[Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
My dear readers, It is my privilege to offer you the text of a recent paper about Defkalion. http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/08/great-greek-article-about-defkalion.html I am grateful to the author for this fine paper despite to some minor but constructive disagreements regarding the interpretations of some scientific issues. I have studied history and so I am aware that when Christopher Columbus has discovered the New World,the North American mass media was unanimous in rejecting his business model as primitive, dis-informed and inadequate for discovering and developing a new continent. Judging in retrospective, they were 90% right. Anyway the North American tradition has survived and flourished and today there are there 3 times more experts in business model criticizing than in baseball. No problem, their intentions are good. Google and Apple can demonstrate us how effective these critics are. My very best wishes to all my readers. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
I clicked through your link and I'm confused. What's the title of the paper. Who is the author? The only link to a paper I saw was in a PS at the end and that was to a 2010 paper that has been available for some time: http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/Kim_BECNF.pdf On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: My dear readers, It is my privilege to offer you the text of a recent paper about Defkalion. http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/08/great-greek-article-about-defkalion.html I am grateful to the author for this fine paper despite to some minor but constructive disagreements regarding the interpretations of some scientific issues. I have studied history and so I am aware that when Christopher Columbus has discovered the New World,the North American mass media was unanimous in rejecting his business model as primitive, dis-informed and inadequate for discovering and developing a new continent. Judging in retrospective, they were 90% right. Anyway the North American tradition has survived and flourished and today there are there 3 times more experts in business model criticizing than in baseball. No problem, their intentions are good. Google and Apple can demonstrate us how effective these critics are. My very best wishes to all my readers. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
You are right; this is the original link, http://www.tovima.gr/science/article/?aid=524943 The Title is THE RETURN OF DEFKALION The Greek text is protected by a paywall. If you have question do not hesitate to write me Peter On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: I clicked through your link and I'm confused. What's the title of the paper. Who is the author? The only link to a paper I saw was in a PS at the end and that was to a 2010 paper that has been available for some time: http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/Kim_BECNF.pdf On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: My dear readers, It is my privilege to offer you the text of a recent paper about Defkalion. http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/08/great-greek-article-about-defkalion.html I am grateful to the author for this fine paper despite to some minor but constructive disagreements regarding the interpretations of some scientific issues. I have studied history and so I am aware that when Christopher Columbus has discovered the New World,the North American mass media was unanimous in rejecting his business model as primitive, dis-informed and inadequate for discovering and developing a new continent. Judging in retrospective, they were 90% right. Anyway the North American tradition has survived and flourished and today there are there 3 times more experts in business model criticizing than in baseball. No problem, their intentions are good. Google and Apple can demonstrate us how effective these critics are. My very best wishes to all my readers. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
among the few irresponsible buzz to relay : - is Defkalion bought out by Chinese ? - does Russian/Ukrainian own a competing technology ? - is 500 million for DGT, a small price ? If 48billion more honest? 8-o - what is a scam artist company doing with Fasmatech (a company manufacturing spectrographs-to order, at Democritos Research Institute technology hub) : http://fasmatech.com/services/ , ;-) ;-) note that Defkalion said they will go back to greece in 2015. they lied ! they are already back ! Liars! liars! ;-) About China I notice : - they own great Greek ports - they own most western government debt - they host Pamela Mosier-Boss - They host and fund Shaywer and his Emdrive ( http://www.scoop.it/t/emdrive ) - and... Defkalion? hum... no data... no data, yet. :-/ I should learn Chinese language. And stop Indonesian coffee in the morning. 2013/8/12 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com My dear readers, It is my privilege to offer you the text of a recent paper about Defkalion. http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/08/great-greek-article-about-defkalion.html I am grateful to the author for this fine paper despite to some minor but constructive disagreements regarding the interpretations of some scientific issues. I have studied history and so I am aware that when Christopher Columbus has discovered the New World,the North American mass media was unanimous in rejecting his business model as primitive, dis-informed and inadequate for discovering and developing a new continent. Judging in retrospective, they were 90% right. Anyway the North American tradition has survived and flourished and today there are there 3 times more experts in business model criticizing than in baseball. No problem, their intentions are good. Google and Apple can demonstrate us how effective these critics are. My very best wishes to all my readers. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
It's about time we spend a bit more time on facts and much less on all the fuzz. Stirring up all kind of noise does not contribute to the promotion of LENR. Sometimes it's OK to just be silent for a while. LENR stalking is undesired.
RE: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
From: Teslaalset It's about time we spend a bit more time on facts and much less on all the fuzz. Stirring up all kind of noise does not contribute to the promotion of LENR. Sometimes it's OK to just be silent for a while. You are exactly right. Despite good intent, Peter seems to have lost all ability to discriminate between science and show business. This is noise - completely premature. My first impression: A scam artist would have done it no differently. This document coming on the heels of the Canadian stock offering is a tipoff - only a completely foolish investor would fall for it. Kim should be ashamed to have his name on what amounts to no more than a stage show. Investors: Stay Away! Without more - far more, and since there is not the least bit of scientific proof - I'm with the skeptics on this one. A strong indication of bad intent is that without any further evidence, despite calls for some minimal kind of confirmation - they repeat the fantastic statement: After that, you observe a sharp increase of the magnetic field within the reactor between 0.6 to 1.6 Tesla. This according to Kim indicates that the reaction results in very strong electric fields E, currents I and magnetic fields B. Sad state of affairs this is. This kind of development, if it proves to be a scam, will set the field back many years.
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Beyond any other consideration, the Hyperion generates plenty of excess energy in a controlled mode. This was my expectation from what has started as cold fusion 24+ years ago. The strong magnetic field is a discovery still not explored and not completely understood. Our reasonable colleagues have asked a time-out for this problem. Can you explain me what is science exactly in the very case of our field? Peter On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** *From:* Teslaalset ** ** It's about time we spend a bit more time on facts and much less on all the fuzz. Stirring up all kind of noise does not contribute to the promotion of LENR. Sometimes it's OK to just be silent for a while. ** ** You are exactly right. ** ** Despite good intent, Peter seems to have lost all ability to discriminate between science and show business. This is noise - completely premature.** ** ** ** My first impression: A scam artist would have done it no differently. ** ** This document coming on the heels of the Canadian stock offering is a tipoff – only a completely foolish investor would fall for it. Kim should be ashamed to have his name on what amounts to no more than a stage show. Investors: Stay Away! ** ** Without more - far more, and since there is not the least bit of scientific proof - I’m with the skeptics on this one. ** ** A strong indication of bad intent is that without any further evidence, despite calls for some minimal kind of confirmation - they repeat the fantastic statement: “After that, you observe a sharp increase of the magnetic field within the reactor between 0.6 to 1.6 Tesla. This according to Kim indicates that the reaction results in very strong electric fields E, currents I and magnetic fields B”. ** ** Sad state of affairs this is. This kind of development, if it proves to be a scam, will set the field back many years. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Kim should be ashamed to have his name on what amounts to no more than a stage show. Investors: Stay Away! Well, I would call it a trade show demo. A step up from a stage show. Still, it could have been more rigorous, better planned and better rehearsed. They should have sparged the steam to show that it was coming out at 500 ml/min and that it was fairly dry. In retrospect I think it was a mistake to ignore the enthalpy of the steam. It is an odd thing to do. They should have at least demonstrated that it was steam with a large plume and a great deal of heat. They definitely should have demonstrated this gigantic magnetic field. A quick test of that is easy to do. It is not hard to find an iron object, such as paperclip or screwdriver. Sad state of affairs this is. This kind of development, if it proves to be a scam, will set the field back many years. I would not worry about that. The field has no reputation to lose. It could not be more ridiculed and opposed that it is already. Also, I think Defkalion is still far from the mainstream of cold fusion. I think Rossi has more credibility, thanks to Levi et al. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Why should they demonstrate all that heat? Even ignoring the enthalpy, it's still big! And why would they demonstrate the magnetic field? That would be a hassle and hell would break lose. It would even interfere with the controls. 2013/8/12 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com In retrospect I think it was a mistake to ignore the enthalpy of the steam. It is an odd thing to do. They should have at least demonstrated that it was steam with a large plume and a great deal of heat. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Beyond any other consideration, the Hyperion generates plenty of excess energy in a controlled mode. I would not be so sure of that. The demonstration was interesting and helpful but I do not think it constituted proof. You need an independent third-party check and you need to give experts several days to make sure there are no mistakes. There may be better independent proof of the claims. Perhaps experts have done better tests under NDA. Until Defkalion publishes such tests we cannot be sure. They told me they have no intention of publishing any such tests. Therefore we cannot be sure their claims are real. I am not implying there is anything dishonest going on. I have seen many impressive-looking cold fusion experiments that turned out to be mistakes. I have seen impressive looking, large-scale tests of various over unity devices that turned out to be completely mistaken. The strong magnetic field is a discovery still not explored and not completely understood. It has not even been demonstrated! No one knows if it is real. First things first. Can you explain me what is science exactly in the very case of our field? Not sure what this means. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
