Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat
I found that Nelson report reporting KCO3 usage by DGT http://ecatnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Summary-of-Visit-to-Defkalion.pdf Key point claimed by DGT, like did ENEA at ICCF15 is that NAE are linked to crystallography structure. ENEA talk of 100 vs 101 (seems to be cutting plan family, but I'm incompetent). DGT added they need of some vacancies in the crystal... Celani treatment should be studied around that idea maybe. 2013/5/29 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com OK, can anyone from DGT verify that potassium is required to make Ni nuclear active? If so, what chemical form is used? Ed Storms On May 29, 2013, at 2:37 PM, Axil Axil wrote: DGT has already stated that they use potassium. On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On May 29, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Axil Axil wrote: You did not use the potassium based secret sauce that Rossi uses. How do you know his sauce is potassium based? Without the ability to create potassium clusters, the reaction is weak. Using only hydrogen clusters will not support a vigorous reaction. Again you say this with great certainty. Have you actually tried this idea and does it work? If so, please publish the results. Ed Storms 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:
Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: andrewppp removed
I support that ideas. As you decide anyway. 2013/5/29 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: 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 CB radio RF generation
If CB signal controls the eCat (which I doubt) then the problems of overheating, positive feedback will be solved easily. This is not the case. Otherwise a CB radio amateur could solve the eCat control issue if it was so easy and COP infinite. If EM enhances the reaction rate, then it should at a low frequency regarding the material used by Rossi to make its eCat. _ From: David L Babcock [mailto:ol...@rochester.rr.com] Sent: jeudi 30 mai 2013 02:57 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat CB radio RF generation If plenty of power is available, and stringent RF interference specs don't need to be met, the simple wires will work fine. But I must admit an engineer would always use a coax for such a task. But maybe not an engineer who is trying to obsfucate On 5/29/2013 4:47 PM, Arnaud Kodeck wrote: To bring CB signal, the wires have to be shielded. The impedance must match in all system. Attenuation of CB signal must be kept as low as possible . The simple wires from the black box to the eCat doesn't meet those requirements. It's common sense for an EE. _ From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: mercredi 29 mai 2013 22:43 To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat Why else would Rossi say that the output of his control box was a trade secret? A DC feed of a internal heater is not a trade secret. On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be wrote: Axil, I doubt that the actual design of the eCat is able to bring CB range signal from electrical heating system. Or where else ? _ From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: mercredi 29 mai 2013 22:08 To: vortex-l Subject: 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.be wrote: Ed, I think you forget to add the EM stimulation controlled by the black box between wall socket and the eCat. Arnaud
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
Right, the brethren has so far brought us fission reactors, nuclear bombs
and hot fu$ion, crowning achievements for our children
Stewart
On Thursday, May 30, 2013, Eric Walker wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Jed Rothwell
jedrothw...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'jedrothw...@gmail.com');
wrote:
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.
This is, unfortunately, proof of their being out of their depth. They
would do well to consult their brethren in physics in order to forestall
their future abasement and to allow them to be led back to the straight and
narrow.
Eric
[Vo]:Removing nickel oxide layer
Just buying nickel micro powder, I assume this comes slightly oxidized. How would that be removed as a first step in preparing nickel powder for LENR experiments? Just heat in in a hydrogen environment at temperatures of a few hundred degrees C?
Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: andrewppp removed
I support him back. He is a a man of peace and understanding abd was defending the religion of his and his friends. 2013/5/30 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com Dear Bill, Please bring Abd back! He knows a lot LENR and his unique error was answering to a nasty troll. Peter On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:14 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: I agree with DaveR… ** ** Andrew and Duncan had only been actively contributing (and yes, mostly useful) for a week or two and the insults and snide remarks had already started... not one, but several. That is not disputable… ** ** BOTH parties could be right, and the difference is in a misunderstanding of what the other party was proposing. Dave based his position on what he knows to be sound engineering principles and built a Spice model which verifies his understanding. He asked them to do the same. They leveled more insults and did not produce a model to support their position. Both are EEs and should have been able to build a Spice model in minutes. I still think that one was talking apples and the other oranges, and the comparison of models would have revealed the differences and settled the matter. They chose to be arrogant and disrespectful; Dave maintained a respectful tone the entire time… easy, and correct decision by Bill. ** ** I too would welcome them back provided they build the spice model, then they exchange models and report back as to either an error in the model, or that there are differences in the models which would explain why the disagreement. ** ** -Mark Iverson ** ** *From:* David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:52 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: andrewppp removed ** ** Jed, I vote to keep him off for a while. Perhaps you missed his insults toward me and others on the list. What I find particularly funny is that he did not even realize that what I stated was true! If he eventually makes that spice model that I begged him and his friend Duncan to do, he might want to apologize. I built a model in less than 15 minutes that showed my position was completely valid. A cooling off period might change his attitude. How about a condition attached to his return:Build and test that spice model. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 4:04 pm Subject: 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 ** ** -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Forbes: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! ....
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:11 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: The theories of hot fusion were built up from research on plasmas and they do work well when dealing with plasmas, but LENR is NOT occurring in a plasma. Are you sure? Maybe not a plasma; but, possibly close. DGT speculates that highly energized hydrogen has the electron in a extreme elliptical orbit and, when at its apogee, the nucleus is exposed for a brief period. But that is only one of a plethora of theories that we read about on Vortex-L. :-)
Re: [Vo]:Removing nickel oxide layer
Nickel oxide is removed pretty easily in H2 at about 310C. Once it is removed, you will see the sintering begin at the same temperature. The clean Ni surfaces begin to bond and the particles begin to grow. That is why, in part you must add the catalyst powder - to prevent the wholesale sintering of the Ni. The catalyst nanopowder I have been experimenting with is Fe2O3 nanopowder. The oxide nanopowders are much less expensive and are less dangerous to handle. Still, they must be handled in a dry glove box because the humidity will cause the nanopowder to agglomerate by hydrophyllic bonding. If the nanopowder agglomerates, you may be unable to get the nanoscale mixing onto your Ni powder. Bob On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 5:54 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: Just buying nickel micro powder, I assume this comes slightly oxidized. How would that be removed as a first step in preparing nickel powder for LENR experiments? Just heat in in a hydrogen environment at temperatures of a few hundred degrees C? -- Regards, Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:GE hits milestone with laser enrichment of uranium
Yes - not a new idea. I remember some of my former colleagues working on this in the 1980s in Harwell (UK). It was supposed to be a hush-hush project - but then one day in '88 (I think) they turned up on TV talking all about it! (on BBC's Tomorrow's World). Hmm. So 25 years later it might actually work. ;-) From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com I read an article about this possibility a number of years ago. I have been wondering when it would rear its head again and hoping that it might not happen.
Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: andrewppp removed
Abd seemed reasonable and respectable. On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: I support him back. He is a a man of peace and understanding abd was defending the religion of his and his friends. 2013/5/30 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com Dear Bill, Please bring Abd back! He knows a lot LENR and his unique error was answering to a nasty troll. Peter On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:14 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: I agree with DaveR… ** ** Andrew and Duncan had only been actively contributing (and yes, mostly useful) for a week or two and the insults and snide remarks had already started... not one, but several. That is not disputable… ** ** BOTH parties could be right, and the difference is in a misunderstanding of what the other party was proposing. Dave based his position on what he knows to be sound engineering principles and built a Spice model which verifies his understanding. He asked them to do the same. They leveled more insults and did not produce a model to support their position. Both are EEs and should have been able to build a Spice model in minutes. I still think that one was talking apples and the other oranges, and the comparison of models would have revealed the differences and settled the matter. They chose to be arrogant and disrespectful; Dave maintained a respectful tone the entire time… easy, and correct decision by Bill. ** ** I too would welcome them back provided they build the spice model, then they exchange models and report back as to either an error in the model, or that there are differences in the models which would explain why the disagreement. ** ** -Mark Iverson ** ** *From:* David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:52 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: andrewppp removed ** ** Jed, I vote to keep him off for a while. Perhaps you missed his insults toward me and others on the list. What I find particularly funny is that he did not even realize that what I stated was true! If he eventually makes that spice model that I begged him and his friend Duncan to do, he might want to apologize. I built a model in less than 15 minutes that showed my position was completely valid. A cooling off period might change his attitude. How about a condition attached to his return:Build and test that spice model. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 4:04 pm Subject: 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 ** ** -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:19 PM Eric Walker wrote: ** - 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. The ends were cone-shaped AISI 316 steel caps that were hot-hammered into the ends. I don't think they were welded. This hot-hammering of the cone-shaped insert is a description of a type of cold welding. Cold welding is when two metal pieces are scrubbed together with great force, usually heated, causing them to permanently bond. The cold part is that it does not involve melting the metal to provide the welded bond.
Re: [Vo]:Removing nickel oxide layer
That confirms it indeed, I wasn't aware Ni powder already sinters at around 300C. Good to know. I wonder whether silica would do the job to prevent sintering of Ni (powder or layered on top) Recently I read Celani's patent application WO2011016014, where nickel powder is oxidized and then a silica layer is applied and baked together. Celani claims fast en large absorbtion of Hydrogen by this process. Link to the patent application: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detailPdf.jsf?ia=IB2010053585docIdPdf=id0012991132name=(WO2011016014)THIN%20NANO%20STRUCTURED%20LAYERS%20WITH%20HIGH%20CATALYTIC%20ACTIVITY%20ON%20NICKEL%20OR%20NICKEL%20ALLOY%20SURFACES%20AND%20PROCESS%20FOR%20THEIR%20PREPARATIONwoNum=WO2011016014prevRecNum=1nextRecNum=3recNum=1queryString=IN%3A%28celani+francesco%29+office=sortOption=Pub+Date+DescprevFilter=maxRec=3# On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote: Nickel oxide is removed pretty easily in H2 at about 310C. Once it is removed, you will see the sintering begin at the same temperature. The clean Ni surfaces begin to bond and the particles begin to grow. That is why, in part you must add the catalyst powder - to prevent the wholesale sintering of the Ni. The catalyst nanopowder I have been experimenting with is Fe2O3 nanopowder. The oxide nanopowders are much less expensive and are less dangerous to handle. Still, they must be handled in a dry glove box because the humidity will cause the nanopowder to agglomerate by hydrophyllic bonding. If the nanopowder agglomerates, you may be unable to get the nanoscale mixing onto your Ni powder. Bob On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 5:54 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: Just buying nickel micro powder, I assume this comes slightly oxidized. How would that be removed as a first step in preparing nickel powder for LENR experiments? Just heat in in a hydrogen environment at temperatures of a few hundred degrees C? -- Regards, Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:Removing nickel oxide layer
Teslaalse, If you have the glove box I would recommend doing all prep in an inert cover like helium. It is a pet theory but I am positing that ambient gases limit the milling or chemical activation of metal powders by reacting with the geometry formation to dissipate the casimir force... closing the cavity entirely or growing perpendicular whiskers between to dissipate the force. The Casimir force is responsible for stiction but changes in this force are responsible for catalytic action like we see at openings and defects in nanotubes.. These changes scale at the cube of distance between parallel boundaries becoming the most powerful force of attraction below the tens of nanometers scale that we call stiction.. It is logical this force continues to scale even smaller but there is little talk of Casimir fprce below the nano scale because IMHO it is already normalized into our science as an additional binding force which helps molten metals congeal into a solid without pico bubbles and why skeletal cats have to be formed by multiple steps where lower melting point metals have to be leached out of higher melting point metals to form activated cavities. It is a an extra step but along with storing the powder in a hydrogen atmosphere for several weeks to get the FCC - 14 to 1 lattice structure Jones mentioned yesterday you could greatly improve your odds of starting out with a good LENR candidate. Fran From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 7:40 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Removing nickel oxide layer Nickel oxide is removed pretty easily in H2 at about 310C. Once it is removed, you will see the sintering begin at the same temperature. The clean Ni surfaces begin to bond and the particles begin to grow. That is why, in part you must add the catalyst powder - to prevent the wholesale sintering of the Ni. The catalyst nanopowder I have been experimenting with is Fe2O3 nanopowder. The oxide nanopowders are much less expensive and are less dangerous to handle. Still, they must be handled in a dry glove box because the humidity will cause the nanopowder to agglomerate by hydrophyllic bonding. If the nanopowder agglomerates, you may be unable to get the nanoscale mixing onto your Ni powder. Bob On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 5:54 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.commailto:robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote: Just buying nickel micro powder, I assume this comes slightly oxidized. How would that be removed as a first step in preparing nickel powder for LENR experiments? Just heat in in a hydrogen environment at temperatures of a few hundred degrees C? -- Regards, Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:Removing nickel oxide layer
A glovebox filled with inert gas would help, I agree, but most of the Ni Powder is shipped in non cealed jars or even envelopes so they are already oxidized at arrival. I also read that CO gas would help removing Ni oxide, perhaps at lower temperatures. CO gas is tricky stuff though. Maybe heating Ni oxidized powder in higher pressure Hydrogen will allow removal at lower temperatures as well. On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Teslaalse, If you have the glove box I would recommend doing all prep in an inert cover like helium. It is a pet theory but I am positing that ambient gases limit the milling or chemical activation of metal powders by reacting with the geometry formation to dissipate the casimir force… closing the cavity entirely or growing perpendicular whiskers between to dissipate the force. The Casimir force is responsible for stiction but changes in this force are responsible for catalytic action like we see at openings and defects in nanotubes.. These changes scale at the cube of distance between parallel boundaries becoming the most powerful force of attraction below the tens of nanometers scale that we call stiction.. It is logical this force continues to scale even smaller but there is little talk of Casimir fprce below the nano scale because IMHO it is already normalized into our science as an additional binding force which helps molten metals congeal into a solid without pico bubbles and why skeletal cats have to be formed by multiple steps where lower melting point metals have to be leached out of higher melting point metals to form activated cavities. It is a an extra step but along with storing the powder in a hydrogen atmosphere for several weeks to get the FCC – 14 to 1 lattice structure Jones mentioned yesterday you could greatly improve your odds of starting out with a good LENR candidate. Fran *From:* Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2013 7:40 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Removing nickel oxide layer ** ** Nickel oxide is removed pretty easily in H2 at about 310C. Once it is removed, you will see the sintering begin at the same temperature. The clean Ni surfaces begin to bond and the particles begin to grow. That is why, in part you must add the catalyst powder - to prevent the wholesale sintering of the Ni. ** ** The catalyst nanopowder I have been experimenting with is Fe2O3 nanopowder. The oxide nanopowders are much less expensive and are less dangerous to handle. Still, they must be handled in a dry glove box because the humidity will cause the nanopowder to agglomerate by hydrophyllic bonding. If the nanopowder agglomerates, you may be unable to get the nanoscale mixing onto your Ni powder. ** ** Bob On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 5:54 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote: Just buying nickel micro powder, I assume this comes slightly oxidized.*** * How would that be removed as a first step in preparing nickel powder for LENR experiments? Just heat in in a hydrogen environment at temperatures of a few hundred degrees C? ** ** ** ** ** ** -- Regards, Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:Removing nickel oxide layer
Be careful, Ni powder is Dangerous Then Inhaled: On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:54:41 +0200, Teslaalset wrote: Just buying nickel micro powder, I assume this comes slightly oxidized. How would that be removed as a first step in preparing nickel powder for LENR experiments? Just heat in in a hydrogen environment at temperatures of a few hundred degrees C?
