to a 
lesser scale on the earlier ecat and actually be part of the NAE formation?
Fran

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

Fran, I would not guess how Rossi bonds the powder to the wall, only that this 
must be done. A secret sauce is applied before the Ni is placed in the e-Cat in 
order to create the NAE. You need to identify how many additional secret sauces 
you think are involved. He also places a hydride in the tube to supply 
hydrogen. This material also might have an effect.  I suggest speculation about 
things we have no way of knowing is not productive. Let's discuss what is real 
and required by nature for the observed effect to be produced.

We know Rossi activates the Ni before it is used, i.e. creates the NAE.
We know this powder must make good thermal contact with the wall.
We know that Ni powder sinters at the temperature being produced.
We know that the NAE is stable at these temperatures.
We know that the generated power increases with increased temperature. 
Therefore, a positive feedback is operating.
We know that Rossi attempts to control this feedback by controlling the 
temperature.
We know that the power source responds rapidly to the external temperature. 
Therefore, good thermal contact exists between the source and the thermal sink.
We can suspect that no additional source of energy or stimulation is applied to 
the power source other than temperature.

These are the only facts I can identify. Did I miss anything?

Ed Storms

On May 29, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:

Ed,
you make a good case that something improves the thermal bond of the powder to 
the inner walls.. perhaps the function of the secret sauce.. I don't recall the 
volume of the powder used but am under the impression it fills most of the 
reactor tube and therefore must also have good thermal bond through it's own 
bulk to reach the reactor walls. I think the MAHG was a weak easily compromised 
cousin to this device with only a thin sputtered layer on the inner wall of the 
tube while Rossi has designed a way to stack NAE out into a bulk form away from 
the reactor wall.  I gathered from the thread that very little powder spilled 
out when they cut it open after destruction... so would assume the bonding held 
the powder inside as a foam or gelatinous solid? Can we assume the secret sauce 
must bind the powder into some form of solid. I am leaning toward an open foam 
like malted milk balls but a recent thread also suggested a gelatinous colloid.
Fran

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:43 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

Bob, this is a good analysis of a possible design.  You are right, the powder 
must make good thermal contact with the wall for the nuclear reaction to be 
controlled by temperature. Just how Rossi makes this happen is unknown.  
Nevertheless, most of the active nickel must be attached to the inner wall of 
the stainless tube. In addition, at the temperatures used, the Ni powder would 
sinter and not be easily to remove.

As for modifying the stainless using chemical etch, I doubt this would be 
effective.  This texture would have to be active initially and remain unchanged 
at high temperature. Such textures are not stable and would not survive the 
high temperature. Rossi has done something to the Ni powder that is very stable 
and not affected by high temperature.  This fact alone greatly reduces the 
possibilities to anyone familiar with the materials science of this material. 
Rossi is gradually letting the cat out of the bag, whether he wants to or not.

Ed Storms
On May 29, 2013, at 8:29 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:

I  would like to submit my speculation about the latest Rossi hotCat for 
discussion on Vortex-l.

  *   We are told that the central reactor core is a 310 stainless steel 
cylinder ( 3cm by 33cm).  There is no port for introduction of H2.  The ends 
are cold welded closed.

  *   When the test device was sawed open, only a miniscule amount of powder 
came out.  This cannot be the active powder - it would have melted as loose 
powder rather than conveying the heat out of the cylinder.

  *   It is highly desirable to have high thermal conductivity between the NAEs 
and the outer metal cylinder.  You wouldn't get this with loose powder on the 
inside.

  *   310 stainless is ~25% chromium, ~21% Ni, and the balance mostly iron
Consider what Celani has done - taken a Ni-Cu alloy wire and etched out the Cu 
to realize the surface nanotexturing, thus creating NAEs on the wire outer 
surface.  Suppose we took the 310 stainless cylinder and used a chromium etch 
on the inner surface.  Chrome etches typically

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

EMF simulation in the CB range will form nanoparticles (aka clusters).
Potassium is the best candidate for the formation of dynamic NAE through
nanoparticle formation when stimulated by EMF.


On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.bewrote:

 **

 Ed,

 ** **

 I think you forget to add the EM stimulation controlled by the black box
 between wall socket and the eCat.

