Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: No matter how strongly you believe in the phenomenon of LENR, and I’m firmly in that camp – bad actors should be weeded out. Rossi is a bad actor here ... This is the same conclusion that Krivit has come to, and that Pomp and Mary Yugo and many others have come to. All on the basis of the most circumstantial of evidence. My theory -- these folks are not comfortable with ambiguity and gaps in one's knowledge. There is a burning desire to fill in the gaps, even when the information necessary to do so is incomplete or unavailable. The temptation to take short cuts to get to some kind of certainty must be so overwhelming to these people that they do not realize they're doing it. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat
Interesting point Eric. The materials needed to build an ECAT are in enormous quantities within the Earth. A small reaction here, another there, and so on can add up to a tremendous effect when considering the entire world. To obtain a calibration, I have read that the rate of fusion energy being generated within the sun is about the same as the amount of heat generated by your body in watts per kilogram. The ECAT is a far superior source when compared to either alternative. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Oct 17, 2014 1:46 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:58 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I am not sure what you are asking, but the Earth supposedly generates some heat too. The earth does kind of have the composition of a large, spherical E-Cat. And there is a magnetic field that exists due in part to the rotation of the molten core. I would not be surprised if there is something LENR-driven in the internal heat that is observed. The explanation I have heard for the heat, that it goes back to uranium, seems a little wishful. Eric
Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.
If a polariton condensate is in place throughout the E-Cat, the 900 watts of electrical heat pumping from external power would be evenly distributed throughout the total volume of the reactor. Under the influence of Polariton condensation, the temperature of the reactor's total volume would be the same as the surface temperature, say 1400C for example. There should be a 200C temperature increase at the central core but that 1600C core temperature is not witnessed by melted nickel powder and heater wiring, This 1400C external temperature is a sure sign that a polariton condensate is at work throughout the entire volume of the E-Cat On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 1:57 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Bob, If we assume that a high temperature structure is surrounding and immediately adjacent to the fuel chamber the materials within that chamber should be as a minimum the structure temperature unless heat is flowing into the fuel chamber. I suppose that the fuel could be cooler provided you believe some form of heat pump is absorbing the heat flowing into the fuel and sending it out in the form of high energy radiation. I do not expect for that to happen so my visualization is that the core is hotter than anywhere else within the device with the possible exception of the resistive wires directly. The core material can be cooler than the heating wires provided a path for heat to bypass the literal wires exists. That path should be available in most cases. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Oct 16, 2014 10:58 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire. Dave-- I thought it was reported that Rossi cut the end of the reactor with a diamond saw. There would have been no plugged charging hole to contend with. I do not think the temperature in the reactor was high enough to melt the Ni or Ni alloy nano particles. As I suggested the energy of reaction was released as radiant energy and did not raise the temperature of the reactants significantly. The Li metal vapor would have acted to remove heat to the wall of the reactor, if the nano particles of Ni (alloy) got to hot. It is my assumption that the temperature of the vapor (maybe plasma) was fairly uniform within the reactor vessel (alumina containment). It may be that the isotopes of Ni below 62 were indeed depleted and not seen in the ash. Bob Cook - Original Message - *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, October 16, 2014 5:28 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire. Bob, how would we explain the appearance of the ash material that was extracted from the tube? According to the testers the device can operate at higher powers than they experienced which would certainly lead to complete melting of the nickel. What are the chances that some of the other materials in the fuel mix might result in 'slag' that prevents the Nickel crystals from growing very large. It would seem likely for the condensing nickel to form a blockage of the small interior channel into which the fuel was inserted. If that happened, the amount of material that could be analyzed would be quite limited. That might explain the large amount of Ni62 if the sample were constricted to the material near the end cap and not an average. I asked about the amount of material that was collected as ash from which the samples were drawn and do not recall getting an answer. One last comment. If the true temperature of the fuel reached the level that the IR measurements suggested then I would be very surprised to find that a gram was extracted after the test was completed. Local melting and crystallization would very likely plug up the charging hole in several locations. Just my thoughts. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Oct 16, 2014 6:29 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire. One thing we can be pretty sure of is that any Ni in this reactor at 1300-1400C will have no nano-features. The nano-scale portions melt at about half the temperature of the bulk material. So what would happen is that if there was Ni with nano-scale features, these features would melt before the bulk and cease to be nano. Long before you get to 1000C, Ni particles (if that is what he used) would sinter themselves together and to the wall of the reactor. I do suspect that nano-features are still required for the reaction. In order for them to exist at these temperatures, Rossi must have substituted a new metal, perhaps zirconium. Previously he said he had experimented with other materials, but they didn't work as well as Ni. Well, in his quest to get the temperature hotter, he may have switched to one of these alternate formulations. This switch
[Vo]:The Big Banks are Certainly Paying Attention to the E-Cat
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/?p=394 The Big Banks are Certainly Paying Attention to the E-Cat While looking in the logs after publishing the E-Cat report I found out that within minutes it was downloaded by an IP number owned by Blackrock. Within minutes after that oil futures started to fall and have stayed volatile since… [image: lugano] http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/lugano.png
RE: [Vo]:coherent perfect absorption
Hi Bob, I've been very busy for the last year and have not had the time to partake in the lively discussions in the Collective, and with the added publicity that vortex-l has had (thanks to Mark Gibbs and others) the quality of the discussions has definitely increased significantly. we've also lost some dear souls since LENR started heating up, and they are missed. L Thanks for chiming in. Yes, I would agree that the size of the coherent system is an important key, and that that size would also dictate what kind of photons get absorbed vs which make it outside the bulk matter and into grad-student bulk matter! When you say, . is not the answer to the cold fusion question., are you saying that a LENR system doesn't involve coherency across many, many atoms length??? I did not get the impression that the referenced article was restricting it's hypothesis to two-body systems. -Mark From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 7:18 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:coherent perfect absorption Mark-- The size of the coherent system is the key. Many bodies share the distribution of energy and total coherent system energy changes. Two body systems like that heretofore considered in hot fusion physics (and extended to all solid state physics by many) are not the answer to the cold fusion question in most cases IMHOI. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint mailto:zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 11:35 PM Subject: [Vo]:coherent perfect absorption Just some food for Collective thought. as to why no dead grad students. Perfect energy-feeding into strongly coupled systems and interferometric control of polariton absorption http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys3106.html Abstract The ability to drive a system with an external input is a fundamental aspect of light-matter interaction. The key concept in many photonic applications is the 'critical coupling' condition1, 2: at criticality, all the energy fed to the system is dissipated within the system itself. Although this idea was crucial to enhance the efficiency of many devices, it was never considered in the context of systems operating in a non-perturbative regime. In this so-called strong-coupling regime, the matter and light degrees of freedom are mixed into dressed states, leading to new eigenstates called polaritons3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Here we demonstrate that the strong-coupling regime and the critical coupling condition can coexist; [emphasis mine] in such a strong critical coupling situation, all the incoming energy is converted into polaritons. A general semiclassical theory reveals that such a situation corresponds to a special curve in the phase diagram of the coupled light-matter oscillators. In the case of a system with two radiating ports, the phenomenology shown is that of coherent perfect absorption (CPA; refs 11, 12), which is then naturally understood in the framework of critical coupling. Most importantly, we experimentally verify polaritonic CPA in a semiconductor-based intersubband-polariton photonic crystal resonator. This result opens new avenues in polariton physics, making it possible to control the pumping efficiency of a system independent of the energy exchange rate between the electromagnetic field and the material transition. -mark iverson
Re: [Vo]:Aviation Week and the Lockheed Fusion Reactor
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: http://www.networkworld.com/article/2834452/data-center/ lockheed-martins-cfr-a-hot-fusion-breakthrough-for-power-generation.html It seems to me that a major weakness of the new Lockheed Martin skunkworks reactor design is the fact that the superconducting magnets used to set up a magnetic confinement field are situated within the plasma being fused. The superconducting magnets will need to be at cryogenic temperatures. The metal toroids housing the magnets will be exposed to corrosion by the plasma and will serve as a heat sink, reducing the temperature of the plasma. Perhaps I've missed an important detail? Eric
Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 7:49 AM, Robert Dorr rod...@comcast.net wrote: I've been thinking of tungsten for a while now. Do they make an alloy with tungsten that operates at high temps in an oxygen atmosphere. I ask because, although the tungsten that is embedded in the reactor would be protected from oxygen by the aluminum oxide coating, you have to connect it to power somewhere outside the reactor that would be exposed to air and the wire, if pure tungsten, would decompose rapidly. In the case of some metals, oxygen will react with the surface of the metal thereby forming a protective layer against further corrosion. I take it this would not be possible with tungsten or another refractory? Does this imply that heating elements operating above ~ 1400 C must be used in a low-oxygen environment? I note that kanthal super, referred to by Bob Higgins elsewhere, appears to be used in some cases under a normal atmosphere: http://www.kanthal.com/scaled/11551/headtest-width960height320.jpg http://www.keithcompany.com/images/gallery/2-zone%20super%20kanthal%20heating%20elements.jpg Eric
Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.
I wrote: I note that kanthal super, referred to by Bob Higgins elsewhere, appears to be used in some cases under a normal atmosphere: ... It now occurs to me why the alumina tubes might have been used in the Lugano test: http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/141011_lugano_fig12a.jpg The three alumina tubes on either side of the E-Cat, within which run the three cables delivering the 3-phase power, might be protecting not the cables but the surroundings, for the the cables themselves might not be Inconel at that point; they might be kanthal super or something similar, e.g., heating elements. Note that kanthal super looks like it is somewhat ductile in some of its forms: http://i00.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/60026153072/Kanthal_Super_Heating_Elements_Kanthal_Wire_for.jpg http://i01.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/1968666257_1/resistance_wire_kanthal_super_heating_elements_for.jpg_220x220.jpg The word brittle does not come readily to mind when I look at these images. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Is the beginning of the end of the ECat saga?
When I read Beaudette key page, I thing that like dinosaurs they did not evolve since 1989 Unfortunately, *physicists did not generally claim expertise in calorimetry*, the measurement of calories of heat energy. Nor did they countenance clever chemists declaring hypotheses about nuclear physics. Their outspoken commentary largely ignored the heat measurements along with the offer of an hypothesis about unknown nuclear processes. They did not acquaint themselves with the laboratory procedures that produced anomalous heat data. These attitudes held firm throughout the first decade, causing a sustained controversy. The upshot of this conflict was that* the scientific community failed to give anomalous heat the evaluation that was its due*. Scientists of orthodox views, in the first six years of this episode, produced *only four critical reviews* of the two chemists’ calorimetry work. The first report came in 1989 (N. S. Lewis). It dismissed the Utah claim for anomalous power on grounds of faulty laboratory technique. A second review was produced in 1991 (W. N. Hansen) that strongly supported the claim. It was based on an independent analysis of cell data that was provided by the two chemists. An extensive review completed in 1992 (R. H. Wilson)* was highly critical though not conclusive*. But it* did recognize the existence of anomalous power*, which carried the implication that the Lewis dismissal was mistaken. A fourth review was produced in 1994 (D. R. O. Morrison) which was itself unsatisfactory. It was rebutted strongly to the point of dismissal and correctly in my view. No defense was offered against the rebuttal.* During those first six years, the community of orthodox scientists produced no report of a flaw in the heat measurements that was subsequently sustained by other reports.* The *community of scientists at large never saw or knew about this minimalist critique of the claim*. It was *buried in the avalanche of skepticism* that issued forth *in the first three months*. This skepticism was buttressed by the f*ailure of the two chemists’ nuclear measurements*, the *lack of a theoretical understanding* of how their claim could work, a *mistaken concern with the number of failed experiments*, a wholly* unrealistic expectation of the time and resource the evaluation would need*, and the substantial ad hominem attacks on them. However, *their original claim of measurement of the anomalous power remained unscathed during all of this furor*. A *decade later*, it was not generally realized that *this claim remained essentially unevaluated* by the scientific community. Confusion necessarily arose when* the skeptics refused without argument to recognize the heat measurement* and its corresponding hypothesis of a nuclear source. As a consequence, the story of the excess heat phenomenon has never been told. all said here match well current situation, Pomp cargo cult skepticism... To bad again that the report is not enough flawless to convince desperately dishonest priest of the consensus. To understand that E-cat is real requires still too much computation and reasoning. you need to make complex reasoning, with game theory to rule out fraud. with calorimetry, emissivity, transparency, bounding the lever of errors, to get around the bad calibration... like it was well done on the electric part, the test should be redone accounting for the critics on calorimetry... anyway the important people, the investors, the industrialists, who are aware of the test know it is real, even if not sure industrial... many heuristics make them optimistic, and real people know what risk is, and E-cat today is a normal risk, less than a startup. but sure academic who still live in another planet where theory rules all, where experience are predictable, where nothing deserve to be hidden, where consensus is eternal provided you forget the past, where money is not a problem nor a hope, will discover it in Wall-Street Journal. 2014-10-17 5:22 GMT+02:00 Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com: This is sort of a microcosm of 89' all of again in terms of skepticism. The excess heat is almost undoubtedly real, but let's make it about the integrity of nuclear product measurements. Pomp is doing the same red herring shit that Hueizenga, Close, Parker, etc. engaged in. On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:11 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: The source of the energy is irrelevant to the existence of excess energy. The ECAT shouldn't fall based on incorrect and ultimately irrelevant beliefs of why it functions. On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 2:43 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* H Veeder Doesn't look good for Rossi, but I am not sure I understand Pomp's point. Is Pomp saying Rossi is rewriting history to make it look like Ni62 was present in the ash of his earlier EC at?
Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.
yes Eric, I notice many critics just show that many people cannor manage uncertainty, unknown, the phi 1/0... there have to thing with a prediction scenario, not with alternative stories that they weight as more or less credible. moreover they cannot backtrack, like a prolog engine can do... they are greedy like those outdated optimisation methods... they can only go forward. note that this incapacity to go backward to change one position is what found the groupthink. people who starte reasonably, rationally, to believe in an hypothesis, after they invested too much (as a group) in that hypothesis, cannot accept the losses and backtrack. this is an education problem 2014-10-17 8:04 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com: On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: No matter how strongly you believe in the phenomenon of LENR, and I’m firmly in that camp – bad actors should be weeded out. Rossi is a bad actor here ... This is the same conclusion that Krivit has come to, and that Pomp and Mary Yugo and many others have come to. All on the basis of the most circumstantial of evidence. My theory -- these folks are not comfortable with ambiguity and gaps in one's knowledge. There is a burning desire to fill in the gaps, even when the information necessary to do so is incomplete or unavailable. The temptation to take short cuts to get to some kind of certainty must be so overwhelming to these people that they do not realize they're doing it. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Aviation Week and the Lockheed Fusion Reactor
Eric-- I, like you do not think the design as described is truly a hot fusion reactor with attendant fast neutrons. Where is the neutron shielding and what about the shielding for activated stainless steel etc.? They suggest it is Hot Fusion but I'll bet it is really hot LENR akin to Rossi's hot cat. If you listen to the PR from Lockheed-Martin they are careful not to say what the reaction is. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 11:50 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Aviation Week and the Lockheed Fusion Reactor On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: http://www.networkworld.com/article/2834452/data-center/lockheed-martins-cfr-a-hot-fusion-breakthrough-for-power-generation.html It seems to me that a major weakness of the new Lockheed Martin skunkworks reactor design is the fact that the superconducting magnets used to set up a magnetic confinement field are situated within the plasma being fused. The superconducting magnets will need to be at cryogenic temperatures. The metal toroids housing the magnets will be exposed to corrosion by the plasma and will serve as a heat sink, reducing the temperature of the plasma. Perhaps I've missed an important detail? Eric
Re: [Vo]:coherent perfect absorption
Mark-- My suggestion is that the physics of hot fusion like in the sun is not going to be very applicable to the understanding of LENR solid state systems where there are more than 2 or 3 particles connected in a coherent QM system. It is my conclusion that with respect to doing detailed calculations of the details of LENR, it will be hapless. The system is too complex. Only the qualitative understanding of the basic parameters that effect QM system energy and angular momentum states will be possible. Empirical correlations of results of tests will come about and be pretty good predictors of the way various parameters (temperature, grain size, magnetic fields, resonant frequencies, heat conductivity, magnetic moments, electric fields, etc.) that can be measured affect heat production. Better theory of spin coupling and other forms of energy sharing in a coherent system will evolve and understanding of the empirical data will improve. The hot fusion modeling for few body systems will only be a minor player in the understanding of LENR. The acceptance of instantaneous information sharing in the coherent system, via the QM wave function or some other non-material construct, without speed of light delays, will become common theory to handle the instantaneous changes that occur in the coherent system to produce measurable responses or changes therein. A better relation between the QM parameter of spin for a system, its connection to the spin of individual particles and the relation of spin energy to rest mass that can be measured will be important. Dynamic measurements of mass and spin in coherent systems are needed to feed the empirical understanding and energy coupling mechanisms. Maybe the so called quantum computer will be able to do complex system quantum mechanics. Hopefully this better explains my previous comment. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 11:50 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:coherent perfect absorption Hi Bob, I've been very busy for the last year and have not had the time to partake in the lively discussions in the Collective, and with the added publicity that vortex-l has had (thanks to Mark Gibbs and others) the quality of the discussions has definitely increased significantly. we've also lost some dear souls since LENR started heating up, and they are missed. L Thanks for chiming in. Yes, I would agree that the size of the coherent system is an important key, and that that size would also dictate what kind of photons get absorbed vs which make it outside the bulk matter and into grad-student bulk matter! When you say, . is not the answer to the cold fusion question., are you saying that a LENR system doesn't involve coherency across many, many atoms length??? I did not get the impression that the referenced article was restricting it's hypothesis to two-body systems. -Mark From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 7:18 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:coherent perfect absorption Mark-- The size of the coherent system is the key. Many bodies share the distribution of energy and total coherent system energy changes. Two body systems like that heretofore considered in hot fusion physics (and extended to all solid state physics by many) are not the answer to the cold fusion question in most cases IMHOI. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 11:35 PM Subject: [Vo]:coherent perfect absorption Just some food for Collective thought. as to why no dead grad students. Perfect energy-feeding into strongly coupled systems and interferometric control of polariton absorption http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys3106.html Abstract The ability to drive a system with an external input is a fundamental aspect of light-matter interaction. The key concept in many photonic applications is the 'critical coupling' condition1, 2: at criticality, all the energy fed to the system is dissipated within the system itself. Although this idea was crucial to enhance the efficiency of many devices, it was never considered in the context of systems operating in a non-perturbative regime. In this so-called strong-coupling regime, the matter and light degrees of freedom are mixed into dressed states, leading to new eigenstates called polaritons3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Here we demonstrate that the strong-coupling regime and the critical coupling condition can coexist; [emphasis mine] in such a strong critical coupling situation, all the incoming energy is converted into polaritons. A general semiclassical theory reveals that
Re: [Vo]:Is the beginning of the end of the ECat saga?
James-- I agree with your conclusion about the pseudo-skeptics. I would only add that Rossi and IH probably hope the pseudo-skeptics keep it up and impede the flow of money to competing LENR companies. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: vortex-l Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 8:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the beginning of the end of the ECat saga? Why would anyone rational care what what the pseudo-skeptics have to say anymore? They used to be relevant but they aren't anymore. Too much is going on now for them to be able to impede progress much. On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:22 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: This is sort of a microcosm of 89' all of again in terms of skepticism. The excess heat is almost undoubtedly real, but let's make it about the integrity of nuclear product measurements. Pomp is doing the same red herring shit that Hueizenga, Close, Parker, etc. engaged in. On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:11 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: The source of the energy is irrelevant to the existence of excess energy. The ECAT shouldn't fall based on incorrect and ultimately irrelevant beliefs of why it functions. On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 2:43 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: H Veeder Doesn't look good for Rossi, but I am not sure I understand Pomp's point. Is Pomp saying Rossi is rewriting history to make it look like Ni62 was present in the ash of his earlier EC at? http://stephanpomp.blogspot.se/2014/10/mr-rossi-i-admire-you.html Harry No, he is crystal clear that he thinks Rossi is cheating : “All this leaves only one conclusion: you were playing tricks then (trying to give the impression that copper was produced) and you are playing tricks now (trying to have people believe all nickel somehow converted into Ni-62)” We all know now the copper was not the result of transmutation because it came from contamination. This was a mistake which he didn't want to acknowledge because *he* felt embarrassed by it. Rossi is someone who experiences a lot of shame when he makes even an honest mistake, and this causes him to either deny the mistake or react angrily. I am not sure why he is so sensitive when it comes to making honest mistakes. Perhaps the mafia exploited one of his honest mistakes and this led his erroneous conviction. The important thing to remember is that making mistakes is not bad thing in science. Harry
RE: [Vo]:Aviation Week and the Lockheed Fusion Reactor
Maybe Rossi cools his Inconel this way :-) United States Patent Application 20140301517 McGuire; Thomas JohnOctober 9, 2014 -- “Active Cooling of Structures Immersed in Plasma” Abstract A fusion reactor includes an enclosure having a first end, a second end, and a midpoint substantially equidistant between the first and second ends of the enclosure. The fusion reactor includes two internal magnetic coils suspended within the enclosure and positioned on opposite sides of the midpoint of the enclosure, one or more encapsulating magnetic coils positioned on each side of the midpoint of the enclosure, two mirror magnetic coils positioned on opposite sides of the midpoint of the enclosure, and one or more cooling lines within each of the internal magnetic coils. The cooling lines carry a coolant and are operable to remove heat from the internal magnetic coils. The one or more encapsulating magnetic coils and the two mirror magnetic coils are coaxial with the internal magnetic coils. The magnetic coils are operable, when supplied with electric currents, to form magnetic fields for confining plasma within the enclosure.
RE: [Vo]:Aviation Week and the Lockheed Fusion Reactor
Other patent applications which are relevant to the LM “breakthrough” are: 20140301518 McGuire, Thomas John October 9, 2014 Magnetic Field Plasma Confinement for Compact *Fusion* Power Abstract In one embodiment, a *fusion* reactor includes a plurality of internal magnetic coils suspended within an enclosure… 20140301519 McGuire, Thomas JohnOctober 9, 2014 Heating Plasma for *Fusion* Power Using Magnetic Field Oscillation Abstract In one embodiment, a fusion reactor includes two internal magnetic coils suspended within an enclosure… The fusion reactor is configured to vary electrical currents supplied to the magnetic coils to heat the plasma Maybe Rossi cools his Inconel this way J United States Patent Application 20140301517 McGuire; Thomas JohnOctober 9, 2014 -- “Active Cooling of Structures Immersed in Plasma” Abstract A fusion reactor includes an enclosure having a first end, a second end, and a midpoint substantially equidistant between the first and second ends of the enclosure. The fusion reactor includes two internal magnetic coils suspended within the enclosure and positioned on opposite sides of the midpoint of the enclosure, one or more encapsulating magnetic coils positioned on each side of the midpoint of the enclosure, two mirror magnetic coils positioned on opposite sides of the midpoint of the enclosure, and one or more cooling lines within each of the internal magnetic coils. The cooling lines carry a coolant and are operable to remove heat from the internal magnetic coils. The one or more encapsulating magnetic coils and the two mirror magnetic coils are coaxial with the internal magnetic coils. The magnetic coils are operable, when supplied with electric currents, to form magnetic fields for confining plasma within the enclosure.
Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat
Harry-- I just read an item yesterday in Infinite Energy Sept 2014 issue that the Earth is expanding with a delta r of about 22 mm per year. The explanations did not include the idea that the expansion was due to increasing internal temperatures and the thermal expansion associated with the higher temperatures. There were several other explanations provided. In general it is not well established what the source(s) of the internal heat in the Earth is/are. They may be increasing as part of a harmonic or random characteristic of the energy production. It would be nice to get some good data on the differential temperatures at various distances from the center deep within the crust to get a good handle on the total heat transfer through the surface. I have never seen a correlation of total heat changes with volume changes for the Earth. Such a calculation may exist however.To get a good idea of the overall heat flux would take good statistics with many data points given the known crustal thickness variations and the variable hot spots below the crust and within it confines. Bob - Original Message - From: H Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 8:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat Dave, for some reason when you start a new thread your message appears in my spam folder. I am not sure what you are asking, but the Earth supposedly generates some heat too. I am not sure how much of this heat contributes to the global temperature. Harry On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: A thought occurred to me this morning concerning the temperature measurements and output power calculations from the latest HotCat testing. What if the same general type of effect is working in the CAT test that is revealed by the Earth and the greenhouse gas process? We assume that the Earth is pretty much in equilibrium where the power arriving from the sun is matching the power being radiated from our planet. The reason that we are not frozen at this time is because the radiation spectrum is modified by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which make our temperature a lot warmer than would be expected for a black body in open space. Perhaps something can be learned from this comparison and that is why I open it to discussion amount this group of knowlegible and diverse folks. One might initially ask if the calibration technique used during the testing of the HotCat would correct for the potential problems. Why would a calibration of the heat emitted within the IR region not hold to a reasonable degree at higher temperatures? Could the change in the shape of the spectrum result in a large error? Have mercy on the messenger. Dave
RE: [Vo]:coherent perfect absorption
Mark, Bob You caught my attention with the reference to polaritons. There is a group at Stanford, previously mentioned, which is at the forefront of the SPP field https://web.stanford.edu/group/yamamotogroup/research/EP/EP_main.html Fran will take notice of the reference to microcavities. Axil thinks this can happen at 1200C and that may be a stretch, but it is far more likely than nickel fusion. Exciton-Polariton Condensation: Microcavity exciton-polaritons are half-light, half-matter quantum quasi-particles, resulting from the strong light-matter coupling in a combined structure of quantum wells and cavity photon cavity . The strong light-matter coupling in the microcavity system exhibits anti-crossing behavior as a split to two polariton branches: upper polaritons (UPs) and lower polaritons (LPs)... Think about the implications of polaritons alone being gainful. This would explain why and how a reaction has positive feedback IR light gain - with no gamma or radioactive transmutation, and also why one would not want to calibrate a dummy reactor, if one did not want to reveal polaritons as the active modality - since the polaritons can only kick in when the IR becomes intense with incandescence. From: Bob Cook Mark-- My suggestion is that the physics of hot fusion like in the sun is not going to be very applicable to the understanding of LENR solid state systems where there are more than 2 or 3 particles connected in a coherent QM system. It is my conclusion that with respect to doing detailed calculations of the details of LENR, it will be hapless. The system is too complex. Only the qualitative understanding of the basic parameters that effect QM system energy and angular momentum states will be possible. Empirical correlations of results of tests will come about and be pretty good predictors of the way various parameters (temperature, grain size, magnetic fields, resonant frequencies, heat conductivity, magnetic moments, electric fields, etc.) that can be measured affect heat production. Better theory of spin coupling and other forms of energy sharing in a coherent system will evolve and understanding of the empirical data will improve. The hot fusion modeling for few body systems will only be a minor player in the understanding of LENR. The acceptance of instantaneous information sharing in the coherent system, via the QM wave function or some other non-material construct, without speed of light delays, will become common theory to handle the instantaneous changes that occur in the coherent system to produce measurable responses or changes therein. A better relation between the QM parameter of spin for a system, its connection to the spin of individual particles and the relation of spin energy to rest mass that can be measured will be important. Dynamic measurements of mass and spin in coherent systems are needed to feed the empirical understanding and energy coupling mechanisms. Maybe the so called quantum computer will be able to do complex system quantum mechanics. Hopefully this better explains my previous comment. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint mailto:zeropo...@charter.net Hi Bob, I've been very busy for the last year and have not had the time to partake in the lively discussions in the Collective, and with the added publicity that vortex-l has had (thanks to Mark Gibbs and others) the quality of the discussions has definitely increased significantly. we've also lost some dear souls since LENR started heating up, and they are missed. L Thanks for chiming in. Yes, I would agree that the size of the coherent system is an important key, and that that size would also dictate what kind of photons get absorbed vs which make it outside the bulk matter and into grad-student bulk matter! When you say, . is not the answer to the cold fusion question., are you saying that a LENR system doesn't involve coherency across many, many atoms length??? I did not get the impression that the referenced article was restricting it's hypothesis to two-body systems. -Mark From: Bob Cook Mark-- The size of the coherent system is the key. Many bodies share the distribution of energy and total coherent system energy changes. Two body systems like that heretofore considered in hot fusion physics (and extended to all solid state physics by many) are not the answer to the cold fusion question in most cases IMHOI. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint mailto:zeropo...@charter.net Just some food for Collective thought. as to why no dead grad students. Perfect energy-feeding into strongly coupled systems and interferometric control of polariton absorption http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys3106.html Abstract The ability to drive a system with an external input is a fundamental aspect of
Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat
Dave-- In a month's time I have had about 75 Vortex-l emails sent to Junk mail by my hotmail system. It's not uncommon. I check junk mail routinely and have to make transfers to my inbox. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:31 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat Thanks for the heads up Harry. I wonder if others on the list are seeing my new topics being sent to spam. The question that I am asking is whether or not there are clues to the behavior of the temperature and power output correlation from the latest HotCat tests revealed by greenhouse gas behavior of the Earth. The Earth is warmer than it should be according to normal black body radiation effects. We attribute the reason as being due to incoming visible light energy being converted into heat at the surface and atmosphere which is partially captured. Less radiation power is emitted into space than the temperature suggests for a grey body. Does the variation in the shape of the spectrum as the temperature increases effectively destroy the calibration established by the dummy HotCat run? Is there a simple way to take the error into account? Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Oct 16, 2014 11:58 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat Dave, for some reason when you start a new thread your message appears in my spam folder. I am not sure what you are asking, but the Earth supposedly generates some heat too. I am not sure how much of this heat contributes to the global temperature. Harry On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: A thought occurred to me this morning concerning the temperature measurements and output power calculations from the latest HotCat testing. What if the same general type of effect is working in the CAT test that is revealed by the Earth and the greenhouse gas process? We assume that the Earth is pretty much in equilibrium where the power arriving from the sun is matching the power being radiated from our planet. The reason that we are not frozen at this time is because the radiation spectrum is modified by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which make our temperature a lot warmer than would be expected for a black body in open space. Perhaps something can be learned from this comparison and that is why I open it to discussion amount this group of knowlegible and diverse folks. One might initially ask if the calibration technique used during the testing of the HotCat would correct for the potential problems. Why would a calibration of the heat emitted within the IR region not hold to a reasonable degree at higher temperatures? Could the change in the shape of the spectrum result in a large error? Have mercy on the messenger. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat
Eric-- I had the same idea about the heat production of the earth. See my recent comment about 15 minutes ago. Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:46 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:58 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I am not sure what you are asking, but the Earth supposedly generates some heat too. The earth does kind of have the composition of a large, spherical E-Cat. And there is a magnetic field that exists due in part to the rotation of the molten core. I would not be surprised if there is something LENR-driven in the internal heat that is observed. The explanation I have heard for the heat, that it goes back to uranium, seems a little wishful. Eric
Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.
Dave-- My experience in the design of fission reactors includes the fact that some energy produced by the fissioning of U is lost to the outside of the fuel element and does not contribute to the internal temperature. This is true for fast neutron energies, and much of the gamma energy produced. Most however goes into thermal energy of the fuel inside the cladding because its source is the the thermal excitation of the fuel lattice by distribution of kinetic energy of fission fragments, energetic electrons and other particles, not including photons and neutrons. Until we understand the actual energy production of the LENR reactor, it is only speculation as to what the internal temperature could be. However, my speculation is that all heat in the Rossi LENR is produced without energetic neutrons or photons, but with lattice thermal (vibrational coupling to the spin energy changes) of the coherent nano particles of the reactor. This thermal heat is effectively transferred to the alumina reactor vessel with little differential temperatures within the reactor cavity itself by convection of the nano particles themselves and the Li metal vapor forming part of the mix of the hot gas interior. I consider the resonant conditions involving spin coupling in a magnetic field are involved and that Rossi has designed the reactor to maintain a constant temperature, critical to allowing the reaction (involving the Li vapor) to take place within or on the surface of the Ni nano particles. The small nano particles do not generate a significant internal temperature above the effective reactor gas temperature. Hence they do not melt and change their structure to become fused together. As Bob Higgins has suggested there may be a higher temperature substrate or alloy designed by Rossi to allow the temperature of the gas to go higher than would be possible with pure Ni nano particles. If he has not done that change, it could be the basis for reaching higher reaction temperatures and more efficient operation in any connected electrical production system. IMHO NASA should take notice to this discussion to improve their thermoelectric space probe energy sources. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire. Bob, If we assume that a high temperature structure is surrounding and immediately adjacent to the fuel chamber the materials within that chamber should be as a minimum the structure temperature unless heat is flowing into the fuel chamber. I suppose that the fuel could be cooler provided you believe some form of heat pump is absorbing the heat flowing into the fuel and sending it out in the form of high energy radiation. I do not expect for that to happen so my visualization is that the core is hotter than anywhere else within the device with the possible exception of the resistive wires directly. The core material can be cooler than the heating wires provided a path for heat to bypass the literal wires exists. That path should be available in most cases. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Oct 16, 2014 10:58 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire. Dave-- I thought it was reported that Rossi cut the end of the reactor with a diamond saw. There would have been no plugged charging hole to contend with. I do not think the temperature in the reactor was high enough to melt the Ni or Ni alloy nano particles. As I suggested the energy of reaction was released as radiant energy and did not raise the temperature of the reactants significantly. The Li metal vapor would have acted to remove heat to the wall of the reactor, if the nano particles of Ni (alloy) got to hot. It is my assumption that the temperature of the vapor (maybe plasma) was fairly uniform within the reactor vessel (alumina containment). It may be that the isotopes of Ni below 62 were indeed depleted and not seen in the ash. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 5:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire. Bob, how would we explain the appearance of the ash material that was extracted from the tube? According to the testers the device can operate at higher powers than they experienced which would certainly lead to complete melting of the nickel. What are the chances that some of the other materials in the fuel mix might result in 'slag' that prevents the Nickel crystals from growing very large. It would seem likely for the condensing nickel to form a blockage of the small interior channel into which the fuel was inserted. If that happened, the amount of material that
Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.
Eric-- Well said. Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 11:04 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire. On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: No matter how strongly you believe in the phenomenon of LENR, and I’m firmly in that camp – bad actors should be weeded out. Rossi is a bad actor here ... This is the same conclusion that Krivit has come to, and that Pomp and Mary Yugo and many others have come to. All on the basis of the most circumstantial of evidence. My theory -- these folks are not comfortable with ambiguity and gaps in one's knowledge. There is a burning desire to fill in the gaps, even when the information necessary to do so is incomplete or unavailable. The temptation to take short cuts to get to some kind of certainty must be so overwhelming to these people that they do not realize they're doing it. Eric
Re: [Vo]:coherent perfect absorption
Jones- These comments are good and constructive to understanding LENR. Axil's minimum estimate of temperature may be too high. I do not think it fits Rossi's reactor operating conditions by about 100C degrees. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 6:52 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:coherent perfect absorption Mark, Bob You caught my attention with the reference to polaritons. There is a group at Stanford, previously mentioned, which is at the forefront of the SPP field https://web.stanford.edu/group/yamamotogroup/research/EP/EP_main.html Fran will take notice of the reference to microcavities. Axil thinks this can happen at 1200C and that may be a stretch, but it is far more likely than nickel fusion. Exciton-Polariton Condensation: Microcavity exciton-polaritons are half-light, half-matter quantum quasi-particles, resulting from the strong light-matter coupling in a combined structure of quantum wells and cavity photon cavity . The strong light-matter coupling in the microcavity system exhibits anti-crossing behavior as a split to two polariton branches: upper polaritons (UPs) and lower polaritons (LPs)... Think about the implications of polaritons alone being gainful. This would explain why and how a reaction has positive feedback IR light gain - with no gamma or radioactive transmutation, and also why one would not want to calibrate a dummy reactor, if one did not want to reveal polaritons as the active modality - since the polaritons can only kick in when the IR becomes intense with incandescence. From: Bob Cook Mark-- My suggestion is that the physics of hot fusion like in the sun is not going to be very applicable to the understanding of LENR solid state systems where there are more than 2 or 3 particles connected in a coherent QM system. It is my conclusion that with respect to doing detailed calculations of the details of LENR, it will be hapless. The system is too complex. Only the qualitative understanding of the basic parameters that effect QM system energy and angular momentum states will be possible. Empirical correlations of results of tests will come about and be pretty good predictors of the way various parameters (temperature, grain size, magnetic fields, resonant frequencies, heat conductivity, magnetic moments, electric fields, etc.) that can be measured affect heat production. Better theory of spin coupling and other forms of energy sharing in a coherent system will evolve and understanding of the empirical data will improve. The hot fusion modeling for few body systems will only be a minor player in the understanding of LENR. The acceptance of instantaneous information sharing in the coherent system, via the QM wave function or some other non-material construct, without speed of light delays, will become common theory to handle the instantaneous changes that occur in the coherent system to produce measurable responses or changes therein. A better relation between the QM parameter of spin for a system, its connection to the spin of individual particles and the relation of spin energy to rest mass that can be measured will be important. Dynamic measurements of mass and spin in coherent systems are needed to feed the empirical understanding and energy coupling mechanisms. Maybe the so called quantum computer will be able to do complex system quantum mechanics. Hopefully this better explains my previous comment. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint Hi Bob, I've been very busy for the last year and have not had the time to partake in the lively discussions in the Collective, and with the added publicity that vortex-l has had (thanks to Mark Gibbs and others) the quality of the discussions has definitely increased significantly. we've also lost some dear souls since LENR started heating up, and they are missed. L Thanks for chiming in. Yes, I would agree that the size of the coherent system is an important key, and that that size would also dictate what kind of photons get absorbed vs which make it outside the bulk matter and into grad-student bulk matter! When you say, . is not the answer to the cold fusion question., are you saying that a LENR system doesn't involve coherency across many, many atoms length??? I did not get the impression that the referenced article was restricting it's hypothesis to two-body systems. -Mark From: Bob Cook Mark-- The size of the coherent system is the key. Many bodies share the distribution of energy and total coherent system energy changes. Two body systems like that heretofore considered in hot fusion physics (and extended to all
Re: [Vo]:Aviation Week and the Lockheed Fusion Reactor
Researchers all borrow from each other and when your competition is a major corporation you better hope you did your patent homework properly. Not that I would care at this point because Rossi and Mills will just keep playing with themselves for years while LM involvement is why oil stocks are falling and other big companies are gathering to garnish their share of low hanging IP before it is too late. I predict we will soon hear similar announcements from LM domestic and international competitors trying to make their claims as well. It was inevitable that the big boys would take this across the finish line no matter how close the little guys approached. Unlimited funds and man hours at their command means Mills and Rossi never had a chance once someone proved the effect was real. Fran From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 8:34 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Aviation Week and the Lockheed Fusion Reactor Eric-- I, like you do not think the design as described is truly a hot fusion reactor with attendant fast neutrons. Where is the neutron shielding and what about the shielding for activated stainless steel etc.? They suggest it is Hot Fusion but I'll bet it is really hot LENR akin to Rossi's hot cat. If you listen to the PR from Lockheed-Martin they are careful not to say what the reaction is. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Eric Walkermailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 11:50 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Aviation Week and the Lockheed Fusion Reactor On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.commailto:a...@well.com wrote: http://www.networkworld.com/article/2834452/data-center/lockheed-martins-cfr-a-hot-fusion-breakthrough-for-power-generation.html It seems to me that a major weakness of the new Lockheed Martin skunkworks reactor design is the fact that the superconducting magnets used to set up a magnetic confinement field are situated within the plasma being fused. The superconducting magnets will need to be at cryogenic temperatures. The metal toroids housing the magnets will be exposed to corrosion by the plasma and will serve as a heat sink, reducing the temperature of the plasma. Perhaps I've missed an important detail? Eric
[Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes a self feeding Hot Cat and ends the controversy.