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:51 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Right, the brethren has so far brought us fission reactors, nuclear bombs and hot fu$ion, crowning achievements for our children I should clarify that I was trying to reproduce the inevitable and circular logic that some people will draw upon in order to respond to the point Jed made about Elforsk's engineers liking the May 2013 test. I should also add that I have nothing against physicists; I'm just using a little rhetorical exaggeration about engineers versus physicists in order to tendentiously make a point. This is in connection with what I wrote here: This is, unfortunately, proof of their being out of their depth. They would do well to consult their brethren in physics in order to forestall their future abasement and to allow them to be led back to the straight and narrow.
[Vo]:Watson, here
This must have been what Hoyt was talking about http://www.technologyreview.com/news/515296/trained-on-jeopardy-watson-is-he aded-for-your-pocket/?utm_campaign=newslettersutm_source=newsletter-weekly- computingutm_medium=emailutm_content=20130530 attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
Here is the latest column from Gibbs: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/30/rossis-a-fraud-no-hes-not-yes-he-is-no-he-isnt/ This is pretty good, but it includes a profound misunderstanding of the scientific method. Gibbs quoted someone and wrote: Cold fusion has no definitive theory – as yet, but the experimental evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a table-top Unfortunately that’s not a sound argument … in fact, it’s not really an argument at all; it merely hand waves away the science. That is completely wrong. In experimental science you never need to explain how something works in order to confirm it is real. You just need to replicate it and show there is no error in the instruments or techniques. This is *not* hand waving. If it were, no one would accept that high temperature superconductivity exists. Before 1952, no one would have believed that cells reproduce, and before 1939, no one would have believed that the sun is undergoing a nuclear reaction. In science, nearly all discoveries begin when researchers first detect and then confirm an anomaly. That is, something that cannot be explained by theory. A theory is then developed or modified to explain the anomaly. You can never reject an anomaly because it seems to violate theory. When theory and replicated experiments conflict, the experiments always win, theory always loses. If we abandon this rule, or if we call it hand waving as Gibbs does here, progress in science will come to a halt. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: That is completely wrong. In experimental science you never need to explain how something works in order to confirm it is real. You just need to replicate it and show there is no error in the instruments or techniques. The map = Theory The territory = Experiments It's not on the map = No good theory If it's not on the map, it can't exist! (Our map makers are very good.) = It doesn't fit physics thus it's pseudo-science! (Our scientists are very good.) -- Berke Durak
RE: [Vo]:Removing nickel oxide layer
yes, be very careful. I (and at least two others I know have had health issues resulting from nano nickel (pulmonary hypertension in my case, numbness, BP problems...). The micron and are not too bad but the nano is HAZARDOUS. Use a glove box, hood or something similar. I started with a sandblasting box (used for painting and sanding but extra epoxy sealed and vented outside) and I now use a hood outside. The fine stuff gets through the smallest holes/pores,... The hood box I inherited from Les Case was covered with fine Ni powder at the top. It takes a lot to remove once it is on a surface. (clean then paint over). You want to keep pressures and flows away from you. Yes if you buy Ni powders (instead of making them in situ) they come oxidized. You can check by the resistance. Lightly heating with a stream of hydrogen (or hydrogen + N2 or Ar or He) will remove it. I would avoid using CO. It works but is hazardous (look up nickel carbonyl). You also can do it with a stream of methane (but not the S containing kind from city lines - it poisons the surface). I support those wishing to do experiments. However, I would recommend you do the Ni in Carbon instead. Less power density but much healthier until you get your technique down. The pure Ni nano stuff always sintered on me and can auto ignite in air after H loading. Other routes are via the ZrO2 (yttrium doped YSZ proton conductive) or the silica gel (like Jim Patterson would use). Those minimize the sintering problems. Be careful and safe. Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 15:32:39 +0200 From: torulf.gr...@bredband.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Removing nickel oxide layer Be careful, Ni powder is Dangerous Then Inhaled: On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:54:41 +0200, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote: Just buying nickel micro powder, I assume this comes slightly oxidized. How would that be removed as a first step in preparing nickel powder for LENR experiments? Just heat in in a hydrogen environment at temperatures of a few hundred degrees C?
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
In a tragically amusing, black-humor, sort of way, the exact inverse problem appears now to be going on in the neurophysiology of cognition: Robert Hecht-Nielsen -- one of those responsible for resurrecting the field of artificial neural networks two decades after it was deep-sixed by MIT in the 1960s -- has recently come up with what he calls Confabulation Theory which appears to fit what is known about the neurophysiology of human cognition very well. It makes specific, falsifiable predictions about what to look for in further neurophysiology experiments and can be simulated on computers to produce human-quality natural language production. But, as he points out in the book Confabulation Theory, a typical researcher in the neurophysiology of cognition must run a gauntlet of institutional trials which prevents him from departing from the intensely empirical bias of the field until at least age 40, by which time he has been so enmeshed in the biases of the field that to seek theoretic consilience with work outside the field -- even as closely related as artificial neural networks -- is virtually out of the question. On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: That is completely wrong. In experimental science you never need to explain how something works in order to confirm it is real. You just need to replicate it and show there is no error in the instruments or techniques. The map = Theory The territory = Experiments It's not on the map = No good theory If it's not on the map, it can't exist! (Our map makers are very good.) = It doesn't fit physics thus it's pseudo-science! (Our scientists are very good.) -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Watson, here
Here's the thing about Watson: this is a production model computer. It is not just a one-time tour de force computer that beats the world chess champion or wins at Jeopardy. I do not know if the prototype model that won at Jeopardy is what IBM will sell, but it is clear they intend to start selling machines based on this technology, with this kind of computing power. They are selling them for practical applications, for real money. This is not a laboratory curiosity. This puts IBM back in the leading role in the computer business. IBM has never had the most advanced, cutting edge technology. That was never their forte. They had the most reliable and the most practical machines up until the late 1980s. Now they are positioning themselves at the cutting edge. From a business point of view I would say this is remarkable, and I would say they have guts. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
Cool, this phenom obviously requires a lot of heads from different
disciplines to figure it out since it does not appear to follow the
straight and narrow from what I see.
On Thursday, May 30, 2013, Eric Walker wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:51 AM, ChemE Stewart
cheme...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'cheme...@gmail.com');
wrote:
Right, the brethren has so far brought us fission reactors, nuclear bombs
and hot fu$ion, crowning achievements for our children
I should clarify that I was trying to reproduce the inevitable and
circular logic that some people will draw upon in order to respond to the
point Jed made about Elforsk's engineers liking the May 2013 test. I
should also add that I have nothing against physicists; I'm just using a
little rhetorical exaggeration about engineers versus physicists in order
to tendentiously make a point.
This is in connection with what I wrote here:
This is, unfortunately, proof of their being out of their depth. They
would do well to consult their brethren in physics in order to forestall
their future abasement and to allow them to be led back to the straight and
narrow.
RE: [Vo]:Watson, here
Two more questions to ask Watson: 1. What is Rossi's catalyst? 2. Is it warmer in the city or in the summer :-) . From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 7:29 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Watson, here Here's the thing about Watson: this is a production model computer. It is not just a one-time tour de force computer that beats the world chess champion or wins at Jeopardy. I do not know if the prototype model that won at Jeopardy is what IBM will sell, but it is clear they intend to start selling machines based on this technology, with this kind of computing power. They are selling them for practical applications, for real money. This is not a laboratory curiosity. This puts IBM back in the leading role in the computer business. IBM has never had the most advanced, cutting edge technology. That was never their forte. They had the most reliable and the most practical machines up until the late 1980s. Now they are positioning themselves at the cutting edge. From a business point of view I would say this is remarkable, and I would say they have guts. - Jed
[Vo]:Recalescence ECat
“Recalescence” is very important in understanding the Rossi effect, so I have removed typos and added to a previous posting - in order to have this post indexed in the archive. From: a former commentator First, the fact that this *source* of energy is thousands of times more dense than chemical yet it still has to be plugged in (to a high power line, no less) will turn most observers away. It is not necessarily true that “most” observers will be turned away - only those whose ability to deduce and extrapolate from known physics is severely challenged. For instance, an atomic bomb is initiated by a chemical explosion, and it is thousands of time more energy-dense than its trigger. A hydrogen bomb is initiated by an atomic bomb, and it is much more energy dense. ICF or inertial confinement fusion is triggered by a beam line, but hopefully there is net excess energy available, even if it can never be cost effective. LENR will certainly be at the same level of paradigm shift – or greater. Many observers do not have much difficulty extrapolating from a known phenomenon into another kind of related reaction, especially if mass-to-energy conversion is also present. The new phenomenon in this case will be ongoing instead one-time- but still requiring a substantial trigger event. How difficult is that extrapolation? Grade school level. If one understands “recalescence” and can extrapolate it into a reaction which is cycled around the phase-change in a continuing manner, then the rationale of “adding energy to gain energy” is almost obvious. Recalescence is an apparent thermal anomaly seen every day in a steel mill. It is a sudden and sometimes drastic increase in temperature that occurs while metal is cooling. It can appear to be a violation of conservation of energy but it is not. And of course, recalescence is a one-time phenomenon in a net-cooling cycle, so there is no violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics. The energy of phase change is latent and often surprising. However, there would be a real anomaly if the phenomenon were sequentially repeated using a “thermal ratcheting” technique to the extent that the source of mass-to-energy conversion can be identified. Next, to complete the explanation - we will need to demonstrate how mass is converted into energy with nickel-hydrogen specifically - in a order to change a one-time recalescence event into a succession of events which happen around the phase-change and depend on adding energy to get net energy. This can be answered tentatively - and there are numerous theories for gain, none of which predominates at present. Most of them involve conversion of mass to energy, and many predict a novel kind of nuclear reaction; so that, in the end, the Rossi effect is not too different from the metaphor of the A-bomb or ICF in requiring energy to achieve most energy. Rossi recognized the dynamics of the base-level phenomenon by labeling the reactor ECat – or energy catalyzer, and not HCat or hydrogen catalyzer…since it requires trigger energy to produce more net energy than the trigger. That would be true even if ECat can indeed operate in an infinite COP regime. Rossi says this infinite COP mode is possible, but there is adequate reason to be skeptical of operation without any energy input, unless the trigger derives from multiple Ecats operating together in a situation where one triggers the other. This lingering confusion over his pronouncements is emblematic of the Rossi-problem. He has stumbled onto something that he does not fully understand, and he continually makes optimistic pronouncements that he cannot prove. He is a quirky inventor, not a bona fide scientist. The mainstream of academia has a very difficult time with quirky inventors – going back to Tesla. Rossi is somewhat of a Tesla figure, in many respects. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Removing nickel oxide layer
Teslaalse, I worry that the sintering is a result of oxidizing and cleaning it that way would destroy the geometry you are trying to retain, I would think there should be a chemical way to deoxygenate your powder in the glove and then let it dry in the inert atmosphere. A small ball mill would be an interesting toy to add to the box as well since any new surfaces exposed or cleaned mechanically would be prevented from reacting with ambient. Fran From: Teslaalset [mailto:robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:13 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Removing nickel oxide layer A glovebox filled with inert gas would help, I agree, but most of the Ni Powder is shipped in non cealed jars or even envelopes so they are already oxidized at arrival. I also read that CO gas would help removing Ni oxide, perhaps at lower temperatures. CO gas is tricky stuff though. Maybe heating Ni oxidized powder in higher pressure Hydrogen will allow removal at lower temperatures as well. On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.commailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Teslaalse, If you have the glove box I would recommend doing all prep in an inert cover like helium. It is a pet theory but I am positing that ambient gases limit the milling or chemical activation of metal powders by reacting with the geometry formation to dissipate the casimir force... closing the cavity entirely or growing perpendicular whiskers between to dissipate the force. The Casimir force is responsible for stiction but changes in this force are responsible for catalytic action like we see at openings and defects in nanotubes.. These changes scale at the cube of distance between parallel boundaries becoming the most powerful force of attraction below the tens of nanometers scale that we call stiction.. It is logical this force continues to scale even smaller but there is little talk of Casimir fprce below the nano scale because IMHO it is already normalized into our science as an additional binding force which helps molten metals congeal into a solid without pico bubbles and why skeletal cats have to be formed by multiple steps where lower melting point metals have to be leached out of higher melting point metals to form activated cavities. It is a an extra step but along with storing the powder in a hydrogen atmosphere for several weeks to get the FCC - 14 to 1 lattice structure Jones mentioned yesterday you could greatly improve your odds of starting out with a good LENR candidate. Fran From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.commailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 7:40 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Removing nickel oxide layer Nickel oxide is removed pretty easily in H2 at about 310C. Once it is removed, you will see the sintering begin at the same temperature. The clean Ni surfaces begin to bond and the particles begin to grow. That is why, in part you must add the catalyst powder - to prevent the wholesale sintering of the Ni. The catalyst nanopowder I have been experimenting with is Fe2O3 nanopowder. The oxide nanopowders are much less expensive and are less dangerous to handle. Still, they must be handled in a dry glove box because the humidity will cause the nanopowder to agglomerate by hydrophyllic bonding. If the nanopowder agglomerates, you may be unable to get the nanoscale mixing onto your Ni powder. Bob On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 5:54 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.commailto:robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote: Just buying nickel micro powder, I assume this comes slightly oxidized. How would that be removed as a first step in preparing nickel powder for LENR experiments? Just heat in in a hydrogen environment at temperatures of a few hundred degrees C? -- Regards, Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