 ** **

 Arnaud
  --

 *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
 *Sent:* mercredi 29 mai 2013 21:53

 *To:* **vortex-l@eskimo.com**
 *Cc:* Edmund Storms
 *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

  ** **

 Fran, I would not guess how Rossi bonds the powder to the wall, only that
 this must be done. A secret sauce is applied before the Ni is placed in the
 e-Cat in order to create the NAE. You need to identify how many additional
 secret sauces you think are involved. He also places a hydride in the tube
 to supply hydrogen. This material also might have an effect.  I suggest
 speculation about things we have no way of knowing is not productive. Let's
 discuss what is real and required by nature for the observed effect to be
 produced. 

 ** **

 We know Rossi activates the Ni before it is used, i.e. creates the NAE.***
 *

 We know this powder must make good thermal contact with the wall.

 We know that Ni powder sinters at the temperature being produced.

 We know that the NAE is stable at these temperatures. 

 We know that the generated power increases with increased temperature.
 Therefore, a positive feedback is operating.

 We know that Rossi attempts to control this feedback by controlling the
 temperature.

 We know that the power source responds rapidly to the external
 temperature. Therefore, good thermal contact exists between the source and
 the thermal sink. 

 We can suspect that no additional source of energy or stimulation is
 applied to the power source other than temperature.

 ** **

 These are the only facts I can identify. Did I miss anything?

 ** **

 Ed Storms

 ** **

 ** **

 ** **

 On May 29, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:



 

 Ed,

 you make a good case that something improves the thermal bond of the
 powder to the inner walls.. perhaps the function of the secret sauce.. I
 don’t recall the volume of the powder used but am under the impression it
 fills most of the reactor tube and therefore must also have good thermal
 bond through it’s own bulk to reach the reactor walls. I think the MAHG was
 a weak easily compromised cousin to this device with only a thin sputtered
 layer on the inner wall of the tube while Rossi has designed a way to stack
 NAE out into a bulk form away from the reactor wall.  I gathered from the
 thread that very little powder spilled out when they cut it open after
 destruction… so would assume the bonding held the powder inside as a foam
 or gelatinous solid? Can we assume the secret sauce must bind the powder
 into some form of solid. I am leaning toward an open foam like malted milk
 balls but a recent thread also suggested a gelatinous colloid.

 Fran

 ** **

 *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com
 ]
 *Sent:* Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:43 AM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Cc:* Edmund Storms
 *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat
   **

  
 **

 Bob, this is a good analysis of a possible design.  You are right, the
 powder must make good thermal contact with the wall for the nuclear
 reaction to be controlled by temperature. Just how Rossi makes this happen
 is unknown.  Nevertheless, most of the active nickel must be attached to
 the inner wall of the stainless tube. In addition, at the temperatures
 used, the Ni powder would sinter and not be easily to remove. 
 
 **

  
 **

 As for modifying the stainless using chemical etch, I doubt this would be
 effective.  This texture would have to be active initially and remain
 unchanged at high temperature. Such textures are not stable and would not
 survive the high temperature. Rossi has done something to the Ni powder
 that is very stable and not affected by high temperature.  This fact alone
 greatly reduces the possibilities to anyone familiar with the materials
 science of this material. Rossi is gradually letting the cat out of the
 bag, whether he wants to or not.
 
  **

  
 **

 Ed Storms
 

 On May 29, 2013, at 8:29 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:
 




 
  

 I  would like to submit my speculation about the latest Rossi hotCat for
 discussion on Vortex-l.
 

 **· **We are told that the central reactor core is a 310
 stainless steel cylinder ( 3cm by 33cm).  There is no port for introduction
 of H2.  The ends are cold welded closed.
 

 **· **When the test device was sawed open, only a miniscule
 amount of

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

If the powder sinters, I suppose:

That's good because it is what makes the powder stick to the wall.

That's bad because it reduces surface area. This is what caused Arata's
pure Pd black cells to stop working after a while.

Takahashi said it was not the high temperature but rather the chemical
action of hydrogen on the metal that caused the particles to stick together.

I guess when they open the cell they have to scrape out the powder.

Question: assuming it really is 0.3 g, what is the likely volume? Nowhere
near enough to fill the cylinder. Why such a large cylinder? Maybe because
that's what he has in stock.

- Jed

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

I wrote:


 That's bad because it reduces surface area. This is what caused Arata's
 pure Pd black cells to stop working after a while.


I mean the Double Structured (DS) cathodes.

Those things were crammed full of Pd black, according to McKubre. I think
he said that. Cramming them full ensured good contact with the walls.

The walls were also Pd, used as a hydrogen filter. Some people suspected
the Pd in the wall was reacting, along with the Pd black.