Rossi had now shown that he can get COP3. Why doesn't he use that and build an ecat out of that? Show it inside a black box with some extra output, say 500W for several months. It will certainly destroy any doubt concerning his invention and will not reveal any trade secret he has. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.
It is not clear from the report exactly how much ash was extracted from the reactor. In the SEM of the 2 ash particles on page 45 in Appendix 3, particle 2 is silica - known to be in the grain boundaries of alumina. In 96% alumina, there are 4% of other oxides and and in 99.8% alumina, there are still these oxides between the grains, only less of them. This silica is almost certainly a particle from an alumina grain boundary. Note that the Ni particle is really a lump. It is almost a 0.5mm chunk of sintered Ni. The fact that it came out at all (as opposed to being sintered to the side) probably means it came from a cooler portion of the reactor. From working on a replica design of this reactor, the 5 cm ends of the convection tube are probably not heated with the heater wire. This means that there are probably places inside the reaction tube that are cooler and where sintering may occur between the Ni grains but not necessarily to the alumina wall. Sintering is not the same as crystal growth, and I wouldn't consider the large Ni ash grain as a crystal growth. It is more like the features of the individual grains that come in contact melt together slightly permanently bonding them with a grain boundary of oxides and contaminants remaining in the boundary. For all we know, the inside of the reaction tube was first coated with an isotopically enriched 62Ni powder which was bonded or sintered to the inside wall. Then when the reactor was open, a few of the wall particles became dislodged and became part of the ash. These were not necessarily transmuted from the fuel, because I believe we only saw some consumable powder (probably the hydride) and maybe some obfuscation Ni powder. The point is that what was put in was not representative of the active fuel - it is a clue, but not statistically representative of the active portion of the fuel. Obviously this is an opinion. Given the high temperature, none of what Rossi originally put in would have come back out, except perhaps some small amount of the Ni that had collected in a colder spot in the reaction tube. What more likely came out were small pieces that had flaked off of the sides of the reactor tube due to thermal expansion mismatch as it was heated and cooled, that were in the tube before he put in the ~1g of consumables taken to be the fuel. I don't know that he put in enough powder to ever plug up a 4 mm hole. The big agglomerate of Ni in the ash was about 0.5mm. Bob On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 6:28 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Bob, how would we explain the appearance of the ash material that was extracted from the tube? According to the testers the device can operate at higher powers than they experienced which would certainly lead to complete melting of the nickel. What are the chances that some of the other materials in the fuel mix might result in 'slag' that prevents the Nickel crystals from growing very large. It would seem likely for the condensing nickel to form a blockage of the small interior channel into which the fuel was inserted. If that happened, the amount of material that could be analyzed would be quite limited. That might explain the large amount of Ni62 if the sample were constricted to the material near the end cap and not an average. I asked about the amount of material that was collected as ash from which the samples were drawn and do not recall getting an answer. One last comment. If the true temperature of the fuel reached the level that the IR measurements suggested then I would be very surprised to find that a gram was extracted after the test was completed. Local melting and crystallization would very likely plug up the charging hole in several locations. Just my thoughts. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat
I believe a book has been written about this. It was handed out at ILENR-12 at William Mary College. It may have been written by Bob Pike. I posited that many of the minerals found at plate boundaries were created via LENR as I recall. On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:07 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Interesting point Eric. The materials needed to build an ECAT are in enormous quantities within the Earth. A small reaction here, another there, and so on can add up to a tremendous effect when considering the entire world. To obtain a calibration, I have read that the rate of fusion energy being generated within the sun is about the same as the amount of heat generated by your body in watts per kilogram. The ECAT is a far superior source when compared to either alternative. Dave
[Vo]:Strange Vortex-l connected email--
Bob Cook here-- I recently received 2 emails dated August 5, 2014 from Jackharbach O'Sullivan about vaccines for most anything. It looks like Vortex-l was involved in their distribution. Does anyone know about this person or received the same email.s? I have not opened either email which smell fishy to me, however, the properties of one is copied below: x-store-info:sbevkl2QZR7OXo7WID5ZcdV2tiiWGqTn2156lMKsxcEndCD7MYk7ZkLPJahyVJzRQ5dXueZNrRnJSJzp+mROJkmoAK+vAZ1mVwv5s1hPop3DZIybEl+TZty5c5r44EAEGCqNavwL8Os= Authentication-Results: hotmail.com; spf=pass (sender IP is 204.122.16.11; identity alignment result is fail and alignment mode is relaxed) smtp.mailfrom=vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com; dkim=fail (identity alignment result is pass and alignment mode is relaxed) header.d=gmail.com; x-hmca=fail header.id=alset9te...@gmail.com X-SID-PRA: alset9te...@gmail.com X-AUTH-Result: FAIL X-SID-Result: FAIL X-Message-Status: n:n X-Message-Delivery: Vj0xLjE7dXM9MDtsPTA7YT0wO0Q9MTtHRD0xO1NDTD0w X-Message-Info: z6jWKEKhNiFX0hYJ2SaCMZ5rDBP7GBkWCkj7GKXTylzxHibEKcfRIw7Zcwm0hfhQv6pNwU91EfnPNyIJltuJmmGXrHljsLmVdgHy5p6LekEUniPwUkMaoPQGvoj6Pjy0rJddybfkaTRiTRT3zNlOXGf0E2dekkiCWmCkaK3MdjAFcrTFEuZA2FZUWsD9kRnknkD+ZLzMz1zinUrqaDjIEoiGI90M1WNL Received: from mx2.eskimo.com ([204.122.16.11]) by BAY004-MC1F6.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.22712); Tue, 5 Aug 2014 12:02:34 -0700 Received: by mx2.eskimo.com (Postfix, from userid 36987) id BF8A0378A; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT) Old-Return-Path: alset9te...@gmail.com X-Original-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Delivered-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Received-SPF: pass (gmail.com ... _spf.google.com: Sender is authorized to use 'alset9te...@gmail.com' in 'mfrom' identity (mechanism 'include:_netblocks.google.com' matched)) receiver=mx2.eskimo.com; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=alset9te...@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f174.google.com; client-ip=209.85.212.174 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=pGKLP2Oz0WcaE4rj87QRLctHyHFZI7kj3cmyvw+Cn+8=; b=fDd9sdSPeiRtSijjCN6f4E85t/k1y++G86H0wcALbp6qQTcZ4EhViu7gqGKdMj50ol 6CCt/0EvHv9woEVxZkIybehZuaILIEISpcsly7OjPMSxlB5v5Qw54+ou25Raee2HArwA dLgYzqrYtEQ4Q/q+ed8xfIGny83jXh1AZrtK9+KkM9ObZCvwuDj7RgPIgDCG9aNhxXgx zFVPkRQaiJ2GdcWh95Lx7SjgCmgzqF7tW4wHPKqTJ+RkIHRwJjO8v+MGCt7cvnDsDD3C 7HckSfccNuKc944fvMINs8R2WQyRDmcYinNrMtev2De5YP41gRWkQvhUGMHywqJ6KFuR FAmQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.174.66 with SMTP id bq2mr8864124wjc.96.1407265348790; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 12:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:02:28 -0500 Message-ID: CACYYT2UWxbggkQ80+MVTRQk=97cj1fqbkyohury+qpk7eqo...@mail.gmail.com From: JackHarbach O'Sullivan alset9te...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d1e6838322d04ffe67f35 Resent-Message-ID: avcfzw-wqee.a.b0b.jps...@mx2.eskimo.com Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: vortex-l@eskimo.com archive/latest/150154 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Help: mailto:vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com?subject=help List-Subscribe: mailto:vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com?subject=subscribe List-Unsubscribe: mailto:vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com?subject=unsubscribe Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:MARKOV? NOT REALLY// QUANTUM-Transition ENTANGLED sequential MATRIXs Principia is NON RANDOM Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2014 19:02:34.0459 (UTC) FILETIME=[D0D10AB0:01CFB0DF]
Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.