Harry, imagine balls held in line by springs. If the end ball is pull away with a force and let go, a resonance wave will pass down the line. Each ball will alternately move away and then toward its neighbor. If outside energy is supplied, this resonance will continue. If not, it will damp out. At this stage, this is a purely mechanical action that is well understood. In the case of the Hydroton, the outside energy is temperature. The temperature creates random vibration of atoms, which is focused along the length of the molecule. Again, this is normal and well understood behavior. The strange behavior starts once the nuclei can get within a critical distance of each other as a result of the resonance. This distance is less than is possible in any other material because of the high concentration of negative charge that can exist in this structure and environment. The barrier is not eliminated. It is only reduced enough to allow the distance to become small enough so that the two nuclei can see and respond. The response is to emit a photon from each nuclei because this process lowers the energy of the system. The Hydroton allows the Coulomb barrier to be reduced enough for the nuclei to respond and emit excess energy. Because the resonance immediately increases the distance, the ability or need to lose energy is lost before all the extra energy can be emitted. If the distance did not increased, hot fusion would result. The distance is again reduced, and another small burst of energy is emitted. This process continues until ALL energy is emitted and the intervening electron is sucked into the final product. I might add, all theories require a similar process. All theories require a group of hydron be assembled, which requires emission of Gibbs energy. Once assembled, the fusion process must take place in stages to avoid the hot fusion result, as happens when the nuclei get close using a muon and without the ability to limit the process. Unfortunately, the other theories ignore these requirements. The proton has nothing to do with the work done at each step. This work comes from the temperature. The photon results because the assembly has too much mass-energy for the distance between the nuclei. If the nuclei touched, the assembly would have 24 MeV of excess mass-energy if they were deuterons. If they are close but not touching, the stable mass-energy would be less. At a critical distance short of actually touching, the nuclei can know that they have too much mass energy. How they know this is the magic that CF has revealed. Ed Storms On May 29, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Ed, the chemistry is way beyond me so I can't judge if the configuration is plausible. I bow to your expertise in this area. What really interests me is the resonance model you proposed to explain the missing gamma. If the protons are progressively forced together in steps, the work required with each step rises geometrically. However, it seems to me that fusion is unlikely to result from this model unless the energy of the emitted photon exceeds the work done at each step. I haven't seen this point expressed in your posts but perhaps I just don't understand your model. Anyway, I think the coulomb barrier problem is fundamentally more important then the missing gamma issue, in the sense that a cogent solution to the first problem will yield a cogent solution to the second problem. harry On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: 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
[Vo]:Pre-loaded hydrogen fuel advancing technology
It is amazing that even though the science is still a mystery, there are increasing levels of engineering advancements building the technology. Wish I had time to study more http://coldfusionnow.org/pre-loaded-hydrogen-fuel-an-engineering-answer-for-efficiency-ease-and-safety/ -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
I wrote that quote... Cold fusion has no definitive theory – as yet, but the experimental evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a table-top http://coldfusionnow.org/discovery-news-misinforms-on-cold-fusion-again/ .. and stand by it. On 5/30/13 7:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Here is the latest column from Gibbs: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/30/rossis-a-fraud-no-hes-not-yes-he-is-no-he-isnt/ This is pretty good, but it includes a profound misunderstanding of the scientific method. Gibbs quoted someone and wrote: Cold fusion has no definitive theory – as yet, but the experimental evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a table-top Unfortunately that’s not a sound argument … in fact, it’s not really an argument at all; it merely hand waves away the science. That is completely wrong. In experimental science you never need to explain how something works in order to confirm it is real. You just need to replicate it and show there is no error in the instruments or techniques. This is _not_ hand waving. If it were, no one would accept that high temperature superconductivity exists. Before 1952, no one would have believed that cells reproduce, and before 1939, no one would have believed that the sun is undergoing a nuclear reaction. In science, nearly all discoveries begin when researchers first detect and then confirm an anomaly. That is, something that cannot be explained by theory. A theory is then developed or modified to explain the anomaly. You can never reject an anomaly because it seems to violate theory. When theory and replicated experiments conflict, the experiments always win, theory always loses. If we abandon this rule, or if we call it hand waving as Gibbs does here, progress in science will come to a halt. - Jed -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
RE: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
Ruby: I don't think Jed was criticizing your statement, Cold fusion has no definitive theory - as yet, but the experimental evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a table-top it was Gibbs' statement after it which was: Unfortunately that's not a sound argument. Jed rightfully criticizes Gibbs' statement because it implies that without a definitive theory, experimental evidence has little weight. It is a sore point with all LENR followers because it is the opposite of what science is all about; if repeatable experimental evidence contradicts theory, then theory may need to be revised/replaced. Keep up the fight! -Mark Iverson From: Ruby [mailto:r...@hush.com] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:14 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't! I wrote that quote... Cold fusion has no definitive theory - as yet, but the experimental evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a table-top http://coldfusionnow.org/discovery-news-misinforms-on-cold-fusion-again/ .. and stand by it. On 5/30/13 7:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Here is the latest column from Gibbs: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/30/rossis-a-fraud-no-hes-not-y es-he-is-no-he-isnt/ This is pretty good, but it includes a profound misunderstanding of the scientific method. Gibbs quoted someone and wrote: Cold fusion has no definitive theory - as yet, but the experimental evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a table-top Unfortunately that's not a sound argument . in fact, it's not really an argument at all; it merely hand waves away the science. That is completely wrong. In experimental science you never need to explain how something works in order to confirm it is real. You just need to replicate it and show there is no error in the instruments or techniques. This is not hand waving. If it were, no one would accept that high temperature superconductivity exists. Before 1952, no one would have believed that cells reproduce, and before 1939, no one would have believed that the sun is undergoing a nuclear reaction. In science, nearly all discoveries begin when researchers first detect and then confirm an anomaly. That is, something that cannot be explained by theory. A theory is then developed or modified to explain the anomaly. You can never reject an anomaly because it seems to violate theory. When theory and replicated experiments conflict, the experiments always win, theory always loses. If we abandon this rule, or if we call it hand waving as Gibbs does here, progress in science will come to a halt. - Jed -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
On 5/30/2013 8:27 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: it was Gibbs’ statement after it which was: “Unfortunately that’s not a sound argument…” Gibbs did not write that. Jed did. - Joe
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
On 5/30/2013 9:00 AM, Barrera, Joseph wrote: On 5/30/2013 8:27 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: it was Gibbs’ statement after it which was: “Unfortunately that’s not a sound argument…” Gibbs did not write that. Jed did. - Joe Sorry, never mind, I was looking at the wrong article. - Joe
Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat
From: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 5:27:51 AM The ends were cone-shaped AISI 316 steel caps that were hot-hammered into the ends. I don't think they were welded. This hot-hammering of the cone-shaped insert is a description of a type of cold welding. Cold welding is when two metal pieces are scrubbed together with great force, usually heated, causing them to permanently bond. The cold part is that it does not involve melting the metal to provide the welded bond. This type of metalwork used to be referred to as Cold Fusion. (eg Ben Franklin used the term). So ... does the Hotcat involve Cold Fusion? Yes!
Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat
Yes Eric I can, but only in terms of my theory. As you know, I believe small gaps are required that are created by stress relief. So, what would Rossi have to react Ni with to create stress in the surface? The reaction would have to result in a compound having a high melting point, low sintering rate, a very small stress, and a brittle structure at the surface. A search of the various stable chemical compounds Ni can form reveal materials that can work. These are limited to formation of borides, silicides, or carbides. Further examination can isolate the concentration of each that would create the required stress. Once the require gap is formed and loaded with Hydrotons, it becomes stable and will not close or get larger without a large investment of energy. Rossi demonstrated that the gap is stable well above 800° C, which is an important revelation and essential to eventual application of the method. My guess is that he reacts the Ni with low pressure SiH4 gas before it is exposed to H2, after which it is heated to the operating temperature. This is something you do not want to do at home, but it may be a useful approach to explore. Ed Storms On May 29, 2013, at 10:19 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: 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. Can you expand upon this thought? Eric
[Vo]:new publication
Dear Friends, Endless discussions re the Professors Hot Cat Report; I repeat it shows real excess heat. I wanted just to add a few ideas and a prediction for which I am responsible and accountable, see: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/05/lenr-frontline-report-undecided-battle.html Very truly yours and LENR+'s Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: 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 situation in itself is comical. The paper should report the relevant measurements and checks that were needed. The fact that they are coming back after the fact with various and contradictory and incomplete claims shows that it's a farce. I don't see how measurements with a PCE830 can be considered pretty good, when there are obvious and easy ways to get power past it. 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. For many of us, that point was passed a long time ago, particularly because he chooses equivocal methods, when it would be easy to make an unequivocal demonstration. Such a thing could have been done in a trivially easy way with the original ecat. Just the fact that he's abandoned that before it was proven, and moved to an entirely new equivocal demonstration makes the assumption untenable The fact that the alternative is almost as unlikely as cheese power, makes it's untenableness virtually certain.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: Hi, 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. Variations of this saying have been used to defend cold fusion for 24 years. We're always entering the next stage real soon now. Maybe you've also heard the saying, To be a persecuted genius, it's not enough to be persecuted.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: 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. That's not necessary. A lot of people have seen these claims now. If a majority of observers felt that the likely explanation at this point is that there's could be some new science to be worked out, there would be an epidemic growth of interest; a stampede like in 1989, to mix the metaphor. That has not happened.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: 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. It doesn't really matter to me how much they or the 7 authors know. I need to be convinced based on what I know, and I'm not. And didn't the engineers at the Swedish Standards Institute test this configuration without success. Have those engineers given an opinion on the latest test? They know more than me too. There are a lot of people smarter and more knowledgeable than you who nevertheless disagree with you about cold fusion. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that that means they are correct and you are wrong. (Though it is almost certainly true in this case.)
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: 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. I have not seen perfectly good reasons for it. The reasons given that you need input heat to control the heat seem like an excuse to keep the power connected to me. Is there another example of a reaction triggered by heat that is regulated by the addition of heat? This is particularly implausible since Rossi has been claiming his devices are ready for commercial sale. Wasn't something supposed to go on sale this month, forgetting about the previous claimed sales? A device with a COP of 3 is not better than a heat pump. And the moment you can make something significantly better than a heat pump, you can use it to make electricity to close the loop. Never happens though.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: 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. No. Observers who accept this claim are far too gullible. It's true input could be present in a proof of principle demo. But Rossi's been claiming commercial ready devices for more than 2 years. No device with a COP of 3 is going to make a significant impact. If Rossi is claiming a revolutionary new *source* of energy, he should be able to demonstrate it without depending on another energy source, other than to initiate it. And when he can't he loses confidence even in the proof of principle demo, especially when it's a thermal-to-thermal conversion.