- Jed

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

Fran, I have heated Ni many times and did not observe the sintering to  
produce LENR. It only creats a brick of material.  Sintering can be  
prevented if the surface is partly oxidized or covered with a  
compound. I suspect Rossi has created a compound containing NI on the  
surface that forms the gaps I claim are important. If this is the  
case, the powder probably will not sinter.  Unfortunately, we can only  
guess.


Ed Storms

On May 29, 2013, at 2:06 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:


Ed,
Is sintering necessarily bad? Could the sintering have also occurred  
to a lesser scale on the earlier ecat and actually be part of the  
NAE formation?

Fran

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

Fran, I would not guess how Rossi bonds the powder to the wall, only  
that this must be done. A secret sauce is applied before the Ni is  
placed in the e-Cat in order to create the NAE. You need to identify  
how many additional secret sauces you think are involved. He also  
places a hydride in the tube to supply hydrogen. This material also  
might have an effect.  I suggest speculation about things we have no  
way of knowing is not productive. Let's discuss what is real and  
required by nature for the observed effect to be produced.


We know Rossi activates the Ni before it is used, i.e. creates the  
NAE.

We know this powder must make good thermal contact with the wall.
We know that Ni powder sinters at the temperature being produced.
We know that the NAE is stable at these temperatures.
We know that the generated power increases with increased  
temperature. Therefore, a positive feedback is operating.
We know that Rossi attempts to control this feedback by controlling  
the temperature.
We know that the power source responds rapidly to the external  
temperature. Therefore, good thermal contact exists between the  
source and the thermal sink.
We can suspect that no additional source of energy or stimulation is  
applied to the power source other than temperature.


These are the only facts I can identify. Did I miss anything?

Ed Storms



On May 29, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:


Ed,
you make a good case that something improves the thermal bond of the  
powder to the inner walls.. perhaps the function of the secret  
sauce.. I don’t recall the volume of the powder used but am under  
the impression it fills most of the reactor tube and therefore must  
also have good thermal bond through it’s own bulk to reach the  
reactor walls. I think the MAHG was a weak easily compromised cousin  
to this device with only a thin sputtered layer on the inner wall of  
the tube while Rossi has designed a way to stack NAE out into a bulk  
form away from the reactor wall.  I gathered from the thread that  
very little powder spilled out when they cut it open after  
destruction… so would assume the bonding held the powder inside as a  
foam or gelatinous solid? Can we assume the secret sauce must bind  
the powder into some form of solid. I am leaning toward an open foam  
like malted milk balls but a recent thread also suggested a  
gelatinous colloid.

Fran

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:43 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

Bob, this is a good analysis of a possible design.  You are right,  
the powder must make good thermal contact with the wall for the  
nuclear reaction to be controlled by temperature. Just how Rossi  
makes this happen is unknown.  Nevertheless, most of the active  
nickel must be attached to the inner wall of the stainless tube. In  
addition, at the temperatures used, the Ni powder would sinter and  
not be easily to remove.


As for modifying the stainless using chemical etch, I doubt this  
would be effective.  This texture would have to be active initially  
and remain unchanged at high temperature. Such textures are not  
stable and would not survive the high temperature. Rossi has done  
something to the Ni powder that is very stable and not affected by  
high temperature.  This fact alone greatly reduces the possibilities  
to anyone familiar with the materials science of this material.  
Rossi is gradually letting the cat out of the bag, whether he wants  
to or not.


Ed Storms
On May 29, 2013, at 8:29 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:



I  would like to submit my speculation about the latest Rossi hotCat  
for discussion on Vortex-l.
We are told that the central reactor core is a 310 stainless steel  
cylinder ( 3cm by 33cm).  There is no port for introduction of H2.   
The ends are cold welded closed.
When the test device was sawed open, only a miniscule amount of  
powder came out.  This cannot be the active powder - it would have  
melted as loose powder rather than conveying the heat out of the  
cylinder.
It is

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

In the Arata experiment, when the powder melted, the reaction stopped.

In dynamic NAE creation, when the NAE is destroyed, new NAEs take its place
and the cycle is constant.


On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I wrote:


 That's bad because it reduces surface area. This is what caused Arata's
 pure Pd black cells to stop working after a while.


 I mean the Double Structured (DS) cathodes.

 Those things were crammed full of Pd black, according to McKubre. I think
 he said that. Cramming them full ensured good contact with the walls.

 The walls were also Pd, used as a hydrogen filter. Some people suspected
 the Pd in the wall was reacting, along with the Pd black.