Bob, I understand your point that there may not be a substantial rise in temperature within the active core provided the energy is released in a form other than direct thermal energy. This concept appears quite sound and may in fact be operating within the HotCat. The best case scenario would be for incoming heat energy from the resistor wires diffusing into the fuel and then being converted into other forms of energy. If that were possible, the fuel might actually remain at a temperature that is slightly lower than the surrounding temperature. I have a suspicion that the laws of thermodynamics would not permit this type of trade off to exist, but I am open to be proven in error. The report mentioned that it was possible to operate the device at a power level in excess of the power chosen for the testing. If this is true, then even higher temperatures than those recorded may be possible. What is the limit to operating temperature and what establishes that value? If melting of the fuel does not quench the energy production process then the idea of fixed NAE is down the drain. There are many conflicting observations around. We need plenty of additional data before a clear understanding of exactly how this device operates can be established. I wish the testers had taken time to step up the input power in small steps while observing the output temperature. My simulation model could then be adjusted to match those observations and thereby offer much further proof of additional core power generation. The rapid power output/ power input ration seen for the one step taken is extremely strong evidence toward proof that the device works as advertised. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Oct 17, 2014 10:29 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire. Dave-- My experience in the design of fission reactors includes the fact that some energy produced by the fissioning of U is lost to the outside of the fuel element and does not contribute to the internal temperature. This is true for fast neutron energies, and much of the gamma energy produced. Most however goes into thermal energy of the fuel inside the cladding because its source is the the thermal excitation of the fuel lattice by distribution of kinetic energy of fission fragments, energetic electrons and other particles, not including photons and neutrons. Until we understand the actual energy production of the LENR reactor, it is only speculation as to what the internal temperature could be. However, my speculation is that all heat in the Rossi LENR is produced without energetic neutrons or photons, but with lattice thermal (vibrational coupling to the spin energy changes) of the coherent nano particles of the reactor. This thermal heat is effectively transferred to the alumina reactor vessel with little differential temperatures within the reactor cavity itself by convection of the nano particles themselves and the Li metal vapor forming part of the mix of the hot gas interior. I consider the resonant conditions involving spin coupling in a magnetic field are involved and that Rossi has designed the reactor to maintain a constant temperature, critical to allowing the reaction (involving the Li vapor) to take place within or on the surface of the Ni nano particles. The small nano particles do not generate a significant internal temperature above the effective reactor gas temperature. Hence they do not melt and change their structure to become fused together. As Bob Higgins has suggested there may be a higher temperature substrate or alloy designed by Rossi to allow the temperature of the gas to go higher than would be possible with pure Ni nano particles. If he has not done that change, it could be the basis for reaching higher reaction temperatures and more efficient operation in any connected electrical production system. IMHO NASA should take notice to this discussion to improve their thermoelectric space probe energy sources. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire. Bob, If we assume that a high temperature structure is surrounding and immediately adjacent to the fuel chamber the materials within that chamber should be as a minimum the structure temperature unless heat is flowing into the fuel chamber. I suppose that the fuel could be cooler provided you believe some form of heat pump is absorbing the heat flowing into the fuel and sending it out in the form of high energy radiation. I do not expect for that to happen so my visualization is that the core is hotter than anywhere else within the device with the possible exception of the resistive wires directly. The core
Re: [Vo]:Strange Vortex-l connected email--
Take care, the antivaccine guys are the most ferocious trolls of the Web as dangerous as the crazy honey badgers. Even no hate groups can be compared with the antivaccine gng. I have edited 8 years a web search journals and know the situation. Delete it at least twice. Peter On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Bob Cook here-- I recently received 2 emails dated August 5, 2014 from Jackharbach O'Sullivan about vaccines for most anything. It looks like Vortex-l was involved in their distribution. Does anyone know about this person or received the same email.s? I have not opened either email which smell fishy to me, however, the properties of one is copied below: x-store-info:sbevkl2QZR7OXo7WID5ZcdV2tiiWGqTn2156lMKsxcEndCD7MYk7ZkLPJahyVJzRQ5dXueZNrRnJSJzp+mROJkmoAK+vAZ1mVwv5s1hPop3DZIybEl+TZty5c5r44EAEGCqNavwL8Os= Authentication-Results: hotmail.com; spf=pass (sender IP is 204.122.16.11; identity alignment result is fail and alignment mode is relaxed) smtp.mailfrom=vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com; dkim=fail (identity alignment result is pass and alignment mode is relaxed) header.d=gmail.com; x-hmca=fail header.id=alset9te...@gmail.com X-SID-PRA: alset9te...@gmail.com X-AUTH-Result: FAIL X-SID-Result: FAIL X-Message-Status: n:n X-Message-Delivery: Vj0xLjE7dXM9MDtsPTA7YT0wO0Q9MTtHRD0xO1NDTD0w X-Message-Info: z6jWKEKhNiFX0hYJ2SaCMZ5rDBP7GBkWCkj7GKXTylzxHibEKcfRIw7Zcwm0hfhQv6pNwU91EfnPNyIJltuJmmGXrHljsLmVdgHy5p6LekEUniPwUkMaoPQGvoj6Pjy0rJddybfkaTRiTRT3zNlOXGf0E2dekkiCWmCkaK3MdjAFcrTFEuZA2FZUWsD9kRnknkD+ZLzMz1zinUrqaDjIEoiGI90M1WNL Received: from mx2.eskimo.com ([204.122.16.11]) by BAY004-MC1F6.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.22712); Tue, 5 Aug 2014 12:02:34 -0700 Received: by mx2.eskimo.com (Postfix, from userid 36987) id BF8A0378A; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT) Old-Return-Path: alset9te...@gmail.com X-Original-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Delivered-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Received-SPF: pass (gmail.com ... _spf.google.com: Sender is authorized to use 'alset9te...@gmail.com' in 'mfrom' identity (mechanism 'include:_ netblocks.google.com' matched)) receiver=mx2.eskimo.com; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=alset9te...@gmail.com; helo= mail-wi0-f174.google.com; client-ip=209.85.212.174 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=pGKLP2Oz0WcaE4rj87QRLctHyHFZI7kj3cmyvw+Cn+8=; b=fDd9sdSPeiRtSijjCN6f4E85t/k1y++G86H0wcALbp6qQTcZ4EhViu7gqGKdMj50ol 6CCt/0EvHv9woEVxZkIybehZuaILIEISpcsly7OjPMSxlB5v5Qw54+ou25Raee2HArwA dLgYzqrYtEQ4Q/q+ed8xfIGny83jXh1AZrtK9+KkM9ObZCvwuDj7RgPIgDCG9aNhxXgx zFVPkRQaiJ2GdcWh95Lx7SjgCmgzqF7tW4wHPKqTJ+RkIHRwJjO8v+MGCt7cvnDsDD3C 7HckSfccNuKc944fvMINs8R2WQyRDmcYinNrMtev2De5YP41gRWkQvhUGMHywqJ6KFuR FAmQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.174.66 with SMTP id bq2mr8864124wjc.96.1407265348790; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 12:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:02:28 -0500 Message-ID: CACYYT2UWxbggkQ80+MVTRQk=97cj1fqbkyohury+qpk7eqo...@mail.gmail.com From: JackHarbach O'Sullivan alset9te...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d1e6838322d04ffe67f35 Resent-Message-ID: avcfzw-wqee.a.b0b.jps...@mx2.eskimo.com Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: vortex-l@eskimo.com archive/latest/150154 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Help: mailto:vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com?subject=help vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com?subject=help List-Subscribe: mailto:vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com?subject=subscribe vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com?subject=subscribe List-Unsubscribe: mailto:vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com?subject=unsubscribe vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com?subject=unsubscribe Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:MARKOV? NOT REALLY// QUANTUM-Transition ENTANGLED sequential MATRIXs Principia is NON RANDOM Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 12:02:33 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2014 19:02:34.0459 (UTC) FILETIME=[D0D10AB0:01CFB0DF] -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Is the beginning of the end of the ECat saga?
it is too late. there are already serious guys, like Elforsk who know that their old business is dead,already... question is when. some even sell insurance to be in the game not too late. 2014-10-17 15:18 GMT+02:00 Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com: James-- I agree with your conclusion about the pseudo-skeptics. I would only add that Rossi and IH probably hope the pseudo-skeptics keep it up and impede the flow of money to competing LENR companies. Bob Cook - Original Message - *From:* James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, October 16, 2014 8:28 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Is the beginning of the end of the ECat saga? Why would anyone rational care what what the pseudo-skeptics have to say anymore? They used to be relevant but they aren't anymore. Too much is going on now for them to be able to impede progress much. On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:22 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: This is sort of a microcosm of 89' all of again in terms of skepticism. The excess heat is almost undoubtedly real, but let's make it about the integrity of nuclear product measurements. Pomp is doing the same red herring shit that Hueizenga, Close, Parker, etc. engaged in. On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:11 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: The source of the energy is irrelevant to the existence of excess energy. The ECAT shouldn't fall based on incorrect and ultimately irrelevant beliefs of why it functions. On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 2:43 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* H Veeder Doesn't look good for Rossi, but I am not sure I understand Pomp's point. Is Pomp saying Rossi is rewriting history to make it look like Ni62 was present in the ash of his earlier EC at? http://stephanpomp.blogspot.se/2014/10/mr-rossi-i-admire-you.html Harry No, he is crystal clear that he thinks Rossi is cheating : “All this leaves only one conclusion: you were playing tricks then (trying to give the impression that copper was produced) and you are playing tricks now (trying to have people believe all nickel somehow converted into Ni-62)” We all know now the copper was not the result of transmutation because it came from contamination. This was a mistake which he didn't want to acknowledge because *he* felt embarrassed by it. Rossi is someone who experiences a lot of shame when he makes even an honest mistake, and this causes him to either deny the mistake or react angrily. I am not sure why he is so sensitive when it comes to making honest mistakes. Perhaps the mafia exploited one of his honest mistakes and this led his erroneous conviction. The important thing to remember is that making mistakes is not bad thing in science. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi copper transmutation
Eric-- You wrote the following some time ago: - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 7:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi copper transmutation On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:17 AM, frobertcook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: I like the idea of excited He as an intermediate. I recall reading that 4He does not have a bound excited nuclear state, although it may have a resonance for a very brief period of time. Eric Do you know if the experiments looked at excited spin energy states that may be possible at higher spin quanta? It probably would take the form of a deformed nucleus with some moment of inertia or dipole arrangement created by high magnetic or electric fields at resonant condition, like that associated with a tuned high energy laser beam shinning on double ionized 4He nuclei. Bob
[Vo]:Is the E-Cat reaction a plasmon-driven instance of a metastable innershell molecular state (MIMS) mediated neutron exchange?
Dear Vortex-l, I found these papers from Young K. Bae, published recently in Physics Letters A and Results in Physics, to be of tremendous interest and potential relevance to the phenomena we are witnessing in the E-Cat and possibly other LENR reactions. (I note that these whole papers can be downloaded without charge currently) MIMS-III, Oct2014: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960114009256 MIMS-II, Sept2014: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211379714000515 MIMS, July2008:http://ykbcorp.com/downloads/MIMS%20PLA17931.pdf Note that he is claiming to prove that innershell molecular states, (a neo-fusion state, if you will) can exist between *any* two elements! Although his work is based on high-kinetics shock-induced reactions, I find the behaviors listed for this class of reactions (MIMS), notably the anomalous thermal behavior, to be of particular interest in light of observed cold fusion reactions. Thanks for the tip-off, Jones Beene. Your mention of ballotechnic reactions caught my eye because of the thermal behavior you mentioned, but searches for that only seemed to land me in conspiracy pages, NSA honeypots, and spy-fiction references, until I found yet another posting from Jones Beene on vortex in 2009 that cross-referenced the new name for this class of reactions (MIMS:ballotechnics::LENR:cold fusion). Then I found this latest set of papers, and my buzzword-matching Bayesian filter output pegged at 11+! Although I do (yet) not have any references to indicate that this type of reaction is known to be capable of occurring in the conditions of the reactors we are working with, given the scarcely-explored nano-scale nature of plasmonics interactions, it doesn't seem too far of a stretch that we could be seeing this type of reaction occurring in cold fusion systems. The works of Hagelstein, Violante, Vysotskii, and Karabut immediately leap to mind here, but I have not yet read their works in enough detail to know what level of correlation their investigations have already uncovered between MIMS and cold fusion. While reading Mats Lewan's book, his mention of Rossi's repeated musings on the hammer-and-anvil theme stood out. Although the notion of fusion naturally correlates to a hammer-and-anvil theme, something suggests to me that perhaps Rossi was musing on shock-induced reactions such as MIMS in particular. I'll note that the important 2008 paper was published around the time that Rossi was first developing the E-Cat technology. There is a nifty animation of a MIMS reaction recently put out by Bae on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbdESIKd56U The author's web pages: http://ykbcorp.com/ I hope this inspires productive thinking! -Bob Ellefson
Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.