The only fact it is that you do not accept. There is no error and since this is a random complaint, don't expect them to them to listen to you any time soon. There is no time out and no delay in business. 2013/8/12 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com The time out is necessary for this obvious error to be explained and corrected. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Peter, a magnetic field has not been discovered. A claim has been made without any evidence or even a logical explanation. The claimed high intensity of a magnetic field is impossible under the circumstance. Therefore the reading on the gauss meter was misinterpreted. Until this issue is resolved, all discussion is pointless and a waste of time. The time out is necessary for this obvious error to be explained and corrected. Ed On Aug 12, 2013, at 8:19 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Beyond any other consideration, the Hyperion generates plenty of excess energy in a controlled mode. This was my expectation from what has started as cold fusion 24+ years ago. The strong magnetic field is a discovery still not explored and not completely understood. Our reasonable colleagues have asked a time- out for this problem. Can you explain me what is science exactly in the very case of our field? Peter On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Teslaalset It's about time we spend a bit more time on facts and much less on all the fuzz. Stirring up all kind of noise does not contribute to the promotion of LENR. Sometimes it's OK to just be silent for a while. You are exactly right. Despite good intent, Peter seems to have lost all ability to discriminate between science and show business. This is noise - completely premature. My first impression: A scam artist would have done it no differently. This document coming on the heels of the Canadian stock offering is a tipoff – only a completely foolish investor would fall for it. Kim should be ashamed to have his name on what amounts to no more than a stage show. Investors: Stay Away! Without more - far more, and since there is not the least bit of scientific proof - I’m with the skeptics on this one. A strong indication of bad intent is that without any further evidence, despite calls for some minimal kind of confirmation - they repeat the fantastic statement: “After that, you observe a sharp increase of the magnetic field within the reactor between 0.6 to 1.6 Tesla. This according to Kim indicates that the reaction results in very strong electric fields E, currents I and magnetic fields B”. Sad state of affairs this is. This kind of development, if it proves to be a scam, will set the field back many years. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Rossi's 500Kw test? :) 2013/8/12 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com I have seen many impressive-looking cold fusion experiments that turned out to be mistakes. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: And why would they demonstrate the magnetic field? To show that it is real, obviously, and not an error with the Gauss-meter. They should demonstrate the magnetic field for the same reason they should demonstrate that the steam is real by pulling the hose out and showing the plume and then sparging the steam for a minute to prove there is 500 g of vaporized water, mostly dry steam. This is a crude method but it works. It is indisputable. When you make a dramatic claim, you should prove it by two or more different methods. A flowmeter is good of course but it can always be wrong. It would very convenient to sparge the steam. It takes only a few minutes and equipment such as a bucket and a weight scale which are available at any lab. This would prove beyond question that the flowmeter was correct. Suspenders and a belt as they say. Why prove it only way when you can just as easily prove it two ways? That would be a hassle and hell would break lose. Not a hassle at all. Why would hell break lose? If hell is likely to break loose because of this claim, they should not make the claim at all. Keep it secret.There is no point to making a dramatic claim with insufficient proof. It would even interfere with the controls. It will do that anyway, if it is real! I do not see your point. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
You mean, to fry their computers, cell phones and kill people with pace makers? 2013/8/12 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com It will do that anyway, if it is real! I do not see your point. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
From: Peter Beyond any other consideration, the Hyperion generates plenty of excess energy in a controlled mode. So you say. Where is the independent proof of this heat? I agree that it looked good in the video, but other factors have completely negated the value of the video - which Randi could have pulled off as well. The steam issue negates everything. This was my expectation from what has started as cold fusion 24+ years ago. And mine as well - but with DGT, the results are only expectation, since there has been no acceptable level of independent proof. Just the opposite in fact. Going for a stock offering at this stage is completely out of the question, since all they have now is a reputation for sloppy workmanship. The strong magnetic field is a discovery still not explored and not completely understood. Our reasonable colleagues have asked a time-out for this problem. Time-outs are for children. These colleagues, reasonable or not - made a huge mistake that taints everything they have presented. To continue with a stock offering - in the face of such childish antics is almost obscene. In my opinion, Peter - it was a big mistake for you to throw your considerable influence behind them - given so little in actual proof and the ease with which everything they have showed could have been staged. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
The time out refers to discussion by people on Vortex who have no knowledge about the issue. Do you have inside knowledge that you will kindly provide? Ed On Aug 12, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: The only fact it is that you do not accept. There is no error and since this is a random complaint, don't expect them to them to listen to you any time soon. There is no time out and no delay in business. 2013/8/12 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com The time out is necessary for this obvious error to be explained and corrected. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi's 500Kw test? :) 2013/8/12 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com I have seen many impressive-looking cold fusion experiments that turned out to be mistakes. I cannot judge whether that was real or not. Not enough information was revealed. I said so at the time it was being done, and I have not changed my mind. Gene Mallove used to test various devices, and he attended demonstrations, as did I. Some of them proved nothing. I think the Hydrodynamics gadget is probably real but I attended some tests where they made large mistakes, proving absolutely nothing. At one point they had the thermocouples set for the wrong type (K-type or whatever it was). The temperature readings were meaningless. People make honest mistakes. When they do large-scale experiments they sometimes make large-scale honest mistakes. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Jones, I assume responsibility for my errors. Let's keep in touch re this dispute and we will see who was right. OK? Peter On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: You mean, to fry their computers, cell phones and kill people with pace makers? 2013/8/12 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com It will do that anyway, if it is real! I do not see your point. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Why should I do anything to satisfy any random curiosity! There is public knowledge of magnetic field, at least in the form of RF from ICCF - 13, which is correlated with COP enhancement by over 10x. 2013/8/12 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com The time out refers to discussion by people on Vortex who have no knowledge about the issue. Do you have inside knowledge that you will kindly provide? Ed On Aug 12, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: The only fact it is that you do not accept. There is no error and since this is a random complaint, don't expect them to them to listen to you any time soon. There is no time out and no delay in business. 2013/8/12 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com The time out is necessary for this obvious error to be explained and corrected. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
I agree that a time out is necessary, It is a huge anomaly that either needs to be explained OR retracted. Fran From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 10:33 AM To: John Milstone Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION The only fact it is that you do not accept. There is no error and since this is a random complaint, don't expect them to them to listen to you any time soon. There is no time out and no delay in business. 2013/8/12 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.commailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com The time out is necessary for this obvious error to be explained and corrected. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.commailto:danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: You mean, to fry their computers, cell phones and kill people with pace makers? If there is a large magnetic field capable of doing these things it will do them. Demonstrating that the field is real will not prevent this from happening. They have a Gauss meter that supposedly showed the field. They can also demonstrate it with an iron object such as a paper clip or screwdriver, as several people pointed out here. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
You don't know under what conditions that was done. It may be not so simple. 2013/8/12 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com They have a Gauss meter that supposedly showed the field. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Typically a legitimate stock/IPO offering will include a disclosure of signed business contracts, etc. along with a PL Balance sheet, finances forecast, etc. If they are legit a proper offering should disclose that information. On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Peter Beyond any other consideration, the Hyperion generates plenty of excess energy in a controlled mode. So you say. Where is the independent proof of this heat? I agree that it looked good in the video, but other factors have completely negated the value of the video - which Randi could have pulled off as well. The steam issue negates everything. This was my expectation from what has started as cold fusion 24+ years ago. And mine as well - but with DGT, the results are only expectation, since there has been no acceptable level of independent proof. Just the opposite in fact. Going for a stock offering at this stage is completely out of the question, since all they have now is a reputation for sloppy workmanship. The strong magnetic field is a discovery still not explored and not completely understood. Our reasonable colleagues have asked a time-out for this problem. Time-outs are for children. These colleagues, reasonable or not - made a huge mistake that taints everything they have presented. To continue with a stock offering - in the face of such childish antics is almost obscene. In my opinion, Peter - it was a big mistake for you to throw your considerable influence behind them - given so little in actual proof and the ease with which everything they have showed could have been staged. Jones
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: You don't know under what conditions that was done. It may be not so simple. How complicated could it be? It cannot be difficult to prove there is a magnetic field that persists for a few seconds or longer. If it is a millisecond I agree it might be difficult. Magnetism is easy do demonstrate, no matter how complicated the cause of it may be. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Man used fire for over 10,000 years before we came up with the idea it was oxidation, but man probably sold wood to each other. Growing up in Maine that was about all I had to sell to make money in the Fall. Stewart On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: You don't know under what conditions that was done. It may be not so simple. How complicated could it be? It cannot be difficult to prove there is a magnetic field that persists for a few seconds or longer. If it is a millisecond I agree it might be difficult. Magnetism is easy do demonstrate, no matter how complicated the cause of it may be. - Jed
[Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st
..is that they will soon either provide extraordinary evidence or they are a fraud (and therefore an obvious short selling opportunity). There is absolutely no upside whatsoever to pussyfooting around on their claims at this point. When they go public, they want their stock price as high as possible. With a high stock price they can get the necessary power and influence they will need to compete with other public companies. If they just use half measures and weak demos, by going public they will likely just attract attention and deep pocketed competition that will believe it can do better than them (especially if they see people investing in Defkalion). Their best strategy is to go out very very hard and in a way that makes them the defacto standard and discourages competition or at least gives them ammunition (via a very high stock price) to attack competitors. The way to do this is to provide a public test protocol that suspends all disbelief. Right now, given that Luca (the only known physics PHd with a track record in the bunch) has suspended biz in Italy due to inconsistencies on the testing, I'm betting incompetence / fraud, but I think a really good test by Defkalion with indie observers (especially a videotaped one) will turn that around significantly. Hopefully in the test they will allow the indie observers to open up various parts (especially the pumps, the reactor, the electrical, etc) as well to show nothing crazy.
Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st
He cannot do such thing, fortunately. 2013/8/12 blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com Right now, given that Luca (the only known physics PHd with a track record in the bunch) has suspended biz in Italy due to inconsistencies on the testing, I'm betting incompetence / fraud, but I think a really good test by Defkalion with indie observers (especially a videotaped one) will turn that around significantly. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Jed, I agree but after the odd spectrum shifts reported by Black Light and the anomalous decay rates of radioactive gas I think any magnetic measurements of the active region should be based on very basic attractive force.. I suspect that the environment responsible for spectrum shifted properties of the light emanating from the active region are also affecting the magnetic field. Fran From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 11:02 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.commailto:danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: You don't know under what conditions that was done. It may be not so simple. How complicated could it be? It cannot be difficult to prove there is a magnetic field that persists for a few seconds or longer. If it is a millisecond I agree it might be difficult. Magnetism is easy do demonstrate, no matter how complicated the cause of it may be. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st
Well, then fortunately it will be a great short selling opportunity! Always on the look out for such things. On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: He cannot do such thing, fortunately. 2013/8/12 blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com Right now, given that Luca (the only known physics PHd with a track record in the bunch) has suspended biz in Italy due to inconsistencies on the testing, I'm betting incompetence / fraud, but I think a really good test by Defkalion with indie observers (especially a videotaped one) will turn that around significantly. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st
Let me be clear though, I think Defkalion could turn this situation around. Go out strong with Luca (or someone with equal credibility, he's not the only physics PHD with a track record in the world) leading a *simple and clear demonstration* that proves the tech. Allow for a tear down afterwards of everything that shows all the stuff they showed in previous videos regarding the innards. Don't have to do chemical breakdowns of the 'confidential area', but at least let people see all the parts. And if that demo doesn't work perfectly, just do another one that takes into account the criticisms. I think a plan for 3 or 4 demos over a month or so, each addressing all the concerns from the previous is a perfect way to get the extraordinary evidence required. That way, when they go public, their stock price will rocket super high and they can use it invest / hire / acquire great talent and tech to make their company invincible. However, if they go with just what they have so far, I believe they will just end up attracting a lot of me tos who will see their weak demos and feel they will be able to do a better job. These competitors will get money for investment and once their companies start they won't be able to stop. They will write up patents as fast as possible. With a weak IPO, Defkalion will just end up creating a lot of competitors and not much else who will provide alternative investing opportunities and forever undermine their stock offering. On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:42 AM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Well, then fortunately it will be a great short selling opportunity! Always on the look out for such things. On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: He cannot do such thing, fortunately. 2013/8/12 blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com Right now, given that Luca (the only known physics PHd with a track record in the bunch) has suspended biz in Italy due to inconsistencies on the testing, I'm betting incompetence / fraud, but I think a really good test by Defkalion with indie observers (especially a videotaped one) will turn that around significantly. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st
From: blaze spinnaker The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st...is that they will soon either provide extraordinary evidence or they are a fraud (and therefore an obvious short selling opportunity). Wrong. There is almost no stock market regulation in Canada. There are no short opportunities either for this kind of pump and dump. According to WSJ - Canada produces more stock market fraud than other countries and the penalties are light when you get caught. Unlike the major industrial nations, Canada has no national regulatory agency for securities - but leaves the task to the provinces, which pursue oversight with varying degrees of enthusiasm. And efforts at reform have been a joke. They would probably not extradite anyone from Europe, if and when this turns out to be complete fraud. Guess what? That lack of regulation in Canada could be related to the real reason these guys went to Vancouver in the first place - but never really set up a Lab there and instead did the demo in Europe. And has Alex not gone back to Greece permanently? That is the rumor. In effect - the whole thing about the move to Vancouver seems like it could be a ruse and a con - done solely to get the company listed on a largely unregulated stock market, but in an area where there is lots of investment capital due to the shale oil boom (unlike Greece). This ploy of DGT stinks - if that is really what is happening. I do not have the information to say for sure but it is clear that if DGT really have valid LENR technology- then they could not have handled it in a worse way. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st
There are no short opportunities either for this kind of pump and dump. Read that sentence over to yourself a dozen times or so. Eventually you'll realize you just logically said A !A. On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: blaze spinnaker The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st...is that they will soon either provide extraordinary evidence or they are a fraud (and therefore an obvious short selling opportunity). Wrong. There is almost no stock market regulation in Canada. There are no short opportunities either for this kind of pump and dump. According to WSJ - Canada produces more stock market fraud than other countries and the penalties are light when you get caught. Unlike the major industrial nations, Canada has no national regulatory agency for securities - but leaves the task to the provinces, which pursue oversight with varying degrees of enthusiasm. And efforts at reform have been a joke. They would probably not extradite anyone from Europe, if and when this turns out to be complete fraud. Guess what? That lack of regulation in Canada could be related to the real reason these guys went to Vancouver in the first place - but never really set up a Lab there and instead did the demo in Europe. And has Alex not gone back to Greece permanently? That is the rumor. In effect - the whole thing about the move to Vancouver seems like it could be a ruse and a con - done solely to get the company listed on a largely unregulated stock market, but in an area where there is lots of investment capital due to the shale oil boom (unlike Greece). This ploy of DGT stinks - if that is really what is happening. I do not have the information to say for sure but it is clear that if DGT really have valid LENR technology- then they could not have handled it in a worse way.
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Why do you discuss any thing on vortex? Why do you even comment since we are all engaging in random curiosity about everything? You make no sense. RF is not identified as a magnetic field. The impression given is of a constant magnetic field being generated. If you know this is not true, why would you not say so? Ed On Aug 12, 2013, at 8:46 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Why should I do anything to satisfy any random curiosity! There is public knowledge of magnetic field, at least in the form of RF from ICCF - 13, which is correlated with COP enhancement by over 10x. 2013/8/12 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com The time out refers to discussion by people on Vortex who have no knowledge about the issue. Do you have inside knowledge that you will kindly provide? Ed On Aug 12, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: The only fact it is that you do not accept. There is no error and since this is a random complaint, don't expect them to them to listen to you any time soon. There is no time out and no delay in business. 2013/8/12 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com The time out is necessary for this obvious error to be explained and corrected. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Regarding your theories and the magnetic behavior of the Ni/H reactors of both Defkalion and Rossi: It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Richard P. Feynman On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Why do you discuss any thing on vortex? Why do you even comment since we are all engaging in random curiosity about everything? You make no sense. RF is not identified as a magnetic field. The impression given is of a constant magnetic field being generated. If you know this is not true, why would you not say so? Ed On Aug 12, 2013, at 8:46 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Why should I do anything to satisfy any random curiosity! There is public knowledge of magnetic field, at least in the form of RF from ICCF - 13, which is correlated with COP enhancement by over 10x. 2013/8/12 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com The time out refers to discussion by people on Vortex who have no knowledge about the issue. Do you have inside knowledge that you will kindly provide? Ed On Aug 12, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: The only fact it is that you do not accept. There is no error and since this is a random complaint, don't expect them to them to listen to you any time soon. There is no time out and no delay in business. 2013/8/12 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com The time out is necessary for this obvious error to be explained and corrected. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:Suggestions for a more effective demonstration
Defkalion's demonstration wasn't bad. Any demonstration is tough. Something always goes wrong. It wasn't bad, but it could have been better. I have done demonstrations and I have taught and given lectures so let me offer a few suggestions based on this experience. Practice, practice, practice. Rehearse beforehand. Be sure you can comfortably complete the presentation in the time allotted. This was their biggest failing. Set up your props beforehand. As I explain below, in this case I would have put a black drop cloth on the wall and brought in a meter stick, a weight scale, and a bucket of water with a thermometer in it. Make yourself clear. Get to the point and stick to it. You need not write out every word, but it is a good idea to write down your talking points in the order you intend to present them. Here is the sort of thing I would have said: . . . The inlet temperature is 21°C, the outlet is 115°C. Here on the screen we are computing enthalpy by the heat capacity of water. We ignore the heat of vaporization. However, at this outlet temperature we know the water has vaporized. Let's prove that. Let's take the outlet tube from the sink and hold it up next to this black drop cloth. [Holding meter stick next to plume.] As you see the plume of steam is around 80 cm long. The first 20 cm are invisible, which means the steam is dry. Now let us show that our flowmeter is correct and the water is flowing at 500 mL per minute. We will also show that the steam has about 1130 kJ of enthalpy per minute. We have placed this bucket on the weight scale. As you see it has 20 kg of water in it, and the water temperature is 21°C. Now were going to submerge the hose under the water for about a minute and see how much water condenses and how much the entire mass of water heats up. Starting NOW. [Splash! 