 - Jed

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

Amaud, we do not know this is as a fact. That conclusion is only  
proposed. We only know the black box controls the temperature INSIDE,  
probably in a complex way.  The Ni-H2 reaction has shown no need in  
the past for EM stimulation. In any case, the design limits the  
frequency to a very narrow and presumably unproductive range. If Rossi  
wanted to apply stimulation, he chose a very poor design, which I  
doubt he would do if this stimulation were important.


Ed Storms
On May 29, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Arnaud Kodeck wrote:


Ed,

I think you forget to add the EM stimulation controlled by the black  
box between wall socket and the eCat.


Arnaud
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: mercredi 29 mai 2013 21:53
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

Fran, I would not guess how Rossi bonds the powder to the wall, only  
that this must be done. A secret sauce is applied before the Ni is  
placed in the e-Cat in order to create the NAE. You need to identify  
how many additional secret sauces you think are involved. He also  
places a hydride in the tube to supply hydrogen. This material also  
might have an effect.  I suggest speculation about things we have no  
way of knowing is not productive. Let's discuss what is real and  
required by nature for the observed effect to be produced.


We know Rossi activates the Ni before it is used, i.e. creates the  
NAE.

We know this powder must make good thermal contact with the wall.
We know that Ni powder sinters at the temperature being produced.
We know that the NAE is stable at these temperatures.
We know that the generated power increases with increased  
temperature. Therefore, a positive feedback is operating.
We know that Rossi attempts to control this feedback by controlling  
the temperature.
We know that the power source responds rapidly to the external  
temperature. Therefore, good thermal contact exists between the  
source and the thermal sink.
We can suspect that no additional source of energy or stimulation is  
applied to the power source other than temperature.


These are the only facts I can identify. Did I miss anything?

Ed Storms



On May 29, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:


Ed,
you make a good case that something improves the thermal bond of the  
powder to the inner walls.. perhaps the function of the secret  
sauce.. I don’t recall the volume of the powder used but am under  
the impression it fills most of the reactor tube and therefore must  
also have good thermal bond through it’s own bulk to reach the  
reactor walls. I think the MAHG was a weak easily compromised cousin  
to this device with only a thin sputtered layer on the inner wall of  
the tube while Rossi has designed a way to stack NAE out into a bulk  
form away from the reactor wall.  I gathered from the thread that  
very little powder spilled out when they cut it open after  
destruction… so would assume the bonding held the powder inside as a  
foam or gelatinous solid? Can we assume the secret sauce must bind  
the powder into some form of solid. I am leaning toward an open foam  
like malted milk balls but a recent thread also suggested a  
gelatinous colloid.

Fran

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:43 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

Bob, this is a good analysis of a possible design.  You are right,  
the powder must make good thermal contact with the wall for the  
nuclear reaction to be controlled by temperature. Just how Rossi  
makes this happen is unknown.  Nevertheless, most of the active  
nickel must be attached to the inner wall of the stainless tube. In  
addition, at the temperatures used, the Ni powder would sinter and  
not be easily to remove.


As for modifying the stainless using chemical etch, I doubt this  
would be effective.  This texture would have to be active initially  
and remain unchanged at high temperature. Such textures are not  
stable and would not survive the high temperature. Rossi has done  
something to the Ni powder that is very stable and not affected by  
high temperature.  This fact alone greatly reduces the possibilities  
to anyone familiar with the materials science of this material.  
Rossi is gradually letting the cat out of the bag, whether he wants  
to or not.


Ed Storms
On May 29, 2013, at 8:29 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:



I  would like to submit my speculation about the latest Rossi hotCat  
for discussion on Vortex-l.
· We are told that the central reactor core is a 310  
stainless steel cylinder ( 3cm by 33cm).  There is no port for  
introduction of H2.  The ends are cold welded closed.
· When the test device was sawed open, only a miniscule  
amount of powder came out.  This cannot be the active powder - it  
would have melted as loose powder rather than conveying the heat out  
of the

RE: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

2013-05-29 Thread Jones Beene

 

From: Joshua Cude 

 

First, the fact that this *source* of energy thousands of times more dense than 
chemical has to be plugged in (to a high power line, no less) will turn most 
observers away.

 

Not necessarily “most” - only those observers whose ability to deduce and 
extrapolate from experience is severely challenged. 