Dave-- I agree with your comments. It occurred to me that the potential for increased power may have to due with different resonant frequencies provided by the magnetic field to effect better coupling. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 9:34 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire. Bob, I understand your point that there may not be a substantial rise in temperature within the active core provided the energy is released in a form other than direct thermal energy. This concept appears quite sound and may in fact be operating within the HotCat. The best case scenario would be for incoming heat energy from the resistor wires diffusing into the fuel and then being converted into other forms of energy. If that were possible, the fuel might actually remain at a temperature that is slightly lower than the surrounding temperature. I have a suspicion that the laws of thermodynamics would not permit this type of trade off to exist, but I am open to be proven in error. The report mentioned that it was possible to operate the device at a power level in excess of the power chosen for the testing. If this is true, then even higher temperatures than those recorded may be possible. What is the limit to operating temperature and what establishes that value? If melting of the fuel does not quench the energy production process then the idea of fixed NAE is down the drain. There are many conflicting observations around. We need plenty of additional data before a clear understanding of exactly how this device operates can be established. I wish the testers had taken time to step up the input power in small steps while observing the output temperature. My simulation model could then be adjusted to match those observations and thereby offer much further proof of additional core power generation. The rapid power output/ power input ration seen for the one step taken is extremely strong evidence toward proof that the device works as advertised. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Oct 17, 2014 10:29 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire. Dave-- My experience in the design of fission reactors includes the fact that some energy produced by the fissioning of U is lost to the outside of the fuel element and does not contribute to the internal temperature. This is true for fast neutron energies, and much of the gamma energy produced. Most however goes into thermal energy of the fuel inside the cladding because its source is the the thermal excitation of the fuel lattice by distribution of kinetic energy of fission fragments, energetic electrons and other particles, not including photons and neutrons. Until we understand the actual energy production of the LENR reactor, it is only speculation as to what the internal temperature could be. However, my speculation is that all heat in the Rossi LENR is produced without energetic neutrons or photons, but with lattice thermal (vibrational coupling to the spin energy changes) of the coherent nano particles of the reactor. This thermal heat is effectively transferred to the alumina reactor vessel with little differential temperatures within the reactor cavity itself by convection of the nano particles themselves and the Li metal vapor forming part of the mix of the hot gas interior. I consider the resonant conditions involving spin coupling in a magnetic field are involved and that Rossi has designed the reactor to maintain a constant temperature, critical to allowing the reaction (involving the Li vapor) to take place within or on the surface of the Ni nano particles. The small nano particles do not generate a significant internal temperature above the effective reactor gas temperature. Hence they do not melt and change their structure to become fused together. As Bob Higgins has suggested there may be a higher temperature substrate or alloy designed by Rossi to allow the temperature of the gas to go higher than would be possible with pure Ni nano particles. If he has not done that change, it could be the basis for reaching higher reaction temperatures and more efficient operation in any connected electrical production system. IMHO NASA should take notice to this discussion to improve their thermoelectric space probe energy sources. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire. Bob, If we assume that a high temperature structure is surrounding and immediately adjacent to the fuel chamber the materials within that chamber should be as a minimum the structure temperature unless heat is flowing
Re: [Vo]:Is the E-Cat reaction a plasmon-driven instance of a metastable innershell molecular state (MIMS) mediated neutron exchange?
Sonic bubble collapse experiments at Oak Ridge Lab and PNNL have produced fusion in a cold condition. Tritium has been observed. The research has not be supported very well however. They remind me of the MIMS--ballotechnics also. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 10:56 AM Subject: [Vo]:Is the E-Cat reaction a plasmon-driven instance of a metastable innershell molecular state (MIMS) mediated neutron exchange? Dear Vortex-l, I found these papers from Young K. Bae, published recently in Physics Letters A and Results in Physics, to be of tremendous interest and potential relevance to the phenomena we are witnessing in the E-Cat and possibly other LENR reactions. (I note that these whole papers can be downloaded without charge currently) MIMS-III, Oct2014: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960114009256 MIMS-II, Sept2014: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211379714000515 MIMS, July2008:http://ykbcorp.com/downloads/MIMS%20PLA17931.pdf Note that he is claiming to prove that innershell molecular states, (a neo-fusion state, if you will) can exist between *any* two elements! Although his work is based on high-kinetics shock-induced reactions, I find the behaviors listed for this class of reactions (MIMS), notably the anomalous thermal behavior, to be of particular interest in light of observed cold fusion reactions. Thanks for the tip-off, Jones Beene. Your mention of ballotechnic reactions caught my eye because of the thermal behavior you mentioned, but searches for that only seemed to land me in conspiracy pages, NSA honeypots, and spy-fiction references, until I found yet another posting from Jones Beene on vortex in 2009 that cross-referenced the new name for this class of reactions (MIMS:ballotechnics::LENR:cold fusion). Then I found this latest set of papers, and my buzzword-matching Bayesian filter output pegged at 11+! Although I do (yet) not have any references to indicate that this type of reaction is known to be capable of occurring in the conditions of the reactors we are working with, given the scarcely-explored nano-scale nature of plasmonics interactions, it doesn't seem too far of a stretch that we could be seeing this type of reaction occurring in cold fusion systems. The works of Hagelstein, Violante, Vysotskii, and Karabut immediately leap to mind here, but I have not yet read their works in enough detail to know what level of correlation their investigations have already uncovered between MIMS and cold fusion. While reading Mats Lewan's book, his mention of Rossi's repeated musings on the hammer-and-anvil theme stood out. Although the notion of fusion naturally correlates to a hammer-and-anvil theme, something suggests to me that perhaps Rossi was musing on shock-induced reactions such as MIMS in particular. I'll note that the important 2008 paper was published around the time that Rossi was first developing the E-Cat technology. There is a nifty animation of a MIMS reaction recently put out by Bae on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbdESIKd56U The author's web pages: http://ykbcorp.com/ I hope this inspires productive thinking! -Bob Ellefson
[Vo]:Scientific American coversage of Lockheed ..Fusion..hmmm
Greetings Vortex-L, I see that Scientific American is giving space to Lockheed X-Fusion Reactor.: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lockheed-claims-breakthrough-on-fusion-energy1/ A USPTO patent search does not seem to reveal any interesting technology. Alsopartneringdoes this mean..sharing losses?? Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA
Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo
Eric-- I think the test we are talking about is more likely to accept thermoelectric couples on the outside of the alumina vessel for direct electrical power generation than a steam generation system. Steam and water make the engineering of a heat to electricity conversion harder. That's why NASA uses Pu-238 with a thermoelectric couple for space probes IMHO. Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 10:32 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: I believe the large tubes on the end to be thermally insulating supports for the hot central 2 cm tube. A question that came to me was whether the alumina endcaps could be replaced with metal endcaps of a suitable alloy in the context of a larger array of devices, in order to provide a suitable path out for the heat to be used to generate steam. Another question I have is how much thermal load one of these devices can handle. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Is the E-Cat reaction a plasmon-driven instance of a metastable innershell molecular state (MIMS) mediated neutron exchange?
Bob, Because Dr. Bae was aligned with the amazing Winterberg, and has significant funding, we had hoped that he would have something big to show by now. But this class of chemical reactions points the way to many unexplainable phenomena in LENR, where the reaction looks like chemistry except there is gain above redox chemistry. The gain seems to max out at about 10x[redox] but the idea of Winterberg/Bae is (or was) that you use this gain and bootstrap it to hot fusion for much greater gain. Sounds good on paper but it cannot be aneutronic. However, the recent LM small footprint reactor would be an ideal way to use this hybrid. It makes much more sense than tritium. I see that you found the website. I will to have a new look at it -Original Message- From: Robert Ellefson Dear Vortex-l, I found these papers from Young K. Bae, published recently in Physics Letters A and Results in Physics, to be of tremendous interest and potential relevance to the phenomena we are witnessing in the E-Cat and possibly other LENR reactions. (I note that these whole papers can be downloaded without charge currently) MIMS-III, Oct2014: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960114009256 MIMS-II, Sept2014: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211379714000515 MIMS, July2008:http://ykbcorp.com/downloads/MIMS%20PLA17931.pdf Note that he is claiming to prove that innershell molecular states, (a neo-fusion state, if you will) can exist between *any* two elements! Although his work is based on high-kinetics shock-induced reactions, I find the behaviors listed for this class of reactions (MIMS), notably the anomalous thermal behavior, to be of particular interest in light of observed cold fusion reactions. Thanks for the tip-off, Jones Beene. Your mention of ballotechnic reactions caught my eye because of the thermal behavior you mentioned, but searches for that only seemed to land me in conspiracy pages, NSA honeypots, and spy-fiction references, until I found yet another posting from Jones Beene on vortex in 2009 that cross-referenced the new name for this class of reactions (MIMS:ballotechnics::LENR:cold fusion). Then I found this latest set of papers, and my buzzword-matching Bayesian filter output pegged at 11+! Although I do (yet) not have any references to indicate that this type of reaction is known to be capable of occurring in the conditions of the reactors we are working with, given the scarcely-explored nano-scale nature of plasmonics interactions, it doesn't seem too far of a stretch that we could be seeing this type of reaction occurring in cold fusion systems. The works of Hagelstein, Violante, Vysotskii, and Karabut immediately leap to mind here, but I have not yet read their works in enough detail to know what level of correlation their investigations have already uncovered between MIMS and cold fusion. While reading Mats Lewan's book, his mention of Rossi's repeated musings on the hammer-and-anvil theme stood out. Although the notion of fusion naturally correlates to a hammer-and-anvil theme, something suggests to me that perhaps Rossi was musing on shock-induced reactions such as MIMS in particular. I'll note that the important 2008 paper was published around the time that Rossi was first developing the E-Cat technology. There is a nifty animation of a MIMS reaction recently put out by Bae on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbdESIKd56U The author's web pages: http://ykbcorp.com/ I hope this inspires productive thinking! -Bob Ellefson
RE: [Vo]:Scientific American coversage of Lockheed ..Fusion..hmmm
Ron, Earlier I post the patent application numbers. They are in the name of the inventor, so they do not turn up in a search for LM. From: Ron Kita Greetings Vortex-L, I see that Scientific American is giving space to Lockheed X-Fusion Reactor.: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lockheed-claims-breakthrough-on-fusion-energy1/ A USPTO patent search does not seem to reveal any interesting technology. Alsopartneringdoes this mean..sharing losses?? Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA
Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat
In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 17 Oct 2014 02:07:30 -0400: Hi, [snip] To obtain a calibration, I have read that the rate of fusion energy being generated within the sun is about the same as the amount of heat generated by your body in watts per kilogram. [snip] Sun:- 0.183 milliwatt / kg Human body:- 400W/80kg = 5000 milliwatt /kg. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:To Arms
/. just posted a story debunking cold fusion Have at it, men and Ruby! http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/10/17/2231236/the-physics-of-why-cold-fusion-isnt-real
Re: [Vo]:To Arms
Mod this up: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5842595cid=48173021 On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:37 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: /. just posted a story debunking cold fusion Have at it, men and Ruby! http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/10/17/2231236/the-physics-of-why-cold-fusion-isnt-real
Re: [Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes a self feeding Hot Cat and ends the controversy.
Closing the loop with a hot side temperature of 1200C and a COP of 3, is right on the very edge of possible... You need close to 50% of theoretical carnot efficiency... 100C cold 1200C hot gives carnot of 0.76 Best possible heat to mechanical work.. (3*.76) = 2.28 Best possible Work to electricity 0.95 gives 2.116 so to break even close the loop and have ZERO excess energy you would need to get to 46% of carnot Commercial large scale power plants don't get to 46% of carnot Using something really simple like thermo electric (seebeck) generator would require a COP of 20.2 to get to break even assuming that electrical conversion efficency was 99% On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi had now shown that he can get COP3. Why doesn't he use that and build an ecat out of that? Show it inside a black box with some extra output, say 500W for several months. It will certainly destroy any doubt concerning his invention and will not reveal any trade secret he has. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat
Well...guess your body is a much better generator of heat than the sun. I don't recall where I read that they were close, but your figures suggest that the sun is no match. The ratio that you found may imply that I should have said a dead body! Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Oct 17, 2014 4:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 17 Oct 2014 02:07:30 -0400: Hi, [snip] To obtain a calibration, I have read that the rate of fusion energy being generated within the sun is about the same as the amount of heat generated by your body in watts per kilogram. [snip] Sun:- 0.183 milliwatt / kg Human body:- 400W/80kg = 5000 milliwatt /kg. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes a self feeding Hot Cat and ends the controversy.
So, Rossi would get 700W or so as a minimum for output. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:To Arms
Well it got modded up to the max of 5 for enough time -- then the opposing forces came in and knocked it down to 1. On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:46 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Mod this up: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5842595cid=48173021 On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:37 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: /. just posted a story debunking cold fusion Have at it, men and Ruby! http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/10/17/2231236/the-physics-of-why-cold-fusion-isnt-real
[Vo]:$10,000 bet against cold fusion on /.
Bruce Perens just bet me 10,000 to one odds that no credible commercially utilized cold fusion by 2024. I of course accepted his generous and honorable bet. If only the scum responsible for its suppression would put their money where their mouths were. But then, no amount of fine can make up for what they've done. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5842595cid=48173885
Re: [Vo]:$10,000 bet against cold fusion on /.
In reply to James Bowery's message of Fri, 17 Oct 2014 21:03:00 -0500: Hi, [snip] Bruce Perens just bet me 10,000 to one odds that no credible commercially utilized cold fusion by 2024. Cold Fusion, or LENR? I of course accepted his generous and honorable bet. If only the scum responsible for its suppression would put their money where their mouths were. But then, no amount of fine can make up for what they've done. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5842595cid=48173885 Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes a self feeding Hot Cat and ends the controversy.