'Buku buku buku' as bubbles say in Japanese] [A minute later] Okay we removed the hose after one minute three seconds. The weight of water has increased by 460 g. Some of the steam escaped from the water but most of it condensed. We see that the temperature has risen to 31°C . . . And so forth. Prepare your tables and spreadsheets beforehand so you can describe results smoothly without stopping to do a lot of arithmetic. You need not state that the heat of vaporization is 2260 kJ per kilogram. The viewer can look that up later on. You need not explain that the bucket when empty weighs 820 g. The viewer knows about how much a plastic bucket weighs, and can see you have taken that into account. Skip the details; get to the point. As I said before, you demonstrate every key point twice, by two different methods. Ideally, one method relies upon precision instruments and the second method depends on first principles that are easily understood and easily measured, even if they are somewhat crude. The two methods must be completely different so that a single artifact cannot cause both to be wrong. People sometimes say that in a lecture you should tell the audience what you're going to say; tell them what you have to say; and then tell them what you just told them. I think this is going too far, but it does not hurt to repeat your key points at least once. I assume the people at Defkalion are doing similar demonstrations for potential customers and investors. So I think they should polish up the presentation and make it more convincing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Axil, the question is, Exactly what behavior did the experiment show?. DGE claims to have measured a magnetic FIELD of 1.6 T. Such an intense magnetic field cannot form under the circumstances. Therefore, they misinterpreted the behavior. The problem is to discover just what they actually observed. Instead, people assume the claim is correct and proceed to explain it by applying a theory. Obviously, these theories can explain anything even if the observation has no relationship to reality. Consequently, this exercise is a waste of time and the so called theories have no value. Until DGT provides real data, we have no reality to discuss. Ed On Aug 12, 2013, at 12:14 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Regarding your theories and the magnetic behavior of the Ni/H reactors of both Defkalion and Rossi: It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Richard P. Feynman On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Why do you discuss any thing on vortex? Why do you even comment since we are all engaging in random curiosity about everything? You make no sense. RF is not identified as a magnetic field. The impression given is of a constant magnetic field being generated. If you know this is not true, why would you not say so? Ed On Aug 12, 2013, at 8:46 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Why should I do anything to satisfy any random curiosity! There is public knowledge of magnetic field, at least in the form of RF from ICCF - 13, which is correlated with COP enhancement by over 10x. 2013/8/12 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com The time out refers to discussion by people on Vortex who have no knowledge about the issue. Do you have inside knowledge that you will kindly provide? Ed On Aug 12, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: The only fact it is that you do not accept. There is no error and since this is a random complaint, don't expect them to them to listen to you any time soon. There is no time out and no delay in business. 2013/8/12 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com The time out is necessary for this obvious error to be explained and corrected. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Suggestions for a more effective demonstration
Keep it simple. Fill a 10,000 gallon insolated tank truck with 20C water, and run it in a loop to the Ni/H reactor. When the temperature of the water in the truck gets to 90C, the case is proven. On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Defkalion's demonstration wasn't bad. Any demonstration is tough. Something always goes wrong. It wasn't bad, but it could have been better. I have done demonstrations and I have taught and given lectures so let me offer a few suggestions based on this experience. Practice, practice, practice. Rehearse beforehand. Be sure you can comfortably complete the presentation in the time allotted. This was their biggest failing. Set up your props beforehand. As I explain below, in this case I would have put a black drop cloth on the wall and brought in a meter stick, a weight scale, and a bucket of water with a thermometer in it. Make yourself clear. Get to the point and stick to it. You need not write out every word, but it is a good idea to write down your talking points in the order you intend to present them. Here is the sort of thing I would have said: . . . The inlet temperature is 21°C, the outlet is 115°C. Here on the screen we are computing enthalpy by the heat capacity of water. We ignore the heat of vaporization. However, at this outlet temperature we know the water has vaporized. Let's prove that. Let's take the outlet tube from the sink and hold it up next to this black drop cloth. [Holding meter stick next to plume.] As you see the plume of steam is around 80 cm long. The first 20 cm are invisible, which means the steam is dry. Now let us show that our flowmeter is correct and the water is flowing at 500 mL per minute. We will also show that the steam has about 1130 kJ of enthalpy per minute. We have placed this bucket on the weight scale. As you see it has 20 kg of water in it, and the water temperature is 21°C. Now were going to submerge the hose under the water for about a minute and see how much water condenses and how much the entire mass of water heats up. Starting NOW. [Splash! 'Buku buku buku' as bubbles say in Japanese] [A minute later] Okay we removed the hose after one minute three seconds. The weight of water has increased by 460 g. Some of the steam escaped from the water but most of it condensed. We see that the temperature has risen to 31°C . . . And so forth. Prepare your tables and spreadsheets beforehand so you can describe results smoothly without stopping to do a lot of arithmetic. You need not state that the heat of vaporization is 2260 kJ per kilogram. The viewer can look that up later on. You need not explain that the bucket when empty weighs 820 g. The viewer knows about how much a plastic bucket weighs, and can see you have taken that into account. Skip the details; get to the point. As I said before, you demonstrate every key point twice, by two different methods. Ideally, one method relies upon precision instruments and the second method depends on first principles that are easily understood and easily measured, even if they are somewhat crude. The two methods must be completely different so that a single artifact cannot cause both to be wrong. People sometimes say that in a lecture you should tell the audience what you're going to say; tell them what you have to say; and then tell them what you just told them. I think this is going too far, but it does not hurt to repeat your key points at least once. I assume the people at Defkalion are doing similar demonstrations for potential customers and investors. So I think they should polish up the presentation and make it more convincing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Suggestions for a more effective demonstration
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Keep it simple. Fill a 10,000 gallon insolated tank truck with 20C water, and run it in a loop to the Ni/H reactor. That is not simple at all. Also, this would not work. When the temperature of the water in the truck gets to 90C, the case is proven. This would not happen, unless the tank was extremely well insulated. An ordinary tank truck for water is not insulated. If it were extremely well insulated it would impossible for the viewer to determine the volume of the container. It would also be easy to hide a heater inside it. This would take a long time, and the viewer would not have the gumption to keep watching hour after hour. That is why I said this is not simple. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Suggestions for a more effective demonstration
insolate [ˈɪnsəʊˌleɪt] vb (tr) to expose to sunlight, as for bleaching On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Keep it simple. Fill a 10,000 gallon insolated tank truck with 20C water, and run it in a loop to the Ni/H reactor. When the temperature of the water in the truck gets to 90C, the case is proven. On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Defkalion's demonstration wasn't bad. Any demonstration is tough. Something always goes wrong. It wasn't bad, but it could have been better. I have done demonstrations and I have taught and given lectures so let me offer a few suggestions based on this experience. Practice, practice, practice. Rehearse beforehand. Be sure you can comfortably complete the presentation in the time allotted. This was their biggest failing. Set up your props beforehand. As I explain below, in this case I would have put a black drop cloth on the wall and brought in a meter stick, a weight scale, and a bucket of water with a thermometer in it. Make yourself clear. Get to the point and stick to it. You need not write out every word, but it is a good idea to write down your talking points in the order you intend to present them. Here is the sort of thing I would have said: . . . The inlet temperature is 21°C, the outlet is 115°C. Here on the screen we are computing enthalpy by the heat capacity of water. We ignore the heat of vaporization. However, at this outlet temperature we know the water has vaporized. Let's prove that. Let's take the outlet tube from the sink and hold it up next to this black drop cloth. [Holding meter stick next to plume.] As you see the plume of steam is around 80 cm long. The first 20 cm are invisible, which means the steam is dry. Now let us show that our flowmeter is correct and the water is flowing at 500 mL per minute. We will also show that the steam has about 1130 kJ of enthalpy per minute. We have placed this bucket on the weight scale. As you see it has 20 kg of water in it, and the water temperature is 21°C. Now were going to submerge the hose under the water for about a minute and see how much water condenses and how much the entire mass of water heats up. Starting NOW. [Splash! 'Buku buku buku' as bubbles say in Japanese] [A minute later] Okay we removed the hose after one minute three seconds. The weight of water has increased by 460 g. Some of the steam escaped from the water but most of it condensed. We see that the temperature has risen to 31°C . . . And so forth. Prepare your tables and spreadsheets beforehand so you can describe results smoothly without stopping to do a lot of arithmetic. You need not state that the heat of vaporization is 2260 kJ per kilogram. The viewer can look that up later on. You need not explain that the bucket when empty weighs 820 g. The viewer knows about how much a plastic bucket weighs, and can see you have taken that into account. Skip the details; get to the point. As I said before, you demonstrate every key point twice, by two different methods. Ideally, one method relies upon precision instruments and the second method depends on first principles that are easily understood and easily measured, even if they are somewhat crude. The two methods must be completely different so that a single artifact cannot cause both to be wrong. People sometimes say that in a lecture you should tell the audience what you're going to say; tell them what you have to say; and then tell them what you just told them. I think this is going too far, but it does not hurt to repeat your key points at least once. I assume the people at Defkalion are doing similar demonstrations for potential customers and investors. So I think they should polish up the presentation and make it more convincing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Why should they demonstrate all that heat? Even ignoring the enthalpy, it's still big! I think it was a bad idea to jump over the steam as if it did not matter, and not even demonstrate that it was steam. In retrospect that seems like an odd thing to do. As if they were evading the issue somehow. I suppose they did not need to include that enthalpy in the computation shown on the screen, but they should have demonstrated that the outlet temperature was correct and the flow rate was correct, as I described in my Suggestions for a more effective demonstration. These are key parameters. They need to be confirmed. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Suggestions for a more effective demonstration