 

For instance, an atomic bomb is initiated by a chemical explosion, and it is 
thousands of time more energy dense. A hydrogen bomb is initiated by and atomic 
bomb explosion, and it is a thousand times more energy dense. 

 

Most observers do not have much difficulty extrapolating from that kind of 
known phenomenon - into another kind of mass-to-energy conversion, requiring a 
substantial trigger.

 

In any event - “thousands of times” more dense is not accurate IMO – closer to 
200 times. 

 

If you understand “recalescence” and then can extrapolate to a reaction which 
is recycled around the phase change, then the rationale of adding energy to 
gain energy is more understandable. This is a phenomenon of phase change seen 
every day in a steel mill.

 

Wiki sez: Recalescence is an increase in temperature that occurs while cooling 
metal when a change in structure with an increase in entropy occurs. 

 

Of course, in this circumstance, it is a one-time thing and there is no 
violation of Conservation of Energy in normal recalescence.

 

Next, to complete the explanation - we will need to demonstrate how mass is 
converted into energy in a order one-time recalescence event to look like a 
succession of events.

 

That can been done, but there is little purpose in trying to explain this to 
anyone with afflicted with tunnel vision.

 

Jones

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

Axil, you make your statements with great certainty. Have you ever  
actually studied Ni and successfully caused LENR? I have and I do not  
see the behavior you claim must occur.


Ed Storms
On May 29, 2013, at 2:08 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

EMF simulation in the CB range will form nanoparticles (aka  
clusters). Potassium is the best candidate for the formation of  
dynamic NAE through nanoparticle formation when stimulated by EMF.



On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be 
 wrote:

Ed,



I think you forget to add the EM stimulation controlled by the black  
box between wall socket and the eCat.




Arnaud

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: mercredi 29 mai 2013 21:53


To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat




Fran, I would not guess how Rossi bonds the powder to the wall, only  
that this must be done. A secret sauce is applied before the Ni is  
placed in the e-Cat in order to create the NAE. You need to identify  
how many additional secret sauces you think are involved. He also  
places a hydride in the tube to supply hydrogen. This material also  
might have an effect.  I suggest speculation about things we have no  
way of knowing is not productive. Let's discuss what is real and  
required by nature for the observed effect to be produced.




We know Rossi activates the Ni before it is used, i.e. creates the  
NAE.


We know this powder must make good thermal contact with the wall.

We know that Ni powder sinters at the temperature being produced.

We know that the NAE is stable at these temperatures.

We know that the generated power increases with increased  
temperature. Therefore, a positive feedback is operating.


We know that Rossi attempts to control this feedback by controlling  
the temperature.


We know that the power source responds rapidly to the external  
temperature. Therefore, good thermal contact exists between the  
source and the thermal sink.


We can suspect that no additional source of energy or stimulation is  
applied to the power source other than temperature.




These are the only facts I can identify. Did I miss anything?



Ed Storms







On May 29, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:




Ed,

you make a good case that something improves the thermal bond of the  
powder to the inner walls.. perhaps the function of the secret  
sauce.. I don’t recall the volume of the powder used but am under  
the impression it fills most of the reactor tube and therefore must  
also have good thermal bond through it’s own bulk to reach the  
reactor walls. I think the MAHG was a weak easily compromised cousin  
to this device with only a thin sputtered layer on the inner wall of  
the tube while Rossi has designed a way to stack NAE out into a bulk  
form away from the reactor wall.  I gathered from the thread that  
very little powder spilled out when they cut it open after  
destruction… so would assume the bonding held the powder inside as a  
foam or gelatinous solid? Can we assume the secret sauce must bind  
the powder into some form of solid. I am leaning toward an open foam  
like malted milk balls but a recent thread also suggested a  
gelatinous colloid.


Fran



From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:43 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat



Bob, this is a good analysis of a possible design.  You are right,  
the powder must make good thermal contact with the wall for the  
nuclear reaction to be controlled by temperature. Just how Rossi  
makes this happen is unknown.  Nevertheless, most of the active  
nickel must be attached to the inner wall of the stainless tube. In  
addition, at the temperatures used, the Ni powder would sinter and  
not be easily to remove.




As for modifying the stainless using chemical etch, I doubt this  
would be effective.  This texture would have to be active initially  
and remain unchanged at high temperature. Such textures are not  
stable and would not survive the high temperature. Rossi has done  
something to the Ni powder that is very stable and not affected by  
high temperature.  This fact alone greatly reduces the possibilities  
to anyone familiar with the materials science of this material.  
Rossi is gradually letting the cat out of the bag, whether he wants  
to or not.