I don't know why Rossi doesn't do this. I think he must hardly have any ingenuity - or the scientists/engineers that are in a position to advise him! (Or you could think of more insulting terms). To convert the output heat to electricity, and then convert it back to input heat would have to be the craziest approach imaginable to use! To feed the output heat back in as input heat all you need to do is insulate the device. What could be easier than that!? Then to stop it running away and melting down all you need to do is pump water or blow gas through it to cool it down in a controlled manner with a thermostatically controlled switch (which could even be a passive device like the old thermostats used in the cooling systems of auto-mobile engines). The cooling necessary to prevent melt-down represents your output energy. If you need some electrical excitation in addition to plain old resistive heating, then this would be a very small component and could easily be subtracted from the output energy to determine the energy balance. But the fact that the system runs away if it is allowed to get too hot - even after the excitation has been turned off - proves that this excitation is not really required. On 18/10/2014 7:32 AM, Paul Breed wrote: Closing the loop with a hot side temperature of 1200C and a COP of 3, is right on the very edge of possible... You need close to 50% of theoretical carnot efficiency... 100C cold 1200C hot gives carnot of 0.76 Best possible heat to mechanical work.. (3*.76) = 2.28 Best possible Work to electricity 0.95 gives 2.116 so to break even close the loop and have ZERO excess energy you would need to get to 46% of carnot Commercial large scale power plants don't get to 46% of carnot Using something really simple like thermo electric (seebeck) generator would require a COP of 20.2 to get to break even assuming that electrical conversion efficency was 99%
Re: [Vo]:$10,000 bet against cold fusion on /.
He can try to weasel if he wants, but once a commercial device is on the market with beyond chemical energy production based on anything resembling cold fusion, it will be time for people other than me to trumpet Perens's failure to pay. On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:15 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to James Bowery's message of Fri, 17 Oct 2014 21:03:00 -0500: Hi, [snip] Bruce Perens just bet me 10,000 to one odds that no credible commercially utilized cold fusion by 2024. Cold Fusion, or LENR? I of course accepted his generous and honorable bet. If only the scum responsible for its suppression would put their money where their mouths were. But then, no amount of fine can make up for what they've done. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5842595cid=48173885 Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes a self feeding Hot Cat and ends the controversy.
Did you read/understand Paul's analysis? This is impractical and maybe impossible unless he can improve efficiency. Carnot conversion just isn't great enough to turn the heat into usable electricity. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:24 PM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: I don't know why Rossi doesn't do this. I think he must hardly have any ingenuity - or the scientists/engineers that are in a position to advise him! (Or you could think of more insulting terms). To convert the output heat to electricity, and then convert it back to input heat would have to be the craziest approach imaginable to use! To feed the output heat back in as input heat all you need to do is insulate the device. What could be easier than that!? Then to stop it running away and melting down all you need to do is pump water or blow gas through it to cool it down in a controlled manner with a thermostatically controlled switch (which could even be a passive device like the old thermostats used in the cooling systems of auto-mobile engines). The cooling necessary to prevent melt-down represents your output energy. If you need some electrical excitation in addition to plain old resistive heating, then this would be a very small component and could easily be subtracted from the output energy to determine the energy balance. But the fact that the system runs away if it is allowed to get too hot - even after the excitation has been turned off - proves that this excitation is not really required. On 18/10/2014 7:32 AM, Paul Breed wrote: Closing the loop with a hot side temperature of 1200C and a COP of 3, is right on the very edge of possible... You need close to 50% of theoretical carnot efficiency... 100C cold 1200C hot gives carnot of 0.76 Best possible heat to mechanical work.. (3*.76) = 2.28 Best possible Work to electricity 0.95 gives 2.116 so to break even close the loop and have ZERO excess energy you would need to get to 46% of carnot Commercial large scale power plants don't get to 46% of carnot Using something really simple like thermo electric (seebeck) generator would require a COP of 20.2 to get to break even assuming that electrical conversion efficency was 99%
Re: [Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes a self feeding Hot Cat and ends the controversy.
On 18/10/2014 10:30 AM, John Berry wrote: Did you read/understand Paul's analysis? I didn't need to! Did you read/understand mine!? This is impractical and maybe impossible unless he can improve efficiency. Carnot conversion just isn't great enough to turn the heat into usable electricity. You don't need usable electricity to make a self feeding Hot Cat and end the controversy! On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:24 PM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au mailto:jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: I don't know why Rossi doesn't do this. I think he must hardly have any ingenuity - or the scientists/engineers that are in a position to advise him! (Or you could think of more insulting terms). To convert the output heat to electricity, and then convert it back to input heat would have to be the craziest approach imaginable to use! To feed the output heat back in as input heat all you need to do is insulate the device. What could be easier than that!? Then to stop it running away and melting down all you need to do is pump water or blow gas through it to cool it down in a controlled manner with a thermostatically controlled switch (which could even be a passive device like the old thermostats used in the cooling systems of auto-mobile engines). The cooling necessary to prevent melt-down represents your output energy. If you need some electrical excitation in addition to plain old resistive heating, then this would be a very small component and could easily be subtracted from the output energy to determine the energy balance. But the fact that the system runs away if it is allowed to get too hot - even after the excitation has been turned off - proves that this excitation is not really required. On 18/10/2014 7:32 AM, Paul Breed wrote: Closing the loop with a hot side temperature of 1200C and a COP of 3, is right on the very edge of possible... You need close to 50% of theoretical carnot efficiency... 100C cold 1200C hot gives carnot of 0.76 Best possible heat to mechanical work.. (3*.76) = 2.28 Best possible Work to electricity 0.95 gives 2.116 so to break even close the loop and have ZERO excess energy you would need to get to 46% of carnot Commercial large scale power plants don't get to 46% of carnot Using something really simple like thermo electric (seebeck) generator would require a COP of 20.2 to get to break even assuming that electrical conversion efficency was 99%
Re: [Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes a self feeding Hot Cat and ends the controversy.
Active cooling would work as well as active heating so you don't need to worry about carnot efficiency. Start it up and then keep it just hot enough by pumping a liquid, under controlled rates, with an appropriately high boiling point and decent specific heat and conductivity through the system at 1200C. Liquid metal of an appropriate amalgam or even some liquid salts would do. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has suggested this before. On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com wrote: Closing the loop with a hot side temperature of 1200C and a COP of 3, is right on the very edge of possible... You need close to 50% of theoretical carnot efficiency... 100C cold 1200C hot gives carnot of 0.76 Best possible heat to mechanical work.. (3*.76) = 2.28 Best possible Work to electricity 0.95 gives 2.116 so to break even close the loop and have ZERO excess energy you would need to get to 46% of carnot Commercial large scale power plants don't get to 46% of carnot Using something really simple like thermo electric (seebeck) generator would require a COP of 20.2 to get to break even assuming that electrical conversion efficency was 99% On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi had now shown that he can get COP3. Why doesn't he use that and build an ecat out of that? Show it inside a black box with some extra output, say 500W for several months. It will certainly destroy any doubt concerning his invention and will not reveal any trade secret he has. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes a self feeding Hot Cat and ends the controversy.
On 18/10/2014 10:51 AM, James Bowery wrote: Active cooling would work as well as active heating so you don't need to worry about carnot efficiency. Start it up and then keep it just hot enough by pumping a liquid, under controlled rates, with an appropriately high boiling point and decent specific heat and conductivity through the system at 1200C. Liquid metal of an appropriate amalgam or even some liquid salts would do. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has suggested this before. I for one have suggested this before (as it really is most obvious!) and it has been discussed following that. Firstly a year ago (6 Oct 2013) titled Rossi/Defkalion Calorimetry Nonsense and a more careful analysis (9 Oct 2013) on an ensuing thread titled ECAT Active Cooling Control
Re: [Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes a self feeding Hot Cat and ends the controversy.
I think vapor alone could do it. Make it pass through a turbine and cool it down the stream down to 100C and heat it again. It is how it is done in nuclear power plants. 2014-10-17 23:51 GMT-03:00 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com: Active cooling would work as well as active heating so you don't need to worry about carnot efficiency. Start it up and then keep it just hot enough by pumping a liquid, under controlled rates, with an appropriately high boiling point and decent specific heat and conductivity through the system at 1200C. Liquid metal of an appropriate amalgam or even some liquid salts would do. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:Rule of Thumb For Stable ECAT Operation
I have run a number of simulations on my ECAT model and have found a simple rule of thumb that Rossi or others wanting to replicate his design can use to ensure stable operation. It is possible to violate the rule during a fractional time period when a carefully designed PWM drive is utilized, but the latest test showed that steady drive can be used effectively and that seems to be preferable. It is certainly far simpler to measure a steady state power input system, a point made by the testers. The core section generates thermal power that is a function of the temperature at which it operates. The actual polynomial series that the ECAT follows for core power production versus temperature is not known to me since that information is an important trade secret. I have asked for that information but the request is not fulfilled. Therefore, my model is currently using a simple second order function that reveals general system behavior. When the true series is discovered I can modify the model quickly to take it into account. Heat is extracted from the core by means of a linear term that represents the convection and conduction pathways. Another term corresponding to radiation is modeled by a forth order dependency. These functions can be modified rapidly as well as additional data becomes available. The relatively high order pathway (4th order) is a major key to stability since it can be adjusted to dominate over lower order core power production terms. The rule of thumb for stable operation is that for all temperatures to which the core is exposed the thermal power leaving the core by the radiation, convection, and conduction paths must always exceed the power generated within the core. This makes sense and seems obvious once you realize that any excess core thermal generation above the amount extracted will cause the internal temperature to rise as the thermal capacity is charged. Positive feedback of this nature then compounds upon itself until some limitation is reached. I expect the limit to be established by destruction of the device, a quasi stable operating point where the radiation finally dominates, or some type of unknown behavior. If destruction does not occur it is likely that the device will becomes latched at some intermediate power output level that is out of control. Radiation is very important for the control since it varies as the forth order of temperature and can allow the thermal exit paths to dominate without much of a battle. This is an excellent reason to design the ECAT type devices so that they radiate a significant portion of their energy from the core at the nominal output power level. The lower order pathways are also important and must be adjusted appropriately to ensure that heat can be extracted rapidly enough during operation within the lower power region to prevent latching. The thermal pathways are most readily adjusted by modifying the geometry of the device and that is likely the reason for the latest long, narrow design. In that case the surface area with its surface treatment will be able to remove enough thermal energy quickly enough to satisfy the stability criteria. The proper balance between radiation and the other two processes needs to be achieved for optimum control and COP. All indications are that a complete system must be engineered by taking into consideration the power functional characteristics of the fuel. The geometry of the device should then be constructed to achieve the power balance discussed above. If either the fuel or the geometry are not correct then stable high COP operation can not be expected. Dave
Re: [Vo]:$10,000 bet against cold fusion on /.
James, we expect you to share your new wealth with the rest of us. :-) Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Oct 17, 2014 10:03 pm Subject: [Vo]:$10,000 bet against cold fusion on /. Bruce Perens just bet me 10,000 to one odds that no credible commercially utilized cold fusion by 2024. I of course accepted his generous and honorable bet. If only the scum responsible for its suppression would put their money where their mouths were. But then, no amount of fine can make up for what they've done. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5842595cid=48173885
Re: [Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes a self feeding Hot Cat and ends the controversy.