Yes, yes, yes, Yes, this is what I would suggest as well.. (although I would just use a smaller inflatable spa you can set those up on any cement floor). That was my suggestion a few years back when they were asking about an X prize type of event. People will talk about heat loss and so on. But with some floating bubble wrap that could be kept down. If they are really getting 4 to one, it should be easy to see with something like the heat a tub of water approach. You wouldn't have all the flow measurement questions. No water/steam problems, no EMF interference with your temperature sensors. You would need to mix it from time to time with a paddle or something. I also would like to see a fuse in their input power line to show that at no time the current exceed some set value. Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:40:19 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Suggestions for a more effective demonstration From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Keep it simple. Fill a 10,000 gallon insolated tank truck with 20C water, and run it in a loop to the Ni/H reactor. When the temperature of the water in the truck gets to 90C, the case is proven. On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Defkalion's demonstration wasn't bad. Any demonstration is tough. Something always goes wrong. It wasn't bad, but it could have been better. I have done demonstrations and I have taught and given lectures so let me offer a few suggestions based on this experience. Practice, practice, practice. Rehearse beforehand. Be sure you can comfortably complete the presentation in the time allotted. This was their biggest failing. Set up your props beforehand. As I explain below, in this case I would have put a black drop cloth on the wall and brought in a meter stick, a weight scale, and a bucket of water with a thermometer in it. Make yourself clear. Get to the point and stick to it. You need not write out every word, but it is a good idea to write down your talking points in the order you intend to present them. Here is the sort of thing I would have said: . . . The inlet temperature is 21°C, the outlet is 115°C. Here on the screen we are computing enthalpy by the heat capacity of water. We ignore the heat of vaporization. However, at this outlet temperature we know the water has vaporized. Let's prove that. Let's take the outlet tube from the sink and hold it up next to this black drop cloth. [Holding meter stick next to plume.] As you see the plume of steam is around 80 cm long. The first 20 cm are invisible, which means the steam is dry. Now let us show that our flowmeter is correct and the water is flowing at 500 mL per minute. We will also show that the steam has about 1130 kJ of enthalpy per minute. We have placed this bucket on the weight scale. As you see it has 20 kg of water in it, and the water temperature is 21°C. Now were going to submerge the hose under the water for about a minute and see how much water condenses and how much the entire mass of water heats up. Starting NOW. [Splash! 'Buku buku buku' as bubbles say in Japanese] [A minute later] Okay we removed the hose after one minute three seconds. The weight of water has increased by 460 g. Some of the steam escaped from the water but most of it condensed. We see that the temperature has risen to 31°C . . . And so forth. Prepare your tables and spreadsheets beforehand so you can describe results smoothly without stopping to do a lot of arithmetic. You need not state that the heat of vaporization is 2260 kJ per kilogram. The viewer can look that up later on. You need not explain that the bucket when empty weighs 820 g. The viewer knows about how much a plastic bucket weighs, and can see you have taken that into account. Skip the details; get to the point. As I said before, you demonstrate every key point twice, by two different methods. Ideally, one method relies upon precision instruments and the second method depends on first principles that are easily understood and easily measured, even if they are somewhat crude. The two methods must be completely different so that a single artifact cannot cause both to be wrong. People sometimes say that in a lecture you should tell the audience what you're going to say; tell them what you have to say; and then tell them what you just told them. I think this is going too far, but it does not hurt to repeat your key points at least once. I assume the people at Defkalion are doing similar demonstrations for potential customers and investors. So I think they should polish up the presentation and make it more convincing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
But they did demonstrate it was correct. If you doubt that. You can doubt anything. 2013/8/12 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I suppose they did not need to include that enthalpy in the computation shown on the screen, but they should have demonstrated that the outlet temperature was correct and the flow rate was correct, as I described in my Suggestions for a more effective demonstration. These are key parameters. They need to be confirmed. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
did they check the flow while it was under steam pressure? I worry that since they are using water mains, there could be back pressure from the steam that slowed the flow. I haven't heard this discussed, but then I have been away. D2 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:10:31 -0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION From: danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com But they did demonstrate it was correct. If you doubt that. You can doubt anything. 2013/8/12 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I suppose they did not need to include that enthalpy in the computation shown on the screen, but they should have demonstrated that the outlet temperature was correct and the flow rate was correct, as I described in my Suggestions for a more effective demonstration. These are key parameters. They need to be confirmed. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - rjdanieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: But they did demonstrate it was correct. If you doubt that. You can doubt anything. No, they did not demonstrate this rigorously. They did not show the same results with different instruments or two different methods. They showed only one set of instrument readings. Instruments can always be wrong. To confirm a thermocouple reading you need to see where the thermocouple is placed and you need to compare it to some other temperature sensor. If your outlet shows a temperature well above 100 deg C then it stands to reason you have to show there is dry steam. The temperature says there has to be, so prove it. It takes only a few minutes. They had all day. Flowmeters need to be checked. A lot can go wrong with them. You need to measure the flow at the outlet from the whole system. At the end of the line. To confirm that a flowmeter is working, you need to collect the water and weight it. You can't do that with steam, so you have to sparge it and condense it. As Dennis points out, you need to test a flowmeter when conditions change, in this case with back pressure from steam. Okay, it might work, but you have to be sure. This was a demonstration, not a test, so we cannot expect a lot of rigor. It is asking too much to demand that a demo be fully convincing. But it could have been more convincing than it was. It could have answered more questions, and laid to rest more doubts. If they had thought about it a little more, and rehearsed better, it would have been better. I got a sense they have not done this often. That is unprofessional. It is disturbing for a company on the verge of going public. They do not seem ready. If I were doing a demo before hundreds of people, I would have practiced so much I could do it in my sleep. Perhaps they have done better demos and full-fledged tests in front of customers and investors. I wouldn't know. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Suggestions for a more effective demonstration
You would not need to go to 90C. The concept of heating a volume of water is very valid. Also if you use one of those portable spas (example Spa in a Box for less than $1k- google the pictures), it goes together fast and could be easily checked for hidden items since it is just insulation panels and vinyl. You could also place it on a predetermined concrete slab at some third party site. My spa in a box goes up about 1F/hour with the top insulation in place. (in put at 1kW) It is easy to fill and measure water as it goes in. It went together from the box in less than an hour. You can also very easily calculate the volume by a simple octagonal prism calculation. Try it and you will see how easy it really is. I figure anything over 1.5 will stick out like a sore thumb even with heat loss. You could have your answer within a few hours. D2 PS they come with a circulator that you could run for a minute to mix if you wish. (you just don't want to turn the bubbles on since it really dumps the heat into the air.) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:45:54 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Suggestions for a more effective demonstration From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Keep it simple. Fill a 10,000 gallon insolated tank truck with 20C water, and run it in a loop to the Ni/H reactor. That is not simple at all. Also, this would not work. When the temperature of the water in the truck gets to 90C, the case is proven. This would not happen, unless the tank was extremely well insulated. An ordinary tank truck for water is not insulated. If it were extremely well insulated it would impossible for the viewer to determine the volume of the container. It would also be easy to hide a heater inside it. This would take a long time, and the viewer would not have the gumption to keep watching hour after hour. That is why I said this is not simple. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Suggestions for a more effective demonstration
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: You would not need to go to 90C. I agree. The concept of heating a volume of water is very valid. Of course. The questions are: how much water, in what kind of container, to what temperature, over what duration? I have no doubt that a spa is a heck of a lot better than a 10,000 gallon tank truck! It is more practical, far cheaper, easier to insulate, easier for the observers to measure, and it has many other advantages. I think a large insulated container such as a plastic beverage cooler would be fine. I don't see the need for a spa. Of course the cooler reaches the terminal temperature sooner than a spa, but I don't see a problem with that. Dump the water and heat a new batch if want to make the test go longer. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Suggestions for a more effective demonstration
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: You would not need to go to 90C. The concept of heating a volume of water is very valid. In this thread, I was assuming that Defkalion DID have to go above 90°C. For some reason. Otherwise, why didn't they speed up the flow? That would simplify the calorimetry, and it would capture all the heat with their on-screen computation, which would make the results a lot more impressive. I have no idea why they might have needed such high outlet temperatures. To keep the machine at a critical operating temperature? They could fix that problem by insulating the cooling water pipe. Someone said they could not speed up the flow because there were filters on the water pipe that restricted the flow. This makes no sense to me. Why do you need to filter cooling water? It isn't going into any sensitive part of the reactor. It cannot contaminate anything. Contamination from ordinary city water does not affect the heat capacity measurably. Questions like this cannot be adequately addressed in a demo. You need a real test. You need a team of experts who spend days or weeks on site, wringing out the machine. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Suggestions for a more effective demonstration
I think the filters were to protect the flow meter. I think the water was just out of the taps and who knows what Greek water is like. I have been struggling with making some variable heat conductor for similar problems. I started with segmented disks that you turn to change contact area. I then used adjustment of ferrofluids to change contact. I am now using a sliding tube in a tube with heat pipes by raising lowering my heat take off. For them, it should be easy enough to change the number of loops of water tubing around the cell to get in the right ballpark. D2 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:51:26 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Suggestions for a more effective demonstration From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: You would not need to go to 90C. The concept of heating a volume of water is very valid. In this thread, I was assuming that Defkalion DID have to go above 90°C. For some reason. Otherwise, why didn't they speed up the flow? That would simplify the calorimetry, and it would capture all the heat with their on-screen computation, which would make the results a lot more impressive. I have no idea why they might have needed such high outlet temperatures. To keep the machine at a critical operating temperature? They could fix that problem by insulating the cooling water pipe. Someone said they could not speed up the flow because there were filters on the water pipe that restricted the flow. This makes no sense to me. Why do you need to filter cooling water? It isn't going into any sensitive part of the reactor. It cannot contaminate anything. Contamination from ordinary city water does not affect the heat capacity measurably. Questions like this cannot be adequately addressed in a demo. You need a real test. You need a team of experts who spend days or weeks on site, wringing out the machine. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Suggestions for a more effective demonstration
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: I think the filters were to protect the flow meter. I think the water was just out of the taps and who knows what Greek water is like. This was in Italy. But okay, that makes sense. I would use a less sensitive flow meter. Granted, those things are ornery and often get plugged up or broken. The kind used in your house to bill for your water is robust but maybe not sensitive enough. On the other hand, if they boost the flow rate up to 4 L/min it should do. That would be fast enough to prevent boiling, I think. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
They checked the metered flow rate in the input side, but did not capture and measure the water exiting the demonstration when steam was being generated. I wish this had been done at least on one occasion. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 12, 2013 3:18 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION did they check the flow while it was under steam pressure? I worry that since they are using water mains, there could be back pressure from the steam that slowed the flow. I haven't heard this discussed, but then I have been away. D2 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:10:31 -0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION From: danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com But they did demonstrate it was correct. If you doubt that. You can doubt anything. 2013/8/12 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I suppose they did not need to include that enthalpy in the computation shown on the screen, but they should have demonstrated that the outlet temperature was correct and the flow rate was correct, as I described in my Suggestions for a more effective demonstration. These are key parameters. They need to be confirmed. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Suggestions for a more effective demonstration
Jed, a better method is to use a constant rate pump. These are available and are very reliable and accurate. The rate is not affected by back pressure, within reason and can be adjusted to achieve the required delta T. Ed On Aug 12, 2013, at 2:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: I think the filters were to protect the flow meter. I think the water was just out of the taps and who knows what Greek water is like. This was in Italy. But okay, that makes sense. I would use a less sensitive flow meter. Granted, those things are ornery and often get plugged up or broken. The kind used in your house to bill for your water is robust but maybe not sensitive enough. On the other hand, if they boost the flow rate up to 4 L/min it should do. That would be fast enough to prevent boiling, I think. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Why bother with the flow rate to the outside? It would not change the measured energy. 2013/8/12 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com They checked the metered flow rate in the input side, but did not capture and measure the water exiting the demonstration when steam was being generated. I wish this had been done at least on one occasion. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 12, 2013 3:18 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION did they check the flow while it was under steam pressure? I worry that since they are using water mains, there could be back pressure from the steam that slowed the flow. I haven't heard this discussed, but then I have been away. D2 -- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:10:31 -0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION From: danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com But they did demonstrate it was correct. If you doubt that. You can doubt anything. 2013/8/12 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I suppose they did not need to include that enthalpy in the computation shown on the screen, but they should have demonstrated that the outlet temperature was correct and the flow rate was correct, as I described in my Suggestions for a more effective demonstration. These are key parameters. They need to be confirmed. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Suggestions for a more effective demonstration
yes, I often use an FMI metering pump. They have good control. D2 CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com From: stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Suggestions for a more effective demonstration Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:50:03 -0600 Jed, a better method is to use a constant rate pump. These are available and are very reliable and accurate. The rate is not affected by back pressure, within reason and can be adjusted to achieve the required delta T. Ed On Aug 12, 2013, at 2:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: I think the filters were to protect the flow meter. I think the water was just out of the taps and who knows what Greek water is like. This was in Italy. But okay, that makes sense. I would use a less sensitive flow meter. Granted, those things are ornery and often get plugged up or broken. The kind used in your house to bill for your water is robust but maybe not sensitive enough. On the other hand, if they boost the flow rate up to 4 L/min it should do. That would be fast enough to prevent boiling, I think. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Why bother with the flow rate to the outside? It would not change the measured energy. This is flow calorimetry. If the flow rate is wrong, they measured the power wrong. Measuring the flow rate correctly is critical. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Phonons
In reply to H Veeder's message of Fri, 9 Aug 2013 11:32:37 -0400: Hi, [snip] what determines the speed of this wave? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfX0j7-fLmk Human reaction time. People react to what those around them are doing. Herd mentality. Harry Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Elon Musk HyperLoop
This thing might not be that important or ever be built etc., but I did like the thought process revealed by the design. He seeks niches or exclusions in otherwise impossible general characterizations of a problem, and unique solutions emerge. The not-fully-evacuated tube is probably the primary example. Overall technically pretty interesting. But as a practical matter, I think a cramped windowless pod pulling .5g here and there in addition to smaller frequency swaying amounts to The Last Train to York-ville for most non-fighter pilot citizens. R.
Re: [Vo]:Suggestions for a more effective demonstration
A positive displacement pump with temp sensing on the inlet and the outlet and a flow meter. The water running in a loop through a large, possibly insulated container... The Portable Spa is a good idea the heat calculated from the two different efforts should be within the error bands for the different measurements... Thus two independent ways to measure heat... On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 2:03 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: yes, I often use an FMI metering pump. They have good control. D2 -- CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com From: stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Suggestions for a more effective demonstration Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:50:03 -0600 Jed, a better method is to use a constant rate pump. These are available and are very reliable and accurate. The rate is not affected by back pressure, within reason and can be adjusted to achieve the required delta T. Ed On Aug 12, 2013, at 2:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: I think the filters were to protect the flow meter. I think the water was just out of the taps and who knows what Greek water is like. This was in Italy. But okay, that makes sense. I would use a less sensitive flow meter. Granted, those things are ornery and often get plugged up or broken. The kind used in your house to bill for your water is robust but maybe not sensitive enough. On the other hand, if they boost the flow rate up to 4 L/min it should do. That would be fast enough to prevent boiling, I think. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
*“Obviously, these theories can explain anything even if the observation has no relationship to reality.”* A theory that does not explain the experimentally observed magnetic field has no relationship to reality. Is it not a fact, if a presenter at ICCF states an experimental finding in their presentation, then this data should be considered “real data”. On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Axil, the question is, Exactly what behavior did the experiment show?. DGE claims to have measured a magnetic FIELD of 1.6 T. Such an intense magnetic field cannot form under the circumstances. Therefore, they misinterpreted the behavior. The problem is to discover just what they actually observed. Instead, people assume the claim is correct and proceed to explain it by applying a theory. Obviously, these theories can explain anything even if the observation has no relationship to reality. Consequently, this exercise is a waste of time and the so called theories have no value. Until DGT provides real data, we have no reality to discuss. Ed On Aug 12, 2013, at 12:14 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Regarding your theories and the magnetic behavior of the Ni/H reactors of both Defkalion and Rossi: It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Richard P. Feynman On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Why do you discuss any thing on vortex? Why do you even comment since we are all engaging in random curiosity about everything? You make no sense. RF is not identified as a magnetic field. The impression given is of a constant magnetic field being generated. If you know this is not true, why would you not say so? Ed On Aug 12, 2013, at 8:46 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Why should I do anything to satisfy any random curiosity! There is public knowledge of magnetic field, at least in the form of RF from ICCF - 13, which is correlated with COP enhancement by over 10x. 2013/8/12 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com The time out refers to discussion by people on Vortex who have no knowledge about the issue. Do you have inside knowledge that you will kindly provide? Ed On Aug 12, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: The only fact it is that you do not accept. There is no error and since this is a random complaint, don't expect them to them to listen to you any time soon. There is no time out and no delay in business. 2013/8/12 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com The time out is necessary for this obvious error to be explained and corrected. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
We are working on our paperwork and we believe that we would be able to negotiate after October 15th, 2013. Starting November 1st, we will hold a Road Show from city to city to promote our share. Before a demo/test that doesn't even convince Vortex is a bit premature. I'm pretty sure they couldn't demo a working Hyperion in multiple cities on a convincing basis. I don't even follow their business model 1. Sell franchises in different countries ($40M each?) for products neither Defkalion nor the Franchise even develop[s]? (The same price for a big and a small country? Their original plan was to sell franchises for an N-unit factory, and thus sell multiple licenses to a big country). 2. Have partners who develop a product for a specific segment (heating, cars ..) for $$$??? 3. Collect royalties from sales? Do the partners in #2 have to sell their products through the franchises in #1 ? A Ford isn't going to be too happy about that. Or would Defkalion collect royalties from Ford and give part of the royalties for sales in a particular country to that franchise? I'm not sure I would by more than $1 of penny stocks.
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Man, what does it say for Defkalion when everyone on Vortex is a doubter... On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: We are working on our paperwork and we believe that we would be able to negotiate after October 15th, 2013. Starting November 1st, we will hold a Road Show from city to city to promote our share. Before a demo/test that doesn't even convince Vortex is a bit premature. I'm pretty sure they couldn't demo a working Hyperion in multiple cities on a convincing basis. I don't even follow their business model 1. Sell franchises in different countries ($40M each?) for products neither Defkalion nor the Franchise even develop[s]? (The same price for a big and a small country? Their original plan was to sell franchises for an N-unit factory, and thus sell multiple licenses to a big country). 2. Have partners who develop a product for a specific segment (heating, cars ..) for $$$??? 3. Collect royalties from sales? Do the partners in #2 have to sell their products through the franchises in #1 ? A Ford isn't going to be too happy about that. Or would Defkalion collect royalties from Ford and give part of the royalties for sales in a particular country to that franchise? I'm not sure I would by more than $1 of penny stocks.
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
They do NOT want to measure precisely. They want to show that it is bigger 1.1. So there is no chance they will hear your advice so soon. 2013/8/12 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Why bother with the flow rate to the outside? It would not change the measured energy. This is flow calorimetry. If the flow rate is wrong, they measured the power wrong. Measuring the flow rate correctly is critical. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Oh yeah, brilliant strategy. Let's appear incompetent. That won't encourage competitors... On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: They do NOT want to measure precisely. They want to show that it is bigger 1.1. So there is no chance they will hear your advice so soon. 2013/8/12 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Why bother with the flow rate to the outside? It would not change the measured energy. This is flow calorimetry. If the flow rate is wrong, they measured the power wrong. Measuring the flow rate correctly is critical. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Man, what does it say for Defkalion when everyone on Vortex is a doubter... It says they should have done a better job on the demo. They should have planned it, and rehearsed. It was kind of amateur. I find it hard to believe they have been selling this to customers and investors. With *that*demo?! I say: it was impressive assuming it showed what it seemed to show. It was a good start. That's damning with faint praise! But here is the thing. They can try again. They get a do-over. They can correct mistakes and learn to do a better demo next time. Rossi is strong willed and he makes many mistakes, but when he finally let Levi et al. do a good test I thought he must have learned his lesson. Let us give him credit for that. Sure, I would prefer an independent replication in another lab, but this was a big improvement. A step in the right direction. Defkalion can also improve. UNLESS, they are dishonest. I can't rule that out. I can't judge. I do know they don't pay their bills on time, which is not a good sign. Alan Fletcher wrote: I don't even follow their business model 1. Sell franchises in different countries ($40M each?) for products neither Defkalion nor the Franchise even develop[s]? (The same price for a big and a small country? Their original plan was to sell franchises for an N-unit factory, and thus sell multiple licenses to a big country). It makes no sense to me, either. I get a sense they are floundering around, trying out one plan after another. The plans seem too complicated to me. My plan would be something like this: develop the gadget; patent as many aspects of it as you can, as quickly as you can; license the patents. Companies that pay for license early get a bargain price. After that, the price starts to go up. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: They do NOT want to measure precisely. They want to show that it is bigger 1.1. There is no need to measure precisely, but they should measure accurately. Otherwise there is no telling whether it is 1.1, 4.1, or 0.6. Believe me, I have seen big, impressive, noisy machines that seemed to producing input output ratios and kilowatts of excess . . . that turned out to be 0.6. You can always screw up a measurement, especially when you do things the hard way with phase changes and no confirmation that the steam is steam. So there is no chance they will hear your advice so soon. Oh, they have heard this. From me and from others. The question is, will they act on it? If they did not confirm the flow rate, the results are meaningless. They might have confirmed it. I did not watch the entire long version. If I had been them, I would have made confirmation of the critical parameters of calorimetry the main theme of their prime-time presentation during the conference. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Oh yeah, brilliant strategy. Let's appear incompetent. That won't encourage competitors... Actually, that was Patterson's strategy, as I have often mentioned. He wanted potential competitors to think there was nothing to see. Cold fusion does not exist. Don't bother doing any research. I think it may be getting a little late for that strategy now that Rossi is making a splash. It was a terrible strategy. But it did accomplish the main goal. No one took interest in Patterson. No investor believed him enough to fund the company. I realize this is a joke, but I doubt Defkalion is trying to appear incompetent. I think they could easily fix their demo and their PR problems. The demo as they did it was interesting and promising. Practice a few more times, tighten up the script, make some good accompanying graphics and you would have a superb demonstration. It just needs tweaking. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Peter, a magnetic field has not been discovered. A claim has been made without any evidence or even a logical explanation. The claimed high intensity of a magnetic field is impossible under the circumstance. Therefore the reading on the gauss meter was misinterpreted. Until this issue is resolved, all discussion is pointless and a waste of time. The time out is necessary for this obvious error to be explained and corrected. My sentiments are similar, except that I don't have as strong an opinion about the impossibility of a field of that strength. There is one reason, unfortunately, for claiming a large magnetic field -- to provide an explanation for the thick shielding around the reactor that differs from the straightforward and obvious one. (I wish I had heard firsthand the statement about the shielding protecting electronics from the magnetic field; without having done so, I'm not sure exactly what the claim was.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
I wrote: Practice a few more times, tighten up the script, make some good accompanying graphics and you would have a superb demonstration. It just needs tweaking. Yeah, okay, you also need to adjust the procedures to reduce suspicion. I agree with Jones Beene that it could still be a magic show fake. That can be fixed. Not enough to satisfy Mary Yugo, but enough. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
The strategy is fine, except if you're a public company.ESPECIALLY if insiders or others happen to know the true numbers, which can attract all sorts of investor law suits for not telling the truth and artificially depressing the stock price. Once you become public, everything changes. On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Oh yeah, brilliant strategy. Let's appear incompetent. That won't encourage competitors... Actually, that was Patterson's strategy, as I have often mentioned. He wanted potential competitors to think there was nothing to see. Cold fusion does not exist. Don't bother doing any research. I think it may be getting a little late for that strategy now that Rossi is making a splash. It was a terrible strategy. But it did accomplish the main goal. No one took interest in Patterson. No investor believed him enough to fund the company. I realize this is a joke, but I doubt Defkalion is trying to appear incompetent. I think they could easily fix their demo and their PR problems. The demo as they did it was interesting and promising. Practice a few more times, tighten up the script, make some good accompanying graphics and you would have a superb demonstration. It just needs tweaking. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 5:27 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Man, what does it say for Defkalion when everyone on Vortex is a doubter... We're very fickle, here. Once some solid information comes from defkalion (e.g., via a reliable third party such as National Instruments), we'll all be saying we believed them all along. Eric
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I get a sense they are floundering around, trying out one plan after another. The complexity (branches in Canada, Greece, Italy, etc.), the numbers (40 million, 8 zeros, etc.) and similar details make me nervous. I am willing to write off a lot of this as being possibly unreliable information from the third-hand account of the guest author. Or maybe he's 100 percent accurate. What is fact and what is hype is a little hazy at this point. Eric
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
Eric, you need to consider what a magnetic field really is when it is measured in space 20 cm from an object in which the field is generated. Such fields either result from a very large DC current or a very efficient alignment of magnetic domains in the material. The alignment must be accomplished by an applied DC current because otherwise the domains would have random alignment no matter how intense the local magnetic field might be. The only current passing through the device is claimed to produce a plasma inside the metal container and the plasma is being generated by an AC current. Even if a DC current were used, the field could not exceed the known magnetic effect of the rather modest current. In short, the claim, if true, is even more amazing than is the CF effect itself because it violates basic understanding of magnetic behavior. A more logical explanation is that the gauss meter and the other instruments nearby were responding to the effect of RF emission obtained from a Maser effect produced in the cavity. Since we know nothing useful about the observation, any attempt at an explanation is useless and only makes the effort look stupid. Ed On Aug 12, 2013, at 8:11 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Peter, a magnetic field has not been discovered. A claim has been made without any evidence or even a logical explanation. The claimed high intensity of a magnetic field is impossible under the circumstance. Therefore the reading on the gauss meter was misinterpreted. Until this issue is resolved, all discussion is pointless and a waste of time. The time out is necessary for this obvious error to be explained and corrected. My sentiments are similar, except that I don't have as strong an opinion about the impossibility of a field of that strength. There is one reason, unfortunately, for claiming a large magnetic field -- to provide an explanation for the thick shielding around the reactor that differs from the straightforward and obvious one. (I wish I had heard firsthand the statement about the shielding protecting electronics from the magnetic field; without having done so, I'm not sure exactly what the claim was.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
You might have missed this post on the magnetic LENR effect: -- At this early juncture, it looks like the LENR reaction is driven by an electromagnetic force. What is that force. The electromagnetic field can be viewed as the combination of an electric field and a magnetic field. The electric field is produced by stationary charges, and the magnetic field by moving charges (currents); these two are often described as the sources of the field. The way in which charges and currents interact with the electromagnetic field is described by Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law. But is LENR an electrostatic effect or a magnetic effect? Dr. Kim posits that LENR is basically an electrostatic effect. I have vacillated on this point incessantly and I have changed my opinion often but with the guidance of Nanoplasmonic principles and in the face of strong experimental evidence, I now believe that LENR is a magnetic effect. This belief is not only informed by what I know about the Ni/H reactor, but what has been seen in other types of LENR expressions. This belief is rooted in the suspicion that the ultimate LENR causation must be distilled down to one deeply embedded physical principle. It is informed by the belief that all LENR in its myriad forms are rooted in one common causation mechanism. Ken Shoulders spent his career looking into all things EMF, and as a pioneer and trailbreaker on this subject, he was at the forefront of this subject and was way ahead of his time. The experiments of Ken shoulders led him to the concept of the Exotic Vacuum Objects or EVO. An EVO can be conceived of as an atom without a nucleus, or as a spherical monopole oscillator. EVs exhibit soliton behavior with number densities equal to Avagadro's number. These non-neutral electron plasmoids contain various levels of binding energy which exceed that of atoms, and allows for new types of reactions with matter. I believe that the Ni/H reactor produces EVOs by the trillions when it converts heat into nano-plasmoids. EVOs are a magnetic thing in which electrons flow in a vortex ring. It is clearly not an electrostatic structure which by its very nature must be static and immovable. EVOs can move. This ability to move from its place of creation has been seen in proton-21 experiments, cavitation experiments, and experiments involving exploding metal foils. This particle like concentrations of charged currents have been imaged in a number of LENR experiments. The experimentalists that observed them thought that these strange structures were particles but they were actually long lived dark mode quasiparticles of negative charge contained tightly in a vortex that had traveled far from the place of their creation. See Prof. Alan Tennant discovered magnetic monopoles http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=zgios9zEuJ4 And explanation of this recent work http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=zgios9zEuJ4 The Ni/H reactor provides a mechanism that transforms dipole motion into coherent and entangled magnetic monopole vortex motion. This resonance mechanism supports quantum amplification of this anapole magnetic process because of the regular and globally periodic thermally based motion of the dipoles throughout the volume of the reactor’s reaction chamber. http://phys.org/news/2013-08-skyrmions-electronics.html Controlling skyrmions for better electronics These monopole spin vortexes are known as skyrmions This is a special condition where monopole motion is tremendously enhanced in the Ni/H reactor similar to how specific atomic configuration enhances monopole formation in its lattice. This monopole formation process is essentially unlimited. The Ni/H reactor produces a magnetic anapole singularity in which unimaginable magnetic power is concentrated into a volume that is the size of a molecule. It is this super-strong anapole magnetic field that can disrupt the Higgs superconductor in the subatomic particles that make up the nucleus of the atom. On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Eric, you need to consider what a magnetic field really is when it is measured in space 20 cm from an object in which the field is generated. Such fields either result from a very large DC current or a very efficient alignment of magnetic domains in the material. The alignment must be accomplished by an applied DC current because otherwise the domains would have random alignment no matter how intense the local magnetic field might be. The only current passing through the device is claimed to produce a plasma inside the metal container and the plasma is being generated by an AC current. Even if a DC current were used, the field could not exceed the known magnetic effect of the rather modest current. In short, the claim, if true, is even more amazing than is the CF effect itself because it violates basic
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: I have studied history and so I am aware that when Christopher Columbus has discovered the New World,the North American mass media was unanimous in rejecting his business model as primitive, dis-informed and inadequate for discovering and developing a new continent. It is true that our media are very bad and irresponsible. But with all due respect they would not have been the cause of any ill-informed rejection of the new world, because they didn't exist yet. That honor would have gone primarily the media on another continent. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Phonons
You proved my theory, Beer effects human reaction time :) On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 6:21 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to H Veeder's message of Fri, 9 Aug 2013 11:32:37 -0400: Hi, [snip] what determines the speed of this wave? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfX0j7-fLmk Human reaction time. People react to what those around them are doing. Herd mentality. Harry Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
My concern is that the exit flow rate is not accurately measured at an input meter when reverse steam pressure is applied at the high temperatures seen. It has not been proven that the input gauge is accurate under this condition. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 12, 2013 4:53 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION Why bother with the flow rate to the outside? It would not change the measured energy. 2013/8/12 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com They checked the metered flow rate in the input side, but did not capture and measure the water exiting the demonstration when steam was being generated. I wish this had been done at least on one occasion. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 12, 2013 3:18 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION did they check the flow while it was under steam pressure? I worry that since they are using water mains, there could be back pressure from the steam that slowed the flow. I haven't heard this discussed, but then I have been away. D2 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:10:31 -0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION From: danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com But they did demonstrate it was correct. If you doubt that. You can doubt anything. 2013/8/12 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I suppose they did not need to include that enthalpy in the computation shown on the screen, but they should have demonstrated that the outlet temperature was correct and the flow rate was correct, as I described in my Suggestions for a more effective demonstration. These are key parameters. They need to be confirmed. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: My concern is that the exit flow rate is not accurately measured at an input meter when reverse steam pressure is applied at the high temperatures seen. It has not been proven that the input gauge is accurate under this condition. Me too. That's what worries me. Well said. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION
At this early juncture, it looks like the LENR reaction is driven by an electromagnetic force. What is that force. The electromagnetic field can be viewed as the combination of an electric field and a magnetic field. The electric field is produced by stationary charges, and the magnetic field by moving charges (currents); these two are often described as the sources of the field. The way in which charges and currents interact with the electromagnetic field is described by Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law. Axil, a moving charge can also generate an electric field. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Phonons
In reply to ChemE Stewart's message of Mon, 12 Aug 2013 23:02:46 -0400: Hi, [snip] You proved my theory, Beer effects human reaction time :) :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Asked Answered
I'm growing weary of the same objections, over and over and over again on various internet sites. So I'm going to post each qa here just send links.
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
Pons Fleischmann's results were never replicated. ***WHAT? Not Replicated? Where do you get that ridiculous and ignorant claim? Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated hundreds of times by more than a thousand scientists, even in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdfsid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2sh=www.springerlink.com . Jing-tang He • Nuclear fusion inside condense matters • Frontiers of Physics in China Volume 2, Number 1, 96-102, DOI: 10.1007/s11467-007-0005-8 This article describes in detail the nuclear fusion inside condense matters—the Fleischmann-Pons effect, the reproducibility of cold fusions, self-consistency of cold fusions and the possible applications . Note that Jing-tang He found there were 14,700 replications of the Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect. http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22) . National Instruments is a multibillion dollar corporation that does not need to stick its neck out for “bigfoot stories”. After noting more than 150 replications, they recently concluded that with so much evidence of anomalous heat generation... http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf Conclusion • THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better measurements and control tools. NI is playing a role in accelerating innovation and discovery. The current state of the science of LENR is that the Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated and it is an established scientific fact. But it is not an established ENGINEERING field because the effect is difficult to generate and there is still some lingering stigma associated with the field. The level of pathological resistance this field receives is unconscionable for those of us who seek scientific answers and engineering solutions. On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I'm growing weary of the same objections, over and over and over again on various internet sites. So I'm going to post each qa here just send links.
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
There is no conclusive theory. ***Same is true of high temperature superconductivity, but the skeptics don’t key up on that, do they? In addition, there is no conclusive theory of gravity. There’s the Law of Gravity, but no theory is settled -- there are several competing theories. Why does this requirement exist for cold fusion but not superconductivity nor gravity? http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg81648.html There have been more than 60,000 papers published on high-temperature superconductive material since its discovery in 1986, said Jak Chakhalian, professor of physics at the University of Arkansas. Unfortunately, as of today we have **zero theoretical understanding** of the mechanism behind this enigmatic phenomenon. In my mind, the high-temperature superconductivity is the most important unsolved mystery of condensed matter physics.
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
Controlled Hot-Fusion has generated more energy for longer sustained periods. ***The average cold fusion experiment generates several hundred megajoules for several hours and costs maybe $300k. The longest lasting hot fusion experiment generated 6 megajoules for a few seconds. So if you look at the two side by side: cold fusion 2 * 3600 seconds average * 100 Mjoules average * 14,700 replications / $300k average = 35280 sec*MjouleSamples/$ Hot fusion 3 seconds average * 6 Mjoules (max) * 200 replications / $2 Billion average = 0.018 sec*MjouleSamples/$ That is 12 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more bang for the buck. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
just another fluff-piece from the margins of a marginal effect. ***If it is a marginal effect, then the world leaders in MEASurement would have said so. But instead, Scientific Instruments has said there is an anomalous effect here after looking into the MEASurements. Meanwhile, this latest commentary on the science behind the claim is sounding just like the usual scientifically illiterate gibberish that the anti-LENR crowd has been putting out since the beginning. National Instruments is a multibillion dollar corporation that does not need to stick its neck out for “bigfoot stories”. After noting more than 150 replications, they recently concluded that with so much evidence of anomalous heat generation... http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf Conclusion • THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better measurements and control tools. NI is playing a role in accelerating innovation and discovery.
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
LENR contradicts current theory. ***Experiment trumps theory ~Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize Winning Nuclear Physicist.
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
I don’t know if these claims are ‘real’, I haven’t seen the device, nor personally ‘tested’ it. ***Raising the bar for cold fusion, lowering it for other things like hot fusion. You haven’t seen nor tested a huge range of scientific findings, but you aren’t engaged in hypercriticism of those developments. By such a standard you should be absolutely apoplectic over AGW When I can buy a $289 Cold-Fusion Water Heater, I'll believe it. (Or various versions of technology). ***Raising the bar for cold fusion, lowering it for other things like hot fusion. Where is our hot-fusion flying car or jet pack? Why is controlled hot-fusion always 50 years away, and has been for the last 50 years?