Ed Storms

On May 29, 2013, at 8:29 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:





I  would like to submit my speculation about the latest Rossi hotCat  
for discussion on Vortex-l.


· We are told that the central reactor core is a 310  
stainless steel cylinder ( 3cm by 33cm).  There is no port for  
introduction of H2.  The ends are cold welded closed.


· When the test device was sawed open, only a miniscule  
amount of powder came out.  This cannot be the active powder - it  
would have melted as loose powder rather than

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

2013-05-29 Thread Arnaud Kodeck

The EM stimulation may not need to be at a high frequency level. That could
be superwave as discussed here
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg80933.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg80933.html.

 

You say that the Ni/H reaction has shown no need of EM stimulation but that
was always at a low rate reaction. The secret Rossi sauce could be somewhere
there. EM stimulation could enhance the rate of the reaction.

 

That's not a fact I know.

  _  

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: mercredi 29 mai 2013 22:14
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

 

Amaud, we do not know this is as a fact. That conclusion is only proposed.
We only know the black box controls the temperature INSIDE, probably in a
complex way.  The Ni-H2 reaction has shown no need in the past for EM
stimulation. In any case, the design limits the frequency to a very narrow
and presumably unproductive range. If Rossi wanted to apply stimulation, he
chose a very poor design, which I doubt he would do if this stimulation were
important.

 

Ed Storms

On May 29, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Arnaud Kodeck wrote:





Ed,

 

I think you forget to add the EM stimulation controlled by the black box
between wall socket and the eCat.

 

Arnaud

  _  

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: mercredi 29 mai 2013 21:53
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

 

Fran, I would not guess how Rossi bonds the powder to the wall, only that
this must be done. A secret sauce is applied before the Ni is placed in the
e-Cat in order to create the NAE. You need to identify how many additional
secret sauces you think are involved. He also places a hydride in the tube
to supply hydrogen. This material also might have an effect.  I suggest
speculation about things we have no way of knowing is not productive. Let's
discuss what is real and required by nature for the observed effect to be
produced. 

 

We know Rossi activates the Ni before it is used, i.e. creates the NAE.

We know this powder must make good thermal contact with the wall.

We know that Ni powder sinters at the temperature being produced.

We know that the NAE is stable at these temperatures. 

We know that the generated power increases with increased temperature.
Therefore, a positive feedback is operating.

We know that Rossi attempts to control this feedback by controlling the
temperature.

We know that the power source responds rapidly to the external temperature.
Therefore, good thermal contact exists between the source and the thermal
sink. 

We can suspect that no additional source of energy or stimulation is applied
to the power source other than temperature.

 

These are the only facts I can identify. Did I miss anything?

 

Ed Storms

 

 

 

On May 29, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:






Ed,

you make a good case that something improves the thermal bond of the powder
to the inner walls.. perhaps the function of the secret sauce.. I don't
recall the volume of the powder used but am under the impression it fills
most of the reactor tube and therefore must also have good thermal bond
through it's own bulk to reach the reactor walls. I think the MAHG was a
weak easily compromised cousin to this device with only a thin sputtered
layer on the inner wall of the tube while Rossi has designed a way to stack
NAE out into a bulk form away from the reactor wall.  I gathered from the
thread that very little powder spilled out when they cut it open after
destruction. so would assume the bonding held the powder inside as a foam or
gelatinous solid? Can we assume the secret sauce must bind the powder into
some form of solid. I am leaning toward an open foam like malted milk balls
but a recent thread also suggested a gelatinous colloid.

Fran

 

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:43 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

 

Bob, this is a good analysis of a possible design.  You are right, the
powder must make good thermal contact with the wall for the nuclear reaction
to be controlled by temperature. Just how Rossi makes this happen is
unknown.  Nevertheless, most of the active nickel must be attached to the
inner wall of the stainless tube. In addition, at the temperatures used, the
Ni powder would sinter and not be easily to remove. 

 

As for modifying the stainless using chemical etch, I doubt this would be
effective.  This texture would have to be active initially and remain
unchanged at high temperature. Such textures are not stable and would not
survive the high temperature. Rossi has done something to the Ni powder that
is very stable and not affected by high temperature.  This fact alone
greatly reduces the possibilities to anyone familiar with the materials
science of this

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: andrewppp removed

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

Perhaps you can invite him back after a bit? Also maybe Abd? I miss him.