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:45 PM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: On 18/10/2014 10:30 AM, John Berry wrote: Did you read/understand Paul's analysis? I didn't need to! Did you read/understand mine!? No, only the first line. Touche. Now I have I confess I do not know enough about the details, but isn't it reasonable to assume a certain degree of intense heat is required near the reaction and that this temperature is higher than the entire vessel can be allowed to operate at? Still I do agree to a degree and also even with conventional attempts of hot fusion, or Pharnsworth fusor types, can't if the energy is put in that ultimately becomes heat and the product of the nuclear reaction is heat, then wouldn't an underunity fusion reaction still really be over-unity if you desire heat and insulate the whole thing well? If no fusion occurred it should be a 100% efficient conversion to heat, so now with the energy of fusion, shouldn't it be overunity as a heater? Well obviously yes unless energy is vanishing. Another possibility worth noting is that if it isn't working as a form of fusion, then we don't know how it is working and there are various possibilities as to what might be critical, I suspect that the conduction of heat has an effect that in the right situation can lead to a useful effect on space (aether, vacuum) or matter, this would stop being a continuing effect (if useful) in an insulated vessel. And at any rate, such a device would need input energy initially anyway, and would have less straight-forward challenges in considering the degree of heat output in such a variable cooling system. And since the current device already handsomely proves overunity I am unsure if this would really be worth it. This is impractical and maybe impossible unless he can improve efficiency. Carnot conversion just isn't great enough to turn the heat into usable electricity. You don't need usable electricity to make a self feeding Hot Cat and end the controversy! On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:24 PM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: I don't know why Rossi doesn't do this. I think he must hardly have any ingenuity - or the scientists/engineers that are in a position to advise him! (Or you could think of more insulting terms). To convert the output heat to electricity, and then convert it back to input heat would have to be the craziest approach imaginable to use! To feed the output heat back in as input heat all you need to do is insulate the device. What could be easier than that!? Then to stop it running away and melting down all you need to do is pump water or blow gas through it to cool it down in a controlled manner with a thermostatically controlled switch (which could even be a passive device like the old thermostats used in the cooling systems of auto-mobile engines). The cooling necessary to prevent melt-down represents your output energy. If you need some electrical excitation in addition to plain old resistive heating, then this would be a very small component and could easily be subtracted from the output energy to determine the energy balance. But the fact that the system runs away if it is allowed to get too hot - even after the excitation has been turned off - proves that this excitation is not really required. On 18/10/2014 7:32 AM, Paul Breed wrote: Closing the loop with a hot side temperature of 1200C and a COP of 3, is right on the very edge of possible... You need close to 50% of theoretical carnot efficiency... 100C cold 1200C hot gives carnot of 0.76 Best possible heat to mechanical work.. (3*.76) = 2.28 Best possible Work to electricity 0.95 gives 2.116 so to break even close the loop and have ZERO excess energy you would need to get to 46% of carnot Commercial large scale power plants don't get to 46% of carnot Using something really simple like thermo electric (seebeck) generator would require a COP of 20.2 to get to break even assuming that electrical conversion efficency was 99%
Re: [Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes a self feeding Hot Cat and ends the controversy.
I believe that the record shows that an ECAT went into thermal run away in the earlier testing by the scientists. Is that not adequate to prove the point? Dave -Original Message- From: jwinter jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Oct 17, 2014 10:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes a self feeding Hot Cat and ends the controversy. On 18/10/2014 10:30 AM, John Berry wrote: Did you read/understand Paul's analysis? I didn't need to! Did you read/understand mine!? This is impractical and maybe impossible unless he can improve efficiency. Carnot conversion just isn't great enough to turn the heat into usable electricity. You don't need usable electricity to make a self feeding Hot Catand end the controversy! On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:24 PM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.auwrote: I don'tknow why Rossi doesn't do this. I think he must hardly have any ingenuity - or the scientists/engineers that are in a position to advise him! (Or you could think of moreinsulting terms). To convert the output heat to electricity, and then convert it back to input heat would have to be the craziest approach imaginable to use! To feed the output heat back in as input heat all you need to do is insulate the device. What could be easier thanthat!? Then to stop it running away and melting down all you need to do is pump water or blow gas through it to cool it downin a controlled manner with a thermostatically controlledswitch (which could even be a passive device like the oldthermostats used in the cooling systems of auto-mobileengines). The cooling necessary to prevent melt-downrepresents your output energy. If you need some electrical excitation in addition to plain old resistive heating, then this would be a very small component and could easily be subtracted from the outputenergy to determine the energy balance. But the fact thatthe system runs away if it is allowed to get too hot -even after the excitation has been turned off - provesthat this excitation is not really required. On 18/10/2014 7:32 AM, Paul Breed wrote: Closing the loop with a hot side temperature of 1200C and a COP of 3, is right on the very edge of possible... You need close to 50% of theoretical carnot efficiency... 100C cold 1200C hot gives carnot of 0.76 Best possible heat to mechanical work.. (3*.76) = 2.28 Best possible Work to electricity 0.95 gives 2.116 so to break even close the loop and have ZERO excess energy you would need to get to 46% of carnot Commercial large scale power plants don't get to 46% of carnot Using something really simple like thermo electric (seebeck) generator would require a COP of 20.2 to get to break even assuming that electrical conversion efficency was 99%
Re: [Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes a self feeding Hot Cat and ends the controversy.
We discussed that earlier as an alternative. At the time the operating temperatures were quite a bit lower. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Oct 17, 2014 10:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes a self feeding Hot Cat and ends the controversy. Active cooling would work as well as active heating so you don't need to worry about carnot efficiency. Start it up and then keep it just hot enough by pumping a liquid, under controlled rates, with an appropriately high boiling point and decent specific heat and conductivity through the system at 1200C. Liquid metal of an appropriate amalgam or even some liquid salts would do. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has suggested this before. On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com wrote: Closing the loop with a hot side temperature of 1200C and a COP of 3, is right on the very edge of possible... You need close to 50% of theoretical carnot efficiency... 100C cold 1200C hot gives carnot of 0.76 Best possible heat to mechanical work.. (3*.76) = 2.28 Best possible Work to electricity 0.95 gives 2.116 so to break even close the loop and have ZERO excess energy you would need to get to 46% of carnot Commercial large scale power plants don't get to 46% of carnot Using something really simple like thermo electric (seebeck) generator would require a COP of 20.2 to get to break even assuming that electrical conversion efficency was 99% On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi had now shown that he can get COP3. Why doesn't he use that and build an ecat out of that? Show it inside a black box with some extra output, say 500W for several months. It will certainly destroy any doubt concerning his invention and will not reveal any trade secret he has. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes a self feeding Hot Cat and ends the controversy.
Yes, it is. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 5:03 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I believe that the record shows that an ECAT went into thermal run away in the earlier testing by the scientists. Is that not adequate to prove the point? Dave -Original Message- From: jwinter jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Oct 17, 2014 10:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes a self feeding Hot Cat and ends the controversy. On 18/10/2014 10:30 AM, John Berry wrote: Did you read/understand Paul's analysis? I didn't need to! Did you read/understand mine!? This is impractical and maybe impossible unless he can improve efficiency. Carnot conversion just isn't great enough to turn the heat into usable electricity. You don't need usable electricity to make a self feeding Hot Cat and end the controversy! On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:24 PM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: I don't know why Rossi doesn't do this. I think he must hardly have any ingenuity - or the scientists/engineers that are in a position to advise him! (Or you could think of more insulting terms). To convert the output heat to electricity, and then convert it back to input heat would have to be the craziest approach imaginable to use! To feed the output heat back in as input heat all you need to do is insulate the device. What could be easier than that!? Then to stop it running away and melting down all you need to do is pump water or blow gas through it to cool it down in a controlled manner with a thermostatically controlled switch (which could even be a passive device like the old thermostats used in the cooling systems of auto-mobile engines). The cooling necessary to prevent melt-down represents your output energy. If you need some electrical excitation in addition to plain old resistive heating, then this would be a very small component and could easily be subtracted from the output energy to determine the energy balance. But the fact that the system runs away if it is allowed to get too hot - even after the excitation has been turned off - proves that this excitation is not really required. On 18/10/2014 7:32 AM, Paul Breed wrote: Closing the loop with a hot side temperature of 1200C and a COP of 3, is right on the very edge of possible... You need close to 50% of theoretical carnot efficiency... 100C cold 1200C hot gives carnot of 0.76 Best possible heat to mechanical work.. (3*.76) = 2.28 Best possible Work to electricity 0.95 gives 2.116 so to break even close the loop and have ZERO excess energy you would need to get to 46% of carnot Commercial large scale power plants don't get to 46% of carnot Using something really simple like thermo electric (seebeck) generator would require a COP of 20.2 to get to break even assuming that electrical conversion efficency was 99%
Re: [Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes a self feeding Hot Cat and ends the controversy.
This assumes insulating it will have no adverse effect on the new fire, but excessive insulation could extinguish it. A good test to perform on the Hotcat would be to add the insulation *after* start up. Harry On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:24 PM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote: I don't know why Rossi doesn't do this. I think he must hardly have any ingenuity - or the scientists/engineers that are in a position to advise him! (Or you could think of more insulting terms). To convert the output heat to electricity, and then convert it back to input heat would have to be the craziest approach imaginable to use! To feed the output heat back in as input heat all you need to do is insulate the device. What could be easier than that!? Then to stop it running away and melting down all you need to do is pump water or blow gas through it to cool it down in a controlled manner with a thermostatically controlled switch (which could even be a passive device like the old thermostats used in the cooling systems of auto-mobile engines). The cooling necessary to prevent melt-down represents your output energy. If you need some electrical excitation in addition to plain old resistive heating, then this would be a very small component and could easily be subtracted from the output energy to determine the energy balance. But the fact that the system runs away if it is allowed to get too hot - even after the excitation has been turned off - proves that this excitation is not really required. On 18/10/2014 7:32 AM, Paul Breed wrote: Closing the loop with a hot side temperature of 1200C and a COP of 3, is right on the very edge of possible... You need close to 50% of theoretical carnot efficiency... 100C cold 1200C hot gives carnot of 0.76 Best possible heat to mechanical work.. (3*.76) = 2.28 Best possible Work to electricity 0.95 gives 2.116 so to break even close the loop and have ZERO excess energy you would need to get to 46% of carnot Commercial large scale power plants don't get to 46% of carnot Using something really simple like thermo electric (seebeck) generator would require a COP of 20.2 to get to break even assuming that electrical conversion efficency was 99%
Re: [Vo]:$10,000 bet against cold fusion on /.
Inflation adjusted? 2014-10-17 23:03 GMT-03:00 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com: Bruce Perens just bet me 10,000 to one odds that no credible commercially utilized cold fusion by 2024. I of course accepted his generous and honorable bet. If only the scum responsible for its suppression would put their money where their mouths were. But then, no amount of fine can make up for what they've done. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5842595cid=48173885 -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi copper transmutation
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Do you know if the experiments looked at excited spin energy states that may be possible at higher spin quanta? Unfortunately I don't have any other details and don't know of a particular experiment to refer to. Here is the quote from a textbook I recently finished reading: For nuclear physicists, the deuteron should be what the hydrogen atom is for atomic physicists. Just as the measured Balmer series of electromagnetic transitions between the excited states of hydrogen led to an understanding of the structure of hydrogen, so should the electromagnetic transitions between the excited states of the deuteron lead to an understanding of its structure. Unfortunately, there are *no excited states* of the deuteron—it is such a weakly bound system that the only excited states are unbound systems consisting of a free proton and neutron. [1] Eric [1] Kenneth S. Krane, *Introductory Nuclear Physics*, pp. 80-81; author's emphasis.
Re: [Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes a self feeding Hot Cat and ends the controversy.
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:00 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: If no fusion occurred it should be a 100% efficient conversion to heat, so now with the energy of fusion, shouldn't it be overunity as a heater? Well obviously yes unless energy is vanishing. In a sense, a cold fusion device would be an overunity device, since people's expectations are that nothing should be happening after any putative chemical fuel runs out. In another sense, it would be no more overunity than a fission reactor, since the energy would be coming from the conversion of mass via nuclear reactions. (Assuming nuclear reactions are happening -- this assumption is not shared by everyone here.) Eric
RE: [Vo]:$10,000 bet against cold fusion on /.
David sez: James, we expect you to share your new wealth with the rest of us. :-) Dave Buy me a tea pot. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:To Arms
Thanks James. Here is my comment in /. http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5842595op=Replythreshold=1commentsort=0mode=threadpid=48174219 On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:52 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Well it got modded up to the max of 5 for enough time -- then the opposing forces came in and knocked it down to 1. On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:46 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Mod this up: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5842595cid=48173021 On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:37 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: /. just posted a story debunking cold fusion Have at it, men and Ruby! http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/10/17/2231236/the-physics-of-why-cold-fusion-isnt-real
Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 1:31 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks for the heads up Harry. I wonder if others on the list are seeing my new topics being sent to spam. The question that I am asking is whether or not there are clues to the behavior of the temperature and power output correlation from the latest HotCat tests revealed by greenhouse gas behavior of the Earth. The Earth is warmer than it should be according to normal black body radiation effects. We attribute the reason as being due to incoming visible light energy being converted into heat at the surface and atmosphere which is partially captured. Less radiation power is emitted into space than the temperature suggests for a grey body. An inert body is in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings and its temperature is constant. The only way for it's temperature to change is if it's thermal properties change. This is true if the inert body is black or grey bodies. Does the variation in the shape of the spectrum as the temperature increases effectively destroy the calibration established by the dummy HotCat run? Is there a simple way to take the error into account? If an error has been made then the error resides in the estimate of the thermal properties of the HotCat. If no error has been made, then the HotCat is not an inert body it is an active body. As an active body it is able to elevate its temperature by either generating its own energy or absorbing more energy from its surroundings then it is emitting. The latter scenario is considered impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics. Harry