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
There seems to be some convergence between Ed's theory and Hagelstein's proposal of lossy resonance as a way to get energy out of the fused nuclei in smaller quanta. Hagelstein also has a significant patent for a phonon laser (US7411445) that may have some relevance to hydroton behavior. A working phonon laser device was recently announced by NTT: http://phys.org/news/2013-03-fully-mechanical-phonon-laser.html Ed Storms wrote: If outside energy is supplied, this resonance will continue. If not, it will damp out. At this stage, this is a purely mechanical action that is well understood. In the case of the Hydroton, the outside energy is temperature. The temperature creates random vibration of atoms, which is focused along the length of the molecule. Again, this is normal and well understood behavior. The strange behavior starts once the nuclei can get within a critical distance of each other as a result of the resonance. This distance is less than is possible in any other material because of the high concentration of negative charge that can exist in this structure and environment. The barrier is not eliminated. It is only reduced enough to allow the distance to become small enough so that the two nuclei can see and respond. The response is to emit a photon from each nuclei because this process lowers the energy of the system. The Hydroton allows the Coulomb barrier to be reduced enough for the nuclei to respond and emit excess energy. Because the resonance immediately increases the distance, the ability or need to lose energy is lost before all the extra energy can be emitted. If the distance did not increased, hot fusion would result. The distance is again reduced, and another small burst of energy is emitted. This process continues until ALL energy is emitted and the intervening electron is sucked into the final product.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** *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. I'm not talking about initiating. I'm talking about sustaining. I have no problem using electricity to initiate the ecat. But if it's a source of energy, it should behave like one and be able to at least power itself. A match is needed to ignite a firecracker, but once ignited, the explosion sustains itself. A match is needed to start a campfire, but not to sustain it. A battery is used to start a car engine, but not to sustain it. And a chemical explosion is used to initiate a fission bomb. But once initiated, it sustains itself using the chain reaction until the fuel is dispersed below critical mass. This is abundantly clear in a nuclear power plant, where the reaction requires no input energy to sustain itself. (And the energy density of the biggest fission bomb deployed (counting it's total weight) was 100,000 times that of chemical, and the energy density of the uranium fuel itself was in the millions.) A hydrogen bomb is initiated by and atomic bomb explosion, and it is a thousand times more energy dense. ** The fission bomb initiates fusion, and the fusion and fission then sustain each other, but again, once it's initiated, it's self-sustaining. (And the energy density is only 10 to 100 times that of the best fission bombs.) Moreover, fusion power will not be considered a success until ignition is achieved (and not even then), which represents the point where the reaction sustains itself, even if only on a tiny scale in the case of inertial fusion. ** 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. ** Except extrapolation of those known phenomena should end in an energy source that is self-sustaining. The ecat isn't. ** In any event - “thousands of times” more dense is not accurate IMO – closer to 200 times. ** Not sure it's really a matter of opinion. The claim in Levi's paper is 6e7 Wh/kg, which is a few thousand times the energy density of gasoline and more than a thousand times that of hydrogen. That's what I was referring to. And they say they stopped the reaction before it was exhausted. The potential energy density if it's coming from nuclear reactions is millions of times chemical. ** 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. ** Except that recycling around a phase change is not going to net any energy, and it has no similarity to what's allegedly happening in the ecat. There, according to the authors, an exothermic reaction is triggered by heat. And if 400 W from the outside of the reactor cylinder can initiated the reaction, I don't see how 1.5 kW from inside the reactor could not sustain it. Ordinary combustion is triggered by heat, and generates heat, and that's how it sustains itself. No one ever talks about COPs with coal or oil or gasoline. The only way I can think of to contrive a similar kind of need of a smaller external source of heat to sustain a larger source of heat is if the external source is more concentrated and hotter. But that's clearly not the case in the hot cat, where the external source is diffuse and at a lower temperature. ** 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. ** Could I have a raspberry vinaigrette with that word salad, please. No matter what lame excuse you or anyone else can dig up to allow Rossi to use input power to sustain the ecat, for it to revolutionize energy, it will have to substantially exceed the COP of a heat pump, and that will allow closing the loop using perfectly standard technology. Since he already claims to be market-ready, failure to run the thing on it's own makes it look like a farce.
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
Yes, thank you Mark. I agree with Jed. Mark Gibbs is wrong in his reasoning It should be clear that there are experimental results that have no confirmed model to explain them. This is the history of revolutionary science, which Gibbs should be aware of. On 5/30/13 8:27 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Ruby: I don't think Jed was criticizing your statement, Cold fusion has no definitive theory -- as yet, but the experimental evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a table-top it was Gibbs' statement after it which was: Unfortunately that's not a sound argument... Jed rightfully criticizes Gibbs' statement because it implies that without a definitive theory, experimental evidence has little weight. It is a sore point with all LENR followers because it is the opposite of what science is all about; if repeatable experimental evidence contradicts theory, then theory may need to be revised/replaced. Keep up the fight! -Mark Iverson *From:*Ruby [mailto:r...@hush.com] *Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:14 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't! I wrote that quote... Cold fusion has no definitive theory -- as yet, but the experimental evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a table-top http://coldfusionnow.org/discovery-news-misinforms-on-cold-fusion-again/ .. and stand by it.-- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: 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. Yes. Some of these things legitimately raise questions. No one is claiming the experiment was ironclad. With sufficient information of what transpired, there is a possibility that it was done quite well, despite doubts that people may have. What we have now is a second draft of the writeup, dropped into the Internet. The three-phase power seems like a nonissue to me. I disagree. I can see no need for it to supply thermal energy at 1 kW or less. And it does complicate measurement, and open possibilities for deception. It also forces the experimenters to use a particular mains line, which if tampered with, would not be detected by any other instrumentation. And it makes available much higher input power. It's like using a 500 kW generator to power a megacat with 500 kW claimed output. It invites suspicion in a demonstration that was supposed to be designed to eliminate suspicion. The instruments were not necessarily inadequate if they were used in conjunction with other ones. No other ones were reported in the paper, which was written to validate the claims. We have already heard that Hartmann checked the voltage on the line. I thought he was just talking about the voltage readings from the 830, which don't add much. I haven't been able to keep up though. Maybe I missed something. That would have required stripping it of the shielding, which would have revealed any cheese power trickery. Not so. Tinsel also checked voltages and continuity and frequency in the second video without revealing the trick.
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
Mark Gibbs writes: You completely miss my point ... Ruby's argument dimisses Ethan's argument by simply saying you're wrong and citing experimental evidence that isn't accepted outside of the LENR community. You're right, experiment trumps theory but only when you have an experiment that can be replicated and has unarguable results. Unless I misunderstand, the catalog of successful LENR experiments doesn't include one that you could hand to Ethan and say here you go, try it, it works. No, Mark, I am not saying simply you're wrong to Siegel. We have experimental results that do not fit the Standard Model of conventional nuclear theory first formulated a century ago. Siegel is saying that this Standard Model rules today. It doesn't, and the experimental evidence proves it. On 5/30/13 10:33 AM, Ruby wrote: Yes, thank you Mark. I agree with Jed. Mark Gibbs is wrong in his reasoning It should be clear that there are experimental results that have no confirmed model to explain them. This is the history of revolutionary science, which Gibbs should be aware of. On 5/30/13 8:27 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Ruby: I don't think Jed was criticizing your statement, Cold fusion has no definitive theory -- as yet, but the experimental evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a table-top it was Gibbs' statement after it which was: Unfortunately that's not a sound argument... Jed rightfully criticizes Gibbs' statement because it implies that without a definitive theory, experimental evidence has little weight. It is a sore point with all LENR followers because it is the opposite of what science is all about; if repeatable experimental evidence contradicts theory, then theory may need to be revised/replaced. Keep up the fight! -Mark Iverson *From:*Ruby [mailto:r...@hush.com] *Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:14 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't! I wrote that quote... Cold fusion has no definitive theory -- as yet, but the experimental evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a table-top http://coldfusionnow.org/discovery-news-misinforms-on-cold-fusion-again/ .. and stand by it.-- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: 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. I don't buy it. The reactor is a sealed faraday cage, so it's not going to care about ripple or dc vs ac. It's just a thermal interface. But in any case, in the dummy run, they measured the power to the ecat so that suggests it's an ordinary ac signal. Anyway, a box powered by ordinary mains can produce any signal shape they want. They wouldn't go to 3-phase just to skimp on diodes and capacitors. The 3-phase looks more like obfuscation to me.
Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:02 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: 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. So, you admit that the only example you used to accuse me of spreading intentional misinformation was wrong. But based on a pattern you do not justify, you don't withdraw the accusation -- only the example. I'm hurt. I know I can be blunt, and my opinions (e.g. all cold fusion papers are bad) may at times look to advocates like they are contrary to fact, as they understand them. But as to real facts, I attempt to be scrupulously honest. I don't believe that is true of many of the true believers here, but I wouldn't dream of naming names. 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. Relax. I never actually thought you were deliberately lying. I'm too nice for that. I just thought I'd let you know how hurtful it was to be falsely accused.
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
No Alan, no relationship exist between my model and the one proposed by Peter. You need to read the two ideas more carefully. I wish a relationship existed, but sadly it does not. The cluster Peter proposes to form does not occur in the same place in the material as the Hydroton, it does not form by the same kind of process, and the energy is not released by photons. In addition, he does not propose the electron is sucked into the final nucleus, which causes his model to predict different nuclear products than mine. Ed Storms On May 30, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Alan Goldwater wrote: There seems to be some convergence between Ed's theory and Hagelstein's proposal of lossy resonance as a way to get energy out of the fused nuclei in smaller quanta. Hagelstein also has a significant patent for a phonon laser (US7411445) that may have some relevance to hydroton behavior. A working phonon laser device was recently announced by NTT: http://phys.org/news/2013-03-fully-mechanical-phonon-laser.html Ed Storms wrote: If outside energy is supplied, this resonance will continue. If not, it will damp out. At this stage, this is a purely mechanical action that is well understood. In the case of the Hydroton, the outside energy is temperature. The temperature creates random vibration of atoms, which is focused along the length of the molecule. Again, this is normal and well understood behavior. The strange behavior starts once the nuclei can get within a critical distance of each other as a result of the resonance. This distance is less than is possible in any other material because of the high concentration of negative charge that can exist in this structure and environment. The barrier is not eliminated. It is only reduced enough to allow the distance to become small enough so that the two nuclei can see and respond. The response is to emit a photon from each nuclei because this process lowers the energy of the system. The Hydroton allows the Coulomb barrier to be reduced enough for the nuclei to respond and emit excess energy. Because the resonance immediately increases the distance, the ability or need to lose energy is lost before all the extra energy can be emitted. If the distance did not increased, hot fusion would result. The distance is again reduced, and another small burst of energy is emitted. This process continues until ALL energy is emitted and the intervening electron is sucked into the final product.
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
As Norman Ramsey pointed out in his preamble to the DoE's original review of cold fusion: However, even a *single* short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. We are so far beyond that benchmark as to render Mark's criterion absurd. On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: Mark Gibbs writes: You completely miss my point … Ruby’s argument dimisses Ethan’s argument by simply saying “you’re wrong” and citing experimental evidence that isn’t accepted outside of the LENR community. You’re right, experiment trumps theory but only when you have an experiment that can be replicated and has unarguable results. Unless I misunderstand, the catalog of successful LENR experiments doesn’t include one that you could hand to Ethan and say “here you go, try it, it works.” No, Mark, I am not saying simply you're wrong to Siegel. We have experimental results that do not fit the Standard Model of conventional nuclear theory first formulated a century ago. Siegel is saying that this Standard Model rules today. It doesn't, and the experimental evidence proves it. On 5/30/13 10:33 AM, Ruby wrote: Yes, thank you Mark. I agree with Jed. Mark Gibbs is wrong in his reasoning It should be clear that there are experimental results that have no confirmed model to explain them. This is the history of revolutionary science, which Gibbs should be aware of. On 5/30/13 8:27 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Ruby: ** ** I don’t think Jed was criticizing your statement, Cold fusion has no definitive theory – as yet, but the experimental evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a table-top ** ** it was Gibbs’ statement after it which was: “Unfortunately that’s not a sound argument…” ** ** Jed rightfully criticizes Gibbs’ statement because it implies that without a definitive theory, experimental evidence has little weight. It is a sore point with all LENR followers because it is the opposite of what science is all about; if repeatable experimental evidence contradicts theory, then theory may need to be revised/replaced. ** ** Keep up the fight! ** ** -Mark Iverson ** ** ** ** *From:* Ruby [mailto:r...@hush.com r...@hush.com] *Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:14 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't! ** ** I wrote that quote... Cold fusion has no definitive theory – as yet, but the experimental evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a table-top http://coldfusionnow.org/discovery-news-misinforms-on-cold-fusion-again/ .. and stand by it.-- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
Joshua: You make that point all the time. It is one of your favorites, but it is really unsupported speculation and not worth considering. First, telling us how the majority of observers feel about the report is clearly beyond your knowledge. As Eric suggested making those claims without proof (poll, census, etc.) is not only unscientific it is undoubtedly just self serving on your part. You must recognize that it doesn't mean anything to those reading your critiques, unless they don't think critically. Second, this isn't 1989. Most scientists who read the report are aware of the history. The idea that we will have a repeat of 1989 is unlikely. The scientific community passed up the opportunity to investigate this science long ago and are now at the mercy of the entrepreneur, if it is real. I can speculate just as you. My speculation is that based on this report the scientific community will likely pay more attention to the developments in this area and will await further testing and other disclosures before taking active steps to investigate. Some might begin doing some testing and in fact that has probably occurred since Rossi first presented his demo, but most will likely wait and watch. However, I doubt they will conclude as you do that the report is meaningless. But that is mere speculation, no different than yours. One thing I am certain about is that you don't speak for the scientific community. If you do, please identify by what authority you achieved that role and position and I will stand corrected. Ransom - Original Message - From: Joshua Cude To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: 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. That's not necessary. A lot of people have seen these claims now. If a majority of observers felt that the likely explanation at this point is that there's could be some new science to be worked out, there would be an epidemic growth of interest; a stampede like in 1989, to mix the metaphor. That has not happened. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2242 / Virus Database: 3184/5869 - Release Date: 05/30/13
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:12:17 AM And didn't the engineers at the Swedish Standards Institute test this configuration without success. Have those engineers given an opinion on the latest test? They know more than me too. They terminated the test because Rossi wasn't using a true RMS meter, which would under-estimate energy at the low end of the Triac's dimmer waveform. Hence the use of the wide-band meter. But a large part of the aborted test appeared to be running at full RMS power, ie NO error, with an on/off duty cycle similar to the current run.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:13:43 AM I have not seen perfectly good reasons for it. The reasons given that you need input heat to control the heat seem like an excuse to keep the power connected to me. Is there another example of a reaction triggered by heat that is regulated by the addition of heat? Most likely. And staying with COP=6 is the stable zone. (See the November melt-down). A device with a COP of 3 is not better than a heat pump. That's for MARCH, which was intentionally run at lower power, choosing stability over COP. The December test (which you reject because you don't know what paint was used -- emissivity likely to be around 0.9) had a COP=6. Rossi says he's working on an interface to a Siemens(?) turbine. That would be COP=6 * 30% efficiency for electricity, PLUS 70% heat for a combined-generation capability. Even then I don't think you a sensible engineer would want to feed it straight back, again for stability reasons, without maybe an intermediate bank of batteries. I'm sure that if the tokomak hot fusion guys ever get more the 2kWh (current record) out of their system, that you'll demand they feed their own power back. (OK, OK .. so we're talking about physical impossibilites vs Engineering impossibilities)
Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:38:17 AM The 3-phase looks more like obfuscation to me. Gee .. I'd better take my Electric clothes dryer in for de-obfuscating. And there I was thinking it was trapped lint. You want lots of power, you go straight to three-phase. This is a test rig he's using, so of course it's over-engineered. When you've finished the design and find you don't need all that power then you can go back to single-phase for the production version. You really think that (after building a 3-phase controller-triac test rig) that he should redesign it just for the March test? No, you just have the controller activate one of the triacs instead of all three.
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
Mark, why don't you ask and quote some who actually understand cold fusion, like myself? I realize you consider me a believer. However, have you considered why I have this belief? It is not based on my imagination or on a pathology. It is based on the fact that I have read and studied all of the published papers, I have run hundreds of studies of the effect, many of which showed clear evidence, I have discussed the subject with many people who also have seen the effect, and I have a background in both materials science and nuclear physics. Surely, this experience is more important than the opinion of someone who has no idea what has been observed and a limited education in the required science. Ed Storms On May 30, 2013, at 11:48 AM, James Bowery wrote:one As Norman Ramsey pointed out in his preamble to the DoE's original review of cold fusion: However, even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. We are so far beyond that benchmark as to render Mark's criterion absurd. On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: Mark Gibbs writes: You completely miss my point … Ruby’s argument dimisses Ethan’s argument by simply saying “you’re wrong” and citing experimental evidence that isn’t accepted outside of the LENR community. You’re right, experiment trumps theory but only when you have an experiment that can be replicated and has unarguable results. Unless I misunderstand, the catalog of successful LENR experiments doesn’t include one that you could hand to Ethan and say “here you go, try it, it works.” No, Mark, I am not saying simply you're wrong to Siegel. We have experimental results that do not fit the Standard Model of conventional nuclear theory first formulated a century ago. Siegel is saying that this Standard Model rules today. It doesn't, and the experimental evidence proves it. On 5/30/13 10:33 AM, Ruby wrote: Yes, thank you Mark. I agree with Jed. Mark Gibbs is wrong in his reasoning It should be clear that there are experimental results that have no confirmed model to explain them. This is the history of revolutionary science, which Gibbs should be aware of. On 5/30/13 8:27 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Ruby: I don’t think Jed was criticizing your statement, Cold fusion has no definitive theory – as yet, but the experimental evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a table-top it was Gibbs’ statement after it which was: “Unfortunately that’s not a sound argument…” Jed rightfully criticizes Gibbs’ statement because it implies that without a definitive theory, experimental evidence has little weight. It is a sore point with all LENR followers because it is the opposite of what science is all about; if repeatable experimental evidence contradicts theory, then theory may need to be revised/ replaced. Keep up the fight! -Mark Iverson From: Ruby [mailto:r...@hush.com] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:14 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't! I wrote that quote... Cold fusion has no definitive theory – as yet, but the experimental evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a table-top http://coldfusionnow.org/discovery-news-misinforms-on-cold-fusion-again/ .. and stand by it.-- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Randy wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: ** Joshua: First, telling us how the majority of observers feel about the report is clearly beyond your knowledge. As Eric suggested making those claims without proof (poll, census, etc.) is not only unscientific it is undoubtedly just self serving on your part. Garbage. Everyone, including skeptics, repeatedly sings about the revolution this would bring if real. And many people have seen the claims, now. If they believed them, they would not ignore it. The scientific community passed up the opportunity to investigate this science long ago and are now at the mercy of the entrepreneur, if it is real. Nah, they gave it far more attention than it deserved, and concluded there was nothing there, and moved on. One thing I am certain about is that you don't speak for the scientific community. You're right about that. I'm only expressing what is common sense to all but the true believers.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:12:17 AM And didn't the engineers at the Swedish Standards Institute test this configuration without success. Have those engineers given an opinion on the latest test? They know more than me too. They terminated the test because Rossi wasn't using a true RMS meter, which would under-estimate energy at the low end of the Triac's dimmer waveform. Hence the use of the wide-band meter. But a large part of the aborted test appeared to be running at full RMS power, ie NO error, with an on/off duty cycle similar to the current run. It's comical that there is quibbling like this about such trivialities with a revolution waiting in the wings. This was the better part of a year ago, and no progress since? How is that possible?
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
I should probably point out that Norman Ramsey had to threaten to resign as co-chair from the DoE panel if they did not include that in the preamble. Clearly Ramsey saw what Charles P. Beaudette has has documented in Excess Heat: The 5 week rush to judgement after the March 1989 press conference was an obscenity. Ramsey didn't want to come down on the wrong side of history but he saw what was going on in the politics of the field. He removed himself from what Martin Fleischmann, toward the end of his life, called the dreadful research. On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:48 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: As Norman Ramsey pointed out in his preamble to the DoE's original review of cold fusion: However, even a *single* short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. We are so far beyond that benchmark as to render Mark's criterion absurd. On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: Mark Gibbs writes: You completely miss my point … Ruby’s argument dimisses Ethan’s argument by simply saying “you’re wrong” and citing experimental evidence that isn’t accepted outside of the LENR community. You’re right, experiment trumps theory but only when you have an experiment that can be replicated and has unarguable results. Unless I misunderstand, the catalog of successful LENR experiments doesn’t include one that you could hand to Ethan and say “here you go, try it, it works.” No, Mark, I am not saying simply you're wrong to Siegel. We have experimental results that do not fit the Standard Model of conventional nuclear theory first formulated a century ago. Siegel is saying that this Standard Model rules today. It doesn't, and the experimental evidence proves it. On 5/30/13 10:33 AM, Ruby wrote: Yes, thank you Mark. I agree with Jed. Mark Gibbs is wrong in his reasoning It should be clear that there are experimental results that have no confirmed model to explain them. This is the history of revolutionary science, which Gibbs should be aware of. On 5/30/13 8:27 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Ruby: ** ** I don’t think Jed was criticizing your statement, Cold fusion has no definitive theory – as yet, but the experimental evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a table-top ** ** it was Gibbs’ statement after it which was: “Unfortunately that’s not a sound argument…” ** ** Jed rightfully criticizes Gibbs’ statement because it implies that without a definitive theory, experimental evidence has little weight. It is a sore point with all LENR followers because it is the opposite of what science is all about; if repeatable experimental evidence contradicts theory, then theory may need to be revised/replaced. ** ** Keep up the fight! ** ** -Mark Iverson ** ** ** ** *From:* Ruby [mailto:r...@hush.com r...@hush.com] *Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:14 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't! ** ** I wrote that quote... Cold fusion has no definitive theory – as yet, but the experimental evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a table-top http://coldfusionnow.org/discovery-news-misinforms-on-cold-fusion-again/ .. and stand by it.-- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: A device with a COP of 3 is not better than a heat pump. That's for MARCH, which was intentionally run at lower power, choosing stability over COP. Right. Three months of technical improvements gave a worse COP. The December test (which you reject because you don't know what paint was used -- emissivity likely to be around 0.9) had a COP=6. Well, everyone's counting the Swedes to give credibility, and they weren't there. The December test is as credible as Levi's 18-hour test. That was far better power output, better COP, and a simpler experiment. Just you have to trust Levi, just like here. So they're moving backwards. Rossi says he's working on an interface to a Siemens(?) turbine. That would be COP=6 * 30% efficiency for electricity, PLUS 70% heat for a combined-generation capability. Sure. He's been saying that for 2 years. Even then I don't think you a sensible engineer would want to feed it straight back, again for stability reasons, without maybe an intermediate bank of batteries. Stabilizing electricity is not a new trick. I'm sure that if the tokomak hot fusion guys ever get more the 2kWh (current record) out of their system, that you'll demand they feed their own power back. The hot fusion guys have not claimed over unity. They don't need it to prove they've got fusion, though. But yes, it will not be considered a success until ignition is achieved, and it can at least power itself. When cold fusion can power itself, it might get some attention.
Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
Hi, On 30-5-2013 20:15, Alan Fletcher wrote: From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:38:17 AM The 3-phase looks more like obfuscation to me. You want lots of power, you go straight to three-phase. This is a test rig he's using, so of course it's over-engineered. When you've finished the design and find you don't need all that power then you can go back to single-phase for the production version. You really think that (after building a 3-phase controller-triac test rig) that he should redesign it just for the March test? No, you just have the controller activate one of the triacs instead of all three. Yep, every reasonably educated (E) Engineer (even someone as unconventional as Andrea Rossi) would indeed follow that path. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
Gibbs responded to my comment, and I responded back, as follows: MG: You completely miss my point … Ruby’s argument dimisses Ethan’s argument by simply saying “you’re wrong” and citing experimental evidence that isn’t accepted outside of the LENR community. You’re right, experiment trumps theory but only when you have an experiment that can be replicated and has unarguable results. Unless I misunderstand, the catalog of successful LENR experiments doesn’t include one that you could hand to Ethan and say “here you go, try it, it works.” ME: You wrote: “You completely miss my point … Ruby’s argument dimisses Ethan’s argument by simply saying ‘you’re wrong’ and citing experimental evidence that isn’t accepted outside of the LENR community.” There is no such thing as the LENR “community.” What we have here are hundreds of scientists who have replicated an effect. Many of them are distinguished scientists who made a name for themselves long before cold fusion emerged, such as the late Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission of India, and a commissioner on the French AEC. These two never met any of the other researchers until they confirmed the effect in their own laboratories. They were experts in nuclear power reactor design and regulation, not LENR. “You’re right, experiment trumps theory but only when you have an experiment that can be replicated and has unarguable results.” This result has been replicated thousands of times, often at such high signal to noise ratios the results are unarguable. For example, researchers have often measured heat at 20 to 100 W with no input. There is not the slightest chance this is an experimental error. No scientist in history would have difficulty confirming that. Such high levels of heat have continued hundreds to thousands of times longer than any chemical effect would allow, so there is no chance this is a chemical effect. “Unless I misunderstand, the catalog of successful LENR experiments doesn’t include one that you could hand to Ethan and say ‘here you go, try it, it works.’” You do misunderstand. I can hand him instructions right here: “How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect.” http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf However, it is unlikely he has the skill to follow these instructions. The procedures take a year or so and they require PdD-level chemistry skills. Asking Dr. Siegel to do this would be a lot like asking an electrochemist to perform an astrophysical experiment (or an observation with a telescope). Most experiments are difficult and require expertise and experience to replicate. Cold fusion is no exception.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
Cude: You seem to be morphing into troll mode. Reasonable discussions with you are apparently at an end. Ransom - Original Message - From: Joshua Cude To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 1:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Randy wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: Joshua: First, telling us how the majority of observers feel about the report is clearly beyond your knowledge. As Eric suggested making those claims without proof (poll, census, etc.) is not only unscientific it is undoubtedly just self serving on your part. Garbage. Everyone, including skeptics, repeatedly sings about the revolution this would bring if real. And many people have seen the claims, now. If they believed them, they would not ignore it. The scientific community passed up the opportunity to investigate this science long ago and are now at the mercy of the entrepreneur, if it is real. Nah, they gave it far more attention than it deserved, and concluded there was nothing there, and moved on. One thing I am certain about is that you don't speak for the scientific community. You're right about that. I'm only expressing what is common sense to all but the true believers. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2242 / Virus Database: 3184/5869 - Release Date: 05/30/13
Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:38:17 AM The 3-phase looks more like obfuscation to me. Gee .. I'd better take my Electric clothes dryer in for de-obfuscating. And there I was thinking it was trapped lint. You want lots of power, you go straight to three-phase. Right, but I thought the ecat was supposed to provide the lots of power. They *changed* the power for the Dec and March runs, and never used more than 1 kW, and averaged only 400W. Is that how much your dryer consumes? This is a test rig he's using, so of course it's over-engineered. This is a con job, so of course it's over-engineered. Just like the 500 kW power supply connected to a megacat producing 500 kW heat. You really think that (after building a 3-phase controller-triac test rig) that he should redesign it just for the March test? He *did* redesign it. He stopped using the triac, and replaced it with a different control circuit. That could most certainly have been single-phase, but then how to get them to use the right plug?
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Mark, why don't you ask and quote some who actually understand cold fusion, like myself? Well, Ed, at least he quoted Elforsk. That's progress! The people Elforsk do not understand cold fusion but they do understand electricity, IR cameras, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which is more than you can say for Dr. Siegel. In the comment section Gibbs went on to ask me to recommend a do-it-yourself guide for Siegel. I recommended your paper. Fat chance that Siegel will even read it, and no chance he could do it. This gets back the hilarious comment of mine quoted in the article itself: . . . if there were a breakthrough in astrophysics, would you call an electric power company engineer to ask him his opinion of it? (Hilarious if I do say so myself.) The notion that an astrophysicist knows more about measuring electricity than electrical engineers do is too funny for words. Talk about teaching grandma how to suck eggs! - Jed
[Vo]:Re: Entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling
If you remember this thread as follows:
* *
Entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling – 1/31/12
Why do entangled proton pairs pass through the coulomb barrier of a heavy
element nucleus with high probability in collisions with energies well
below those required to breach this barrier?
This curiosity has been observed is heavy low energy ion collision studies.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.1393.pdf
This letter presents evidence that (1) 2p transfer (and
not _-particle transfer) is the dominant transfer process
leading to _Z = 2 events in the reaction 16O+208Pb at
energies well below the fusion barrier, and (2) 2p transfer
is significantly enhanced compared to predictions assum-
ing the sequential transfer of uncorrelated protons, with
absolute probabilities as high as those of 1p transfer at
energies near the fusion barrier.
Measurements of transfer probabilities in various reac-
tions and at energies near the fusion barrier have there-
fore been utilized to investigate the role of pairing corre-
lations between the transferred nucleons. Pairing effects
are believed to lead to a significant enhancement of pair
and multi-pair transfer probabilities [2, 4{7]. Closely re-
lated to the phenomenon of pairing correlations is the
nuclear Josephson effect [8], which is understood as the
tunneling of nucleon pairs (i.e. nuclear Cooper-pairs)
through a time-dependent barrier at energies near but be-
low the fusion barrier. This effect is believed to be similar
to that of a supercurrent between two superconductors
separated by an insulator. An enhancement of the trans-
fer probability at sub-barrier energies is therefore com-
monly related to the tunneling of (multi-)Cooper-pairs
from one superfluid nucleus to the other [2].
Following up on this thread as follows:
There has been a new type of Klein tunneling proposed where a
high-potential barrier can be made transparent.
Even though the barrier is impenetrable for single particles, it becomes
transparent when the two particles cross the energy barrier together.
Coupled particles cross energy wall
http://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6-1421254-0
Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 11:44:00 AM You want lots of power, you go straight to three-phase. Right, but I thought the ecat was supposed to provide the lots of power. Of THERMAL power, yes, not of ELECTRICAL power. They *changed* the power for the Dec and March runs, and never used more than 1 kW, and averaged only 400W. Is that how much your dryer consumes? When you set up a test rig in a lab environment you design it for the highest power you MIGHT need. The 3-phase-triac December test used 360W The 1-phase-triac March test used 322W A 38W difference? Come on, now. I haven't done the arithmetic, but that looks suspiciously like the ratio between phase1-phase2 and phase1-ground ? You CAN get wimpy single-phase dryers, but I wired my house for the recommended three-phase. He *did* redesign it. He stopped using the triac, and replaced it with a different control circuit. That could most certainly have been single-phase, but then how to get them to use the right plug? He reprogrammed the controller, and changed the triac wiring from phase1-phase2 etc to phase1 ground. I don't call THAT a re-design.
[Vo]:Comment by Anderson at Forbes
Here is a comment at Forbes from someone who sounds like he should be working on cold fusion with the rest of the superannuated geezers. Let's see if we can find him. - Jed DONALD ANDERSON I’m a Professor Ameritus in Electrical Engineering, Ph.D. was in developing long-lived vacuum tubes with nickel fired in hydrogen and vacuum, at temperatures around 1000C. Since have been heavily involved in alternative energy (solar thermal and wind. Everything I read in the 29 page report, and following challenges as answered by the authors, seems extremely convincing. All objections, typically suggesting fraud, are not to me at all convincing. Tomorrow will tell!
Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 11:44:00 AM You want lots of power, you go straight to three-phase. Right, but I thought the ecat was supposed to provide the lots of power. Of THERMAL power, yes, not of ELECTRICAL power. A dryer uses several kW. They never used more than 1 kWe for the ecat. Less than your toaster. Does your toaster use 3-phase. They *changed* the power for the Dec and March runs, and never used more than 1 kW, and averaged only 400W. Is that how much your dryer consumes? When you set up a test rig in a lab environment you design it for the highest power you MIGHT need. The 3-phase-triac December test used 360W The 1-phase-triac March test used 322W A 38W difference? Come on, now. I haven't done the arithmetic, but that looks suspiciously like the ratio between phase1-phase2 and phase1-ground ? You CAN get wimpy single-phase dryers, but I wired my house for the recommended three-phase. I'm not getting your point. 360W and 322W are both far below the rating of any mains line. He *did* redesign it. He stopped using the triac, and replaced it with a different control circuit. That could most certainly have been single-phase, but then how to get them to use the right plug? He reprogrammed the controller, and changed the triac wiring from phase1-phase2 etc to phase1 ground. I don't call THAT a re-design. The paper says they *replaced* the triac with a control box.
Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:16:19 PM The paper says they *replaced* the triac with a control box. OK -- in fig 6 (Dec) they show a blue-and-yellow CONTROL box and three triacs. They don't have a picture for March, so we don't know if it includes the functionality of the blue-and-yellow box or just replaces the triac. The control box is inside the boundary of Rossi's black box, so it's irrelevant. AD-HOMINEM You remind me of the creationist who demands evidence of the missing link. The scientist finds it. Aha! Says the creationist. Now you've got TWO missing links (Zeno, was it?) /AD-HOMINEM
Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: The 3-phase looks more like obfuscation to me. Gee .. I'd better take my Electric clothes dryer in for de-obfuscating. And there I was thinking it was trapped lint. That's hilarious! You want lots of power, you go straight to three-phase. This is a test rig he's using, so of course it's over-engineered. . . . My guess is that he is designing for industrial applications. A lot of industrial parks come with 3-phase power and the sockets for them. Even if you do not need much ummph it might be a good idea to design for 3-phase since that is what is likely to be available in your target market. By the way, a Google image search for three phase power socket turns up a whole bunch of different plug configurations. It reminds of the USB male connector, mini-this and mini-that. It was supposed to be standard, for crying out loud. Every gadget has a different one! What's with that? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not talking about initiating. I'm talking about sustaining. I have no problem using electricity to initiate the ecat. But if it's a source of energy, it should behave like one and be able to at least power itself. A match is needed to ignite a firecracker, but once ignited, the explosion sustains itself. A match is needed to start a campfire, but not to sustain it. In addition to the wood fuel, oxygen must be supplied. A battery is used to start a car engine, but not to sustain it. In addition to the gasoline fuel, oxygen must be supplied. If the ecat must be self-sustaining to be considered a credible source of power, then a campfire or a car engine should not be accepted as credible sources of power because they don't make their own oxygen. harry
Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: andrewppp removed
On Wed, 29 May 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Whoa! That seems precipitous. He did not seem so bad to me. It was temporary, but may be permanent. Crackpot or no, if someone simply cannot lower themselves to obeying the one basic rule here, and absolutely will not apologize or even admit to slightest error ...then the rule functions as planned. Going further: vortex is basically an ongoing party in a private home. But the party's not exclusive and invitation-only. Instead, there's a simple rule posted in the kitchen for all to see. It's a test. It's intended to detect personal character: to rapidly expose the uncivilized disrespectful host-insulters before their poisonous behavior has much of a chance to ruin the ongoing festivities. (( ( ( ( ((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: [Vo]:MODERATOR: andrewppp removed
William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: Whoa! That seems precipitous. He did not seem so bad to me. It was temporary, but may be permanent. Well, it isn't for me to tell you how to run things but . . . I hope you issue a polite warning before you ban someone. As you said, perhaps he did not read the rules. I suggest you tell these people: here are the rules (http://www.amasci.com/weird/wvort.html#rules) before going to the next step. - Jed
[Vo]:Rossi QA on his blog
New Q A Between Nextme.it and Andrea Rossi http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/new-q-a-between-nextme-it-and-andrea-rossi/comment-page-1/ Below is a Q A from the Journal of Nuclear Physics. The questions were submitted by Roberta De Carolis from the Italian web site NextMe.it and answered by Andrea Rossi : The independent test results confirm the scientific validity of the Hot E-cat equipment. As it has been reported on the publication report, the performance has been verified successfully. But how could you explain the difference between the COP you stated in the past (11.6) and the results obtained on E-cat HT (5.6) and E-cat HT 2 (2.9)? A. COP depends from temperature and many other factors. The Examiners also considered all the margin of errors in the worst situation against us, to be conservative at maximum. They wanted to be sure beyond any possible and reasonable doubt. For example: they wanted a wood plan to put on all the electric and electronic devices, they wanted to use their own cables of their own measurement devices, they wanted to lift and seat themselves any conponent to be sure no other cables or any kind of contact was there…combining all the margin of error against us we lost a lot of efficiency, but it is fine, since the scope of the test was not commercial, it was merely scientific: the Professors wanted to know beyond any reasonable doubt if there was an excess of energy or not Which are the main differences between E-cat HT and E-cat HT 2? Are you agree with the explanations provided by the researchers about the difference observed in the COP values? A. Yes, I substantially agree. The differences are described in the report The tests are essentially based on the measurement of the incoming and the outcoming energy, so they could not prove the reaction mechanism. Why should we be sure that this is a nuclear reaction? A. Because of the 1st principle of thermodynamic. See also the Ragone diagram Hot E-cat is co-generation thermal-electric system, and you stated that production of electricity has been committed to Siemens AG, developing a suitable turbine to be coupled to the reactor. Could you confirm this collaboration? A. We are under NDA Do you believe that this important result could speed up the certification procedures for security? Could you estimate the timings? A. No, I do not see any nexus. The certification for the industrial plants has been granted, though. The delivery of three plants of 1 MW E-Cat in the U.S. is now official. However, in an earlier statement you mentioned customers, but now we came to know that they are industrial partners. Could you tell us if this delivery is just preliminary to the real one and when this will happen? A. We delivered to our US Partner. He will deliver to his Customers We know that that a US client representative attended the test. Could you tell us whether he is the client buying the plant? Could you communicate to our readers the satisfaction degree expressed by him about the testing? A. Wrong: the test of the Indoipendent Third Party, made in March, has nothing to do with the test made by the US Partner on April 30 and May 1. The test made by the Customer has made possible for us to continue to work for the Customer. It has been better than expected, we got results better that what we has guaranteed.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: A match is needed to ignite a firecracker, but once ignited, the explosion sustains itself. A match is needed to start a campfire, but not to sustain it. Cold fusion is not fire. It does not work the same way. Evidently, Rossi's reactor requires external stimulation to keep the reaction under control. That's how it works. You cannot dictate to Mother Nature how things must work. If you unplug a Rossi cell and try to make it self-sustain without input, it will melt. An analogy to fire may be useful to understanding, but you cannot engineer a reactor based on analogies. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
There seems to be a serious hangup over why a heat generating device needs some form of heating input to sustain itself. The skeptics can not seem to get their arms around this issue so I will make another short attempt to explain why this is important. To achieve a high value of COP the ECAT operates within a region that is unstable. This translates into a situation where the device if given the chance will attempt to increase its internal energy until it melts or ceases to operate due to other damage. Control of the device is obtained by adding external heat via the power resistors allowing the core to heat up toward a critical point of no return. Just prior to that critical temperature the extra heating is rapidly halted. The effect of this heating collapse is to force the device core heating to change direction and begin cooling off. Positive feedback can work in either direction; that is, the temperature can be either increasing or decreasing and the trick is to make it go in the desired direction. The closer to the critical point that Rossi is able to switch directions, the longer the temperature waveform will linger near that point before heading downward. This is a delicate balance and most likely the reason Rossi has such a difficult fight on his hands to keep control. High COP, such as 6, is about all that can be safely maintained. The explanation above is based upon a spice model that I have developed and run many times. Statements by Rossi on his blog have been consistent with the performance that I observe with the model. It is important to realize that a device such as this does not operate in a simple manner such as that anticipated by the skeptics. I suppose that is why they fail to understand Rossi's machine. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 30, 2013 1:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From:Joshua Cude First, thefact that this *source* of energy thousands of times more dense than chemicalhas to be plugged in (to a high power line, no less) will turn most observersaway. Not necessarily “most” - onlythose observers whose ability to deduce and extrapolate from experience isseverely challenged. For instance, an atomicbomb is initiated by a chemical explosion, and it is thousands of time moreenergy dense. I'm not talking about initiating. I'm talking about sustaining. I have no problem using electricity to initiate the ecat. But if it's a source of energy, it should behave like one and be able to at least power itself. A match is needed to ignite a firecracker, but once ignited, the explosion sustains itself. A match is needed to start a campfire, but not to sustain it. A battery is used to start a car engine, but not to sustain it. And a chemical explosion is used to initiate a fission bomb. But once initiated, it sustains itself using the chain reaction until the fuel is dispersed below critical mass. This is abundantly clear in a nuclear power plant, where the reaction requires no input energy to sustain itself. (And the energy density of the biggest fission bomb deployed (counting it's total weight) was 100,000 times that of chemical, and the energy density of the uranium fuel itself was in the millions.) A hydrogen bomb is initiated by and atomic bomb explosion, and itis a thousand times more energy dense. The fission bomb initiates fusion, and the fusion and fission then sustain each other, but again, once it's initiated, it's self-sustaining. (And the energy density is only 10 to 100 times that of the best fission bombs.) Moreover, fusion power will not be considered a success until ignition is achieved (and not even then), which represents the point where the reaction sustains itself, even if only on a tiny scale in the case of inertial fusion. Most observers do not havemuch difficulty extrapolating from that kind of known phenomenon - into anotherkind of mass-to-energy conversion, requiring a substantial trigger. Except extrapolation of those known phenomena should end in an energy source that is self-sustaining. The ecat isn't. In any event - “thousandsof times” more dense is not accurate IMO – closer to 200 times. Not sure it's really a matter of opinion. The claim in Levi's paper is 6e7 Wh/kg, which is a few thousand times the energy density of gasoline and more than a thousand times that of hydrogen. That's what I was referring to. And they say they stopped the reaction before it was exhausted. The potential energy density if it's coming from nuclear reactions is millions of times chemical. If you understand “recalescence”and then can extrapolate to a reaction which is recycled around the phasechange, then the
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
I wrote: . . . If you unplug a Rossi cell and try to make it self-sustain without input, it will melt. An analogy to fire may be useful to understanding, but you cannot engineer a reactor based on analogies. If we are going to do analogies, a more useful one would be to compare the Rossi reactor to an internal combustion engine ICE. With an ICE you have to apply the spark periodically to small portions of the fuel to trigger the reaction. Cude is demanding we find a way to ignite the entire tank of fuel with the spark plug once, and then have the car run normally after that. This does not work. The car goes up in flames, similar to the way Rossi's reactor melts. Actually, the Rossi reactor is sort of an anti-ICE, or a reverse-ICE. It would seem the spark does not trigger the reaction, but rather, it suppresses the reaction. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
Cold fusion seems to bring out the crazies. They do not think rationally and they do not understand basic science, yet they are sure they are right. I'm glad you are trying to keep them close to reality. Your patience is amazing. Ed Storms On May 30, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Mark, why don't you ask and quote some who actually understand cold fusion, like myself? Well, Ed, at least he quoted Elforsk. That's progress! The people Elforsk do not understand cold fusion but they do understand electricity, IR cameras, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which is more than you can say for Dr. Siegel. In the comment section Gibbs went on to ask me to recommend a do-it- yourself guide for Siegel. I recommended your paper. Fat chance that Siegel will even read it, and no chance he could do it. This gets back the hilarious comment of mine quoted in the article itself: . . . if there were a breakthrough in astrophysics, would you call an electric power company engineer to ask him his opinion of it? (Hilarious if I do say so myself.) The notion that an astrophysicist knows more about measuring electricity than electrical engineers do is too funny for words. Talk about teaching grandma how to suck eggs! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
I thought that the DC issue was put to rest. It can be easily shown that there is not amount of diode trickery which can be put into the control box that will confuse the primary power measurement. DC input has been eliminated so that is not an issue due to direct observation by one or more of the test personnel. There is noting left to clarify as far as the input is concerned. And you also agree that duty cycle operation is obvious by output waveform picture review. The viewed duty cycle matches that stated within the report. Anyone that suggests a cheese power type scam is not looking at the evidence. Any RF power input would cause serious disruption of the test reading with any change of position of the probes. If that is not seen, the scope would have detected it. It is time for the skeptics to leave this poor horse alone. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 30, 2013 1:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: 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. Yes. Some of these things legitimately raise questions. No one is claiming the experiment was ironclad. With sufficient information of what transpired, there is a possibility that it was done quite well, despite doubts that people may have. What we have now is a second draft of the writeup, dropped into the Internet. The three-phase power seems like a nonissue to me. I disagree. I can see no need for it to supply thermal energy at 1 kW or less. And it does complicate measurement, and open possibilities for deception. It also forces the experimenters to use a particular mains line, which if tampered with, would not be detected by any other instrumentation. And it makes available much higher input power. It's like using a 500 kW generator to power a megacat with 500 kW claimed output. It invites suspicion in a demonstration that was supposed to be designed to eliminate suspicion. The instruments were not necessarily inadequate if they were used in conjunction with other ones. No other ones were reported in the paper, which was written to validate the claims. We have already heard that Hartmann checked the voltage on the line. I thought he was just talking about the voltage readings from the 830, which don't add much. I haven't been able to keep up though. Maybe I missed something. That would have required stripping it of the shielding, which would have revealed any cheese power trickery. Not so. Tinsel also checked voltages and continuity and frequency in the second video without revealing the trick.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
As dave explains it makes sense if the energy input provides cooling power. Harry On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: . . . If you unplug a Rossi cell and try to make it self-sustain without input, it will melt. An analogy to fire may be useful to understanding, but you cannot engineer a reactor based on analogies. If we are going to do analogies, a more useful one would be to compare the Rossi reactor to an internal combustion engine ICE. With an ICE you have to apply the spark periodically to small portions of the fuel to trigger the reaction. Cude is demanding we find a way to ignite the entire tank of fuel with the spark plug once, and then have the car run normally after that. This does not work. The car goes up in flames, similar to the way Rossi's reactor melts. Actually, the Rossi reactor is sort of an anti-ICE, or a reverse-ICE. It would seem the spark does not trigger the reaction, but rather, it suppresses the reaction. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
There are advantages to using a three phase power input that have been pointed out. Measurements of 3 phase systems are done every day so this is not important. If Cude can show a real test that proves 3 phase measurements are not accurate, then someone will listen. Until that time, he can go no further with this argument. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 30, 2013 1:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: 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. I don't buy it. The reactor is a sealed faraday cage, so it's not going to care about ripple or dc vs ac. It's just a thermal interface. But in any case, in the dummy run, they measured the power to the ecat so that suggests it's an ordinary ac signal. Anyway, a box powered by ordinary mains can produce any signal shape they want. They wouldn't go to 3-phase just to skimp on diodes and capacitors. The 3-phase looks more like obfuscation to me.
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
I agree Dave, I have been providing this explanation for several years without any effect. I'm glad you are adding your voice. The critical point at which the temperature must be reduced depends on the degree of thermal contact between the source of energy (the Ni powder) and the sink (The outside world). The better the thermal contact between these two, the higher the stable temperature and the greater the COP. Rossi has not achieved a COP even close to what is possible. Ed Storms On May 30, 2013, at 2:23 PM, David Roberson wrote: There seems to be a serious hangup over why a heat generating device needs some form of heating input to sustain itself. The skeptics can not seem to get their arms around this issue so I will make another short attempt to explain why this is important. To achieve a high value of COP the ECAT operates within a region that is unstable. This translates into a situation where the device if given the chance will attempt to increase its internal energy until it melts or ceases to operate due to other damage. Control of the device is obtained by adding external heat via the power resistors allowing the core to heat up toward a critical point of no return. Just prior to that critical temperature the extra heating is rapidly halted. The effect of this heating collapse is to force the device core heating to change direction and begin cooling off. Positive feedback can work in either direction; that is, the temperature can be either increasing or decreasing and the trick is to make it go in the desired direction. The closer to the critical point that Rossi is able to switch directions, the longer the temperature waveform will linger near that point before heading downward. This is a delicate balance and most likely the reason Rossi has such a difficult fight on his hands to keep control. High COP, such as 6, is about all that can be safely maintained. The explanation above is based upon a spice model that I have developed and run many times. Statements by Rossi on his blog have been consistent with the performance that I observe with the model. It is important to realize that a device such as this does not operate in a simple manner such as that anticipated by the skeptics. I suppose that is why they fail to understand Rossi's machine. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 30, 2013 1:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: 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. I'm not talking about initiating. I'm talking about sustaining. I have no problem using electricity to initiate the ecat. But if it's a source of energy, it should behave like one and be able to at least power itself. A match is needed to ignite a firecracker, but once ignited, the explosion sustains itself. A match is needed to start a campfire, but not to sustain it. A battery is used to start a car engine, but not to sustain it. And a chemical explosion is used to initiate a fission bomb. But once initiated, it sustains itself using the chain reaction until the fuel is dispersed below critical mass. This is abundantly clear in a nuclear power plant, where the reaction requires no input energy to sustain itself. (And the energy density of the biggest fission bomb deployed (counting it's total weight) was 100,000 times that of chemical, and the energy density of the uranium fuel itself was in the millions.) A hydrogen bomb is initiated by and atomic bomb explosion, and it is a thousand times more energy dense. The fission bomb initiates fusion, and the fusion and fission then sustain each other, but again, once it's initiated, it's self- sustaining. (And the energy density is only 10 to 100 times that of the best fission bombs.) Moreover, fusion power will not be considered a success until ignition is achieved (and not even then), which represents the point where the reaction sustains itself, even if only on a tiny scale in the case of inertial fusion. 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. Except extrapolation of those known phenomena should end in an energy source that is self-sustaining. The ecat isn't. In any event - “thousands of times” more dense is not
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
Josh, what is common sense now becomes ancient history when the newest theories come out. How do you think men learned to fly heavier than air crafts when it was common sense that this was not possible. It took a couple of open minded and brilliant engineers to do what could not be done by those following common sense. You need to realize that all knowledge does not reside within your understanding. All of us should be open to learning new concepts and it is about time for you to give LENR a fair chance. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 30, 2013 2:22 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Randy wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: Joshua: First, telling us how the majority of observers feel about the report is clearly beyond your knowledge. As Eric suggested making those claims without proof (poll, census, etc.) is not only unscientific it is undoubtedly just self serving on your part. Garbage. Everyone, including skeptics, repeatedly sings about the revolution this would bring if real. And many people have seen the claims, now. If they believed them, they would not ignore it. The scientific community passed up the opportunity to investigate this science long ago and are now at the mercy of the entrepreneur, if it is real. Nah, they gave it far more attention than it deserved, and concluded there was nothing there, and moved on. One thing I am certain about is that you don't speak for the scientific community. You're right about that. I'm only expressing what is common sense to all but the true believers.
Re: [Vo]:Comment by Anderson at Forbes
By Tomorrow one presumes he means tomorrow in the literary sense. On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Here is a comment at Forbes from someone who sounds like he should be working on cold fusion with the rest of the superannuated geezers. Let's see if we can find him. - Jed DONALD ANDERSON I’m a Professor Ameritus in Electrical Engineering, Ph.D. was in developing long-lived vacuum tubes with nickel fired in hydrogen and vacuum, at temperatures around 1000C. Since have been heavily involved in alternative energy (solar thermal and wind. Everything I read in the 29 page report, and following challenges as answered by the authors, seems extremely convincing. All objections, typically suggesting fraud, are not to me at all convincing. Tomorrow will tell!
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
The COP will be higher outside on a wintery windy night. Harry On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: I agree Dave, I have been providing this explanation for several years without any effect. I'm glad you are adding your voice. The critical point at which the temperature must be reduced depends on the degree of thermal contact between the source of energy (the Ni powder) and the sink (The outside world). The better the thermal contact between these two, the higher the stable temperature and the greater the COP. Rossi has not achieved a COP even close to what is possible. Ed Storms On May 30, 2013, at 2:23 PM, David Roberson wrote: There seems to be a serious hangup over why a heat generating device needs some form of heating input to sustain itself. The skeptics can not seem to get their arms around this issue so I will make another short attempt to explain why this is important. To achieve a high value of COP the ECAT operates within a region that is unstable. This translates into a situation where the device if given the chance will attempt to increase its internal energy until it melts or ceases to operate due to other damage. Control of the device is obtained by adding external heat via the power resistors allowing the core to heat up toward a critical point of no return. Just prior to that critical temperature the extra heating is rapidly halted. The effect of this heating collapse is to force the device core heating to change direction and begin cooling off. Positive feedback can work in either direction; that is, the temperature can be either increasing or decreasing and the trick is to make it go in the desired direction. The closer to the critical point that Rossi is able to switch directions, the longer the temperature waveform will linger near that point before heading downward. This is a delicate balance and most likely the reason Rossi has such a difficult fight on his hands to keep control. High COP, such as 6, is about all that can be safely maintained. The explanation above is based upon a spice model that I have developed and run many times. Statements by Rossi on his blog have been consistent with the performance that I observe with the model. It is important to realize that a device such as this does not operate in a simple manner such as that anticipated by the skeptics. I suppose that is why they fail to understand Rossi's machine. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 30, 2013 1:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** *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. I'm not talking about initiating. I'm talking about sustaining. I have no problem using electricity to initiate the ecat. But if it's a source of energy, it should behave like one and be able to at least power itself. A match is needed to ignite a firecracker, but once ignited, the explosion sustains itself. A match is needed to start a campfire, but not to sustain it. A battery is used to start a car engine, but not to sustain it. And a chemical explosion is used to initiate a fission bomb. But once initiated, it sustains itself using the chain reaction until the fuel is dispersed below critical mass. This is abundantly clear in a nuclear power plant, where the reaction requires no input energy to sustain itself. (And the energy density of the biggest fission bomb deployed (counting it's total weight) was 100,000 times that of chemical, and the energy density of the uranium fuel itself was in the millions.) A hydrogen bomb is initiated by and atomic bomb explosion, and it is a thousand times more energy dense. ** The fission bomb initiates fusion, and the fusion and fission then sustain each other, but again, once it's initiated, it's self-sustaining. (And the energy density is only 10 to 100 times that of the best fission bombs.) Moreover, fusion power will not be considered a success until ignition is achieved (and not even then), which represents the point where the reaction sustains itself, even if only on a tiny scale in the case of inertial fusion. ** 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
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
thanks for the reminding. I should not have read AE van Vogt books when teenager... I would be mainstream and happy. 2013/5/30 Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: That is completely wrong. In experimental science you never need to explain how something works in order to confirm it is real. You just need to replicate it and show there is no error in the instruments or techniques. The map = Theory The territory = Experiments It's not on the map = No good theory If it's not on the map, it can't exist! (Our map makers are very good.) = It doesn't fit physics thus it's pseudo-science! (Our scientists are very good.) -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Josh, what is common sense now becomes ancient history when the newest theories come out. . . . You need to realize that all knowledge does not reside within your understanding. All of us should be open to learning new concepts and it is about time for you to give LENR a fair chance. Bill Beaty has an excellent quote on this subject, here: http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html Every fact of science was once damned. Every invention was considered impossible. Every discovery was a nervous shock to some orthodoxy. Every artistic innovation was denounced as fraud and folly. The entire web of culture and 'progress,' everything on earth that is man-made and not given to us by nature, is the concrete manifestation of some man's refusal to bow to Authority. We would own no more, know no more, and be no more than the first apelike hominids if it were not for the rebellious, the recalcitrant, and the intransigent. As Oscar Wilde truly said, 'Disobedience was man's Original Virtue.' - Robert Anton Wilson
Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
If someone is looking for an analogy they could look at the behavior of a power transistor mounted on a heat sink. For this exercise assume that the collector is directly connected to a power source. Apply enough base drive to obtain a relatively large collector current. If you adjust the drive carefully you can reach a state of thermal run away within the transistor. Now, think of the run away condition as the region where Rossi operates his ECAT. Your job is to control the transistor collector temperature by modulating the base drive. You are constrained to operation at a temperature that exceeds the initial run away point with full drive applied. Carefully timed on - off drive to the transistor should be able to keep the temperature high, but limited. If you mess up and let the transistor get too hot, then the current will continue to increase out of control and burn it up. I have not done a careful analysis of this network, so I may have overlooked something about it behavior. The general idea is that I am asking you to perform a difficult job similar to what Rossi faces. Does this task look easy? Can you keep the temperature constant by any fixed drive level when the temperature of the transistor is above the first threshold? Positive feedback can be challenging. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 30, 2013 4:11 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Amatch is needed to ignite a firecracker, but once ignited, the explosion sustains itself. Amatch is needed to start a campfire, but not to sustain it. Cold fusion is not fire. It does not work the same way. Evidently, Rossi's reactor requires external stimulation to keep the reactionunder control. That's how it works. You cannot dictate to MotherNature how things must work. If you unplug a Rossi cell and try tomake it self-sustain without input, it will melt. An analogy to fire may be useful to understanding, but you cannot engineer a reactor based on analogies. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 2:07:34 PM thanks for the reminding. I should not have read AE van Vogt books when teenager... I would be mainstream and happy. Or Jack Vance, who just died aged 96 : http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/30/jack-vance-dies-96-science-fiction
[Vo]:some more information about the december 2012 Ecat test
According to an article in the swiss journal NET Journal that has been published earlier in february 2013, a group of business partners of Andrea Rossi visited his new laboratory in Ferrara the day 14 of december 2012. The group saw the ongoing experiment and could take some pictures. The pictures were published by the NET Journal earlier than the Levi report later in may 2013. Some pictures look very similar to the pictures from the Levi report. One picture shows the display of the PCE830. (the same picture was put online in an italian forum - cobraf - but was immediately deleted after my comment 2 days ago and replaced a few hours later by a picture of Sean connery as James Bond in the film Dr. No) Present was Adolf Schneider and his wife Inge Schneider (Transaltec AG, they own the license to sell the Ecat in Switzerland) along with german and swiss business partners of Schneiders Transaltec AG. That day (14 of dec.) Rossi himself was present and explained the experiment to the visitors saying that he doesn't know the identity of the four professors who should later perform as he says a peer reviewof the measurements made. According to NET Journal, Rossi said that he would publish the results of this test anyway, whatever the results would be. According to this article, the experiment started seven days before (7 of december) and was sheduled to stop the next day, 15 of december. NET Journal, issue 18, january/february 2013, pages 13-15 (article in german language) Link: http://www.borderlands.de/net_pdf/NET0113S13-15.pdf In the Levi report, the test started 13 of december and ended 17 of december. This is compatible with this article. Maybe, it was decided later to continue the test after december 15. This confirms (by the published picture), that during the ongoing experiment the PCE830 was showing completely useless data, nothing like a gem. Furthermore it shows, that Rossi had access to the ongoing experiment. As the author of the article does not talk about any professor present that day, we may conclude that nobody of the Levi group could see what he did there.
Re: [Vo]:Forbes: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! ....
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Thu, 30 May 2013 07:38:13 -0400: Hi, [snip] Are you sure? Maybe not a plasma; but, possibly close. DGT speculates that highly energized hydrogen has the electron in a extreme elliptical orbit and, when at its apogee, the nucleus is exposed for a brief period. More interesting is when the electron is at perigee (actually apogee and perigee refer to distance from the Earth ;) [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:“The Lithium Problem”
Big-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) theory, together with the precise WMAP cosmic baryon density, makes tight predictions for the abundances of the lightest elements. Deuterium and 4He measurements agree well with expectations, but 7Li observations lie a factor 3 - 4 below the BBN+WMAP prediction. This 4 - 5 mismatch constitutes the cosmic lithium problem, with disparate solutions possible. (1) Astrophysical systematics in the observations could exist but are increasingly constrained. (2) Nuclear physics experiments provide a wealth of well-measured cross-section data, but 7Be destruction could be *enhanced by unknown or poorly-measured resonances, * Physics beyond the Standard Model can alter the 7Li abundance, though D and 4He must remain unperturbed; Physics is inventing outlandish theories for this puzzle including decaying Super symmetric particles and time-varying fundamental constants. Why don't they consider LENR??? Because they have a closed mind! http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt780307/PDF/2007MmSAI..78..476G.pdf The screening of lithium reactions are as high as 17.4 MeV. LENR is why there is a Lithium Problem
Re: [Vo]:some more information about the december 2012 Ecat test
Claudio C Fiorini claudio.c.fior...@gmail.com wrote: In the Levi report, the test started 13 of december and ended 17 of december. This is compatible with this article. Maybe, it was decided later to continue the test after december 15. This confirms (by the published picture), that during the ongoing experiment the PCE830 was showing completely useless data, nothing like a gem. Furthermore it shows, that Rossi had access to the ongoing experiment. As the author of the article does not talk about any professor present that day, we may conclude that nobody of the Levi group could see what he did there. I do not understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that Rossi was present? Or that that he interfered with the experiment? I do not think that Levi or his co-authors has said that Rossi was absent. Only that he played no role in the testing, and he did not touch the equipment. They verified that by making a video for the entire test: A wristwatch was placed next to the wattmeter, and a video camera was set up on a tripod and focused on both objects: at one frame per second, the entire sequence of minutes and power consumption were filmed and recorded for the 96-hour duration of the test. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Forbes: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! ....
To my best understanding, in energetic hydrogen the electron orbits move further away from the nucleus, not closer. * * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sommerfeld_ellipses.svg Quantum mechanically a state with abnormally high *n* refers to an atom in which the valence electron(s) have been excited into a formerly unpopulated electron orbital http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital with higher energy and lower binding energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sommerfeld_ellipses.svg, The low binding energy at high values of *n* explains why Rydberg states are susceptible to ionization. On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:11 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: The theories of hot fusion were built up from research on plasmas and they do work well when dealing with plasmas, but LENR is NOT occurring in a plasma. Are you sure? Maybe not a plasma; but, possibly close. DGT speculates that highly energized hydrogen has the electron in a extreme elliptical orbit and, when at its apogee, the nucleus is exposed for a brief period. But that is only one of a plethora of theories that we read about on Vortex-L. :-)
Re: [Vo]:Forbes: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! ....
This is not a quantum mechanical model. The actual wavefunction for anjy n, l=0 is spherical. 2013/5/30 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To my best understanding, in energetic hydrogen the electron orbits move further away from the nucleus, not closer. * * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sommerfeld_ellipses.svg Quantum mechanically a state with abnormally high *n* refers to an atom in which the valence electron(s) have been excited into a formerly unpopulated electron orbital http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbitalwith higher energy and lower binding energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sommerfeld_ellipses.svg, The low binding energy at high values of *n* explains why Rydberg states are susceptible to ionization. On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:11 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: The theories of hot fusion were built up from research on plasmas and they do work well when dealing with plasmas, but LENR is NOT occurring in a plasma. Are you sure? Maybe not a plasma; but, possibly close. DGT speculates that highly energized hydrogen has the electron in a extreme elliptical orbit and, when at its apogee, the nucleus is exposed for a brief period. But that is only one of a plethora of theories that we read about on Vortex-L. :-) -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:“The Lithium Problem”
What if LENR = dark/vacuum energy = http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4507 On Thursday, May 30, 2013, Axil Axil wrote: Big-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) theory, together with the precise WMAP cosmic baryon density, makes tight predictions for the abundances of the lightest elements. Deuterium and 4He measurements agree well with expectations, but 7Li observations lie a factor 3 - 4 below the BBN+WMAP prediction. This 4 - 5 mismatch constitutes the cosmic lithium problem, with disparate solutions possible. (1) Astrophysical systematics in the observations could exist but are increasingly constrained. (2) Nuclear physics experiments provide a wealth of well-measured cross-section data, but 7Be destruction could be *enhanced by unknown or poorly-measured resonances, * Physics beyond the Standard Model can alter the 7Li abundance, though D and 4He must remain unperturbed; Physics is inventing outlandish theories for this puzzle including decaying Super symmetric particles and time-varying fundamental constants. Why don't they consider LENR??? Because they have a closed mind! http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt780307/PDF/2007MmSAI..78..476G.pdf The screening of lithium reactions are as high as 17.4 MeV. LENR is why there is a Lithium Problem
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat CB radio RF generation
I notice that in the pictures they are twisted pairs; could it be a transmission line. --On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 8:57 PM -0400 David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com wrote: If plenty of power is available, and stringent RF interference specs don't need to be met, the simple wires will work fine. But I must admit an engineer would always use a coax for such a task. But maybe not an engineer who is trying to obsfucate On 5/29/2013 4:47 PM, Arnaud Kodeck wrote: To bring CB signal, the wires have to be shielded. The impedance must match in all system. Attenuation of CB signal must be kept as low as possible … The simple wires from the black box to the eCat doesn't meet those requirements. It's common sense for an EE. __ From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: mercredi 29 mai 2013 22:43 To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat Why else would Rossi say that the output of his control box was a trade secret? A DC feed of a internal heater is not a trade secret. On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be wrote: Axil, I doubt that the actual design of the eCat is able to bring CB range signal from electrical heating system. Or where else ? __ From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: mercredi 29 mai 2013 22:08 To: vortex-l Subject: 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.be wrote: Ed, I think you forget to add the EM stimulation controlled by the black box between wall socket and the eCat. Arnaud
Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: I don't buy it. The reactor is a sealed faraday cage, so it's not going to care about ripple or dc vs ac. It's just a thermal interface. The reactor might require or might be incompatible with low-frequency AC magnetic fields, which can go through 3 mm of steel, especially AISI 310 steel which has very low magnetic permeability. (Faraday cages bounce off electromagnetic signals (balanced E + B) but not necessarily penetrating magnetic signals.) In addition we are told the instantaneous power was about 930 W. If unfiltered, full-wave rectified AC was used then in 10 ms, that 930 W will supply or fail to supply about 10 J. As this is metal here and not water the thermal masses are pretty low: for the steel casing which has a thermal mass of about .15 J/K this would mean a change of 1.5 degree, 100 times per second. With a diffusivity of .36 m2/s this 100 Hz thermal signal would certainly reach the core. Who knows if the core minds a 100 Hz thermal+magnetic purr? But in any case, in the dummy run, they measured the power to the ecat so that suggests it's an ordinary ac signal. Anyway, a box powered by ordinary mains can produce any signal shape they want. They wouldn't go to 3-phase just to skimp on diodes and capacitors. The 3-phase looks more like obfuscation to me. Again, if they need to have precise PWM without a large 100 Hz ripple, they will have to produce high-power DC, and they will want it to be reliable. It's not just a matter of skimping on capacitors. The lifetime of aluminum electrolytic is very sensitive to heat. If you run them hot (~ 80C) they will last less than a year... and that's if you're lucky. And given the amperages, they will run hot. Also we are talking of controlling devices having a multi-kilowatt output, and putting these devices together to produce megawatt outputs. This means that there will be lots of heat. It makes sense to think that Rossi wants a modular e-Cat with a built-in controller. So the controller has to withstand high temperatures. And we know what happens when the power is uncontrolled. If he uses electrolytics, and those fail, they may wreak havoc into the control loop and the reactor might overheat and melt. If you don't want that kind of thing in a kettle, you certainly don't want it in a cold fusion (or whatever this is) device. In other words, this device needs a very robust controller that can withstand high temperatures, and needs to have a multi-year lifetime. Electrolytic capacitors seem unsuitable. As a side node, the use of tri-phase power seems to indicates that this is the real deal. Why would indeed Rossi bother with that if he didn't have a true need to industrialize his product? -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Forbes: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! ....
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:51 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: More interesting is when the electron is at perigee Clearly this is based on the Bohr model, obsolete; but, could you explain a bit more?! :) If you believe in Puthoff's explanation for the non-radiating electron, there is a rapid exchange occurring between the ZPF and the electron in this highly excited state. Does this tell us something, eh? ;)
Re: [Vo]:Comment by Anderson at Forbes
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I’m a Professor Ameritus in Electrical Engineering ... Everything I read in the 29 page report, and following challenges as answered by the authors, seems extremely convincing. All objections, typically suggesting fraud, are not to me at all convincing. Tomorrow will tell! (Facetiousness warning.) It would seem he must not have been a very good professor, then, given that he has passed a positive judgment on a manifestly sloppy paper. He should speed himself to the nearest physicist and receive guidance. Eric