I miss Abd too.  I wish he would not post walls of text.  But he always has
good counterarguments to make to rain on one's parade.  This is a useful
service.

Eric

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

You did not use the potassium based secret sauce that Rossi uses.

Without the ability to create potassium clusters, the reaction is weak.
Using only hydrogen clusters will not support a vigorous reaction.


On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 Axil, you make your statements with great certainty. Have you ever
 actually studied Ni and successfully caused LENR? I have and I do not see
 the behavior you claim must occur.

 Ed Storms

 On May 29, 2013, at 2:08 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

 EMF simulation in the CB range will form nanoparticles (aka clusters).
 Potassium is the best candidate for the formation of dynamic NAE through
 nanoparticle formation when stimulated by EMF.


 On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.bewrote:

 **

 Ed,

 ** **

 I think you forget to add the EM stimulation controlled by the black box
 between wall socket and the eCat.

 ** **

 Arnaud
  --

 *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
 *Sent:* mercredi 29 mai 2013 21:53

 *To:* **vortex-l@eskimo.com**
 *Cc:* Edmund Storms
 *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat


 ** **

 Fran, I would not guess how Rossi bonds the powder to the wall, only that
 this must be done. A secret sauce is applied before the Ni is placed in the
 e-Cat in order to create the NAE. You need to identify how many additional
 secret sauces you think are involved. He also places a hydride in the tube
 to supply hydrogen. This material also might have an effect.  I suggest
 speculation about things we have no way of knowing is not productive. Let's
 discuss what is real and required by nature for the observed effect to be
 produced. 

 ** **

 We know Rossi activates the Ni before it is used, i.e. creates the NAE.**
 **

 We know this powder must make good thermal contact with the wall.

 We know that Ni powder sinters at the temperature being produced.

 We know that the NAE is stable at these temperatures. 

 We know that the generated power increases with increased temperature.
 Therefore, a positive feedback is operating.

 We know that Rossi attempts to control this feedback by controlling the
 temperature.

 We know that the power source responds rapidly to the external
 temperature. Therefore, good thermal contact exists between the source and
 the thermal sink. 

 We can suspect that no additional source of energy or stimulation is
 applied to the power source other than temperature.

 ** **

 These are the only facts I can identify. Did I miss anything?

 ** **

 Ed Storms

 ** **

 ** **

 ** **

 On May 29, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:



 

 Ed,

 you make a good case that something improves the thermal bond of the
 powder to the inner walls.. perhaps the function of the secret sauce.. I
 don’t recall the volume of the powder used but am under the impression it
 fills most of the reactor tube and therefore must also have good thermal
 bond through it’s own bulk to reach the reactor walls. I think the MAHG was
 a weak easily compromised cousin to this device with only a thin sputtered
 layer on the inner wall of the tube while Rossi has designed a way to stack
 NAE out into a bulk form away from the reactor wall.  I gathered from the
 thread that very little powder spilled out when they cut it open after
 destruction… so would assume the bonding held the powder inside as a foam
 or gelatinous solid? Can we assume the secret sauce must bind the powder
 into some form of solid. I am leaning toward an open foam like malted milk
 balls but a recent thread also suggested a gelatinous colloid.

 Fran

 ** **

 *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com
 ]
 *Sent:* Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:43 AM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Cc:* Edmund Storms
 *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat
   **

  
 **

 Bob, this is a good analysis of a possible design.  You are right, the
 powder must make good thermal contact with the wall for the nuclear
 reaction to be controlled by temperature. Just how Rossi makes this happen
 is unknown.  Nevertheless, most of the active nickel must be attached to
 the inner wall of the stainless tube. In addition, at the temperatures
 used, the Ni powder would sinter and not be easily to remove. 
 
 **

  
 **

 As for modifying the stainless using chemical etch, I doubt this would be
 effective.  This texture would have to be active initially and remain
 unchanged at high temperature. Such textures are not stable and would not
 survive the high temperature. Rossi has done something to the Ni powder
 that is very stable and not affected by high temperature.  This fact alone
 greatly reduces the possibilities to anyone familiar with the materials
 science of this material. Rossi is gradually letting the cat out of the
 bag, whether he wants

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

Amaud, I have no doubt EM stimulation will enhance the LENR reaction.   
The only question is whether Rossi is successfully applying such  
stimulation. Based on the design of the hot-e-Cat, I do not see any  
indication of EM being applied. The suggestion hat it is being created  
in the black box is pure guess.  Rossi is an engineer. Engineers try  
to make their devices as efficient as possible. This design is not  
efficient for applying EM of any frequency. Therefore, I doubt this is  
being done here.




Ed Storms
On May 29, 2013, at 2:24 PM, Arnaud Kodeck wrote:

The EM stimulation may not need to be at a high frequency level.  
That could be superwave as discussed here http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg80933.html 
.


You say that the Ni/H reaction has shown no need of EM stimulation  
but that was always at a low rate reaction. The secret Rossi sauce  
could be somewhere there. EM stimulation could enhance the rate of  
the reaction.


That’s not a fact I know.
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: mercredi 29 mai 2013 22:14
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

Amaud, we do not know this is as a fact. That conclusion is only  
proposed. We only know the black box controls the temperature  
INSIDE, probably in a complex way.  The Ni-H2 reaction has shown no  
need in the past for EM stimulation. In any case, the design limits  
the frequency to a very narrow and presumably unproductive range. If  
Rossi wanted to apply stimulation, he chose a very poor design,  
which I doubt he would do if this stimulation were important.


Ed Storms
On May 29, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Arnaud Kodeck wrote:


Ed,

I think you forget to add the EM stimulation controlled by the black  
box between wall socket and the eCat.


Arnaud
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: mercredi 29 mai 2013 21:53
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

Fran, I would not guess how Rossi bonds the powder to the wall, only  
that this must be done. A secret sauce is applied before the Ni is  
placed in the e-Cat in order to create the NAE. You need to identify  
how many additional secret sauces you think are involved. He also  
places a hydride in the tube to supply hydrogen. This material also  
might have an effect.  I suggest speculation about things we have no  
way of knowing is not productive. Let's discuss what is real and  
required by nature for the observed effect to be produced.


We know Rossi activates the Ni before it is used, i.e. creates the  
NAE.

We know this powder must make good thermal contact with the wall.
We know that Ni powder sinters at the temperature being produced.
We know that the NAE is stable at these temperatures.
We know that the generated power increases with increased  
temperature. Therefore, a positive feedback is operating.
We know that Rossi attempts to control this feedback by controlling  
the temperature.
We know that the power source responds rapidly to the external  
temperature. Therefore, good thermal contact exists between the  
source and the thermal sink.
We can suspect that no additional source of energy or stimulation is  
applied to the power source other than temperature.


These are the only facts I can identify. Did I miss anything?

Ed Storms



On May 29, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:



Ed,
you make a good case that something improves the thermal bond of the  
powder to the inner walls.. perhaps the function of the secret  
sauce.. I don’t recall the volume of the powder used but am under  
the impression it fills most of the reactor tube and therefore must  
also have good thermal bond through it’s own bulk to reach the  
reactor walls. I think the MAHG was a weak easily compromised cousin  
to this device with only a thin sputtered layer on the inner wall of  
the tube while Rossi has designed a way to stack NAE out into a bulk  
form away from the reactor wall.  I gathered from the thread that  
very little powder spilled out when they cut it open after  
destruction… so would assume the bonding held the powder inside as a  
foam or gelatinous solid? Can we assume the secret sauce must bind  
the powder into some form of solid. I am leaning toward an open foam  
like malted milk balls but a recent thread also suggested a  
gelatinous colloid.

Fran

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:43 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

Bob, this is a good analysis of a possible design.  You are right,  
the powder must make good thermal contact with the wall for the  
nuclear reaction to be controlled by temperature. Just how Rossi  
makes this happen is unknown.  Nevertheless, most of the active  
nickel must be attached to the inner wall of the stainless tube. In  
addition, at the temperatures

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

Jed asked:

Question: assuming it really is 0.3 g, what is the likely volume? 

Nowhere near enough to fill the cylinder. 

*Why such a large cylinder?*

 

- most likely would be to get the necessary surface area to adequately
transfer the heat from interior to exterior.

 

-mark 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 1:11 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat

 

If the powder sinters, I suppose:

 

That's good because it is what makes the powder stick to the wall. 

 

That's bad because it reduces surface area. This is what caused Arata's pure
Pd black cells to stop working after a while.

 

Takahashi said it was not the high temperature but rather the chemical
action of hydrogen on the metal that caused the particles to stick together.

 

I guess when they open the cell they have to scrape out the powder.

Question: assuming it really is 0.3 g, what is the likely volume? Nowhere
near enough to fill the cylinder. Why such a large cylinder? Maybe because
that's what he has in stock.

- Jed

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat