[Vo]:Re: Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[pjvannoorden]

Hello Robin

To store heat economically they can not use water heated by the
PV cells, bcs these cells have to be as cool as possible to work 
efficiently.

By concentrating the rest of the direct sunlight on a thermal absorber
it is possible to get much higher temperatures to store heat effectively, 
while keeping the

solar cells at a much lower temperature

Peter v Noorden


-Oorspronkelijk bericht- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 10:16 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Wed, 30 Dec 2015 10:03:42 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
Arizona State U is developing a hybrid solar energy system that modifies 
the single axis CSP “trough” design, converting the mirrored trough with 
solar cells that collect direct rays while reflecting the rest of the 
direct sunlight to a thermal absorber to generate heat.


I don't see why they don't just attach the back of the solar cells to the 
wall
of a cooling tube. This kills two birds with one stone. Water is heated, and 
the

cells are actively cooled allowing use a of a higher concentration of light.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

--
Deze email is gecontroleerd door CAIWAY Internet Virusvrij.
Voor meer informatie, zie http://www.caiway.nl/ 

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
There is a Swedish say; "Venture capital is not for widows and orphans."
 (Perhaps a little off the political correct scale but has some relevance .
. .)
If the government gets involved then they actually do involve people who
for one reason or the other should not take that kind of risk.
As, I am old and was involved in the investment business in the 80is in
Sweden, I experienced how the government managed to lose substantial money
from a pension fund that all Swedes had to contribute to (mandatory). Who
paid in the end? Good guess the retired people after the mid 90is.
Your faith in government is disturbing because that kind of mindset is what
allows this totally immoral and unaccounted for misuse of the taxpayer's
money.
You might think the US government is better or the state of Georgia or
Atlanta city. No, they are not. The system makes the outcome not only
predictable but a self-fulfilling profetia. The say that power corrupts
describe part of it, if you prefer an American say.

Hoping we do not need to see any more of those profitable non-scandal
Solindra business during 2016.

Happy New Year to everybody.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> The taxpayers will get their money back eventually. The power companies
>> are not going to stop buying electricity from this installation. They may
>> renegotiate the price . . .
>>
>
> Source:
>
> I think I read this at Renewable Energy World, but I cannot find the
> article. Anyway, that is the usual arrangement. Since the machine is up and
> running, and making a profit on current operations, the taxpayers should be
> reimbursed. The owners may face bankruptcy.
>
> http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/index.html
>
> The article went on to say this is quite different from the situation at
> Solyndra. There was no revenue stream when Solyndra went bankrupt. They did
> not have anything up and running.
>
> When a company goes bankrupt, if there are parts of the company which are
> making a current profit, the courts are careful to keep those parts in
> business. They try not to sell off assets or do anything else which will
> disrupt those parts and stop the flow of income. They try not to cause more
> unemployment than necessary. On the other hand, they direct the current
> profit flow to the creditors, and away from stockholders. When Uncle Sam is
> among the creditors or unpaid vendors, he always goes to the front of the
> line. That's how it works.
>
> The Solyndra bankruptcy has been called a scandal. It is not a scandal.
> Any investment can go south. Many governments supported ventures have
> failed. In this case, the Solyndra portion of the fund failed but overall
> the fund did exceptionally well and made a ton of money for the taxpayers.
> You might argue that the Federal government should not be investing in
> technology. That might appeal to purists who think the government should
> play no role in the economy, but as I have often pointed out, the
> government has played a leading role since the construction of the Erie
> Canal, and in ever major technology since then. If it had not, I expect the
> U.S. would have lost the Civil War, WWI and WWII.
>
> Since most Federal money goes to conventional technology such as coal and
> oil, I do not think the industry should complain.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

Your faith in government is disturbing because that kind of mindset is what
> allows this totally immoral and unaccounted for misuse of the taxpayer's
> money.
>

Such as the development of railroads, steamships, aviation, highways,
subways, city traffic light control, sewers, water treatment plants,
nuclear power, the computer, the laser, space based weather forecasting,
the GPS, the Internet and decoding the human genome. Right? All paid for by
governments. All bad, bad, BAD misuses of the taxpayer's money.

Oh, and cold fusion. Discovered by government researchers. Paid for by
governments.

Add to that technology subsidized by governments, such as precision machine
tools and mass produced interchangeable parts (both invented for military
firearms), antibiotics (also used in war), telegraphs, semiconductors and
PV and what is left? Nothing! Essentially, no important technology has been
developed since 1750 without direct involvement and funding by governments.

You need to study history. You keep making this empty assertion, but you
have no historical data or present data to back it up. This is a matter of
fact, not opinion.

- Jed

[Vo]:EGO OUT on LENR activity in the last day of 2015

[Peter Gluck]

>From tomorrow, a new start\

HAPPY NEW YEAR 2016 TO ALL MY READERS!

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/12/dec-31-2015-lenr-activity-in-last-day.html
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:All books free over the New Year's Holliday

[Frank Znidarsic]

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text=%22znidarsic+science+books%22=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3A%22znidarsic+science+books%22

RE: [Vo]:Speculation on how the E-Cat X works.

[Jones Beene]

Axil,

 

You seem to be misguided about the possibility of alumina as a thermionic 
emitter of electrons.

 

Alumina would not work as a glow tube cathode since it is a poor conductor of 
electrons. Alumina has been used as a component for a ultra-thin oxide coating 
of metal cathodes, but its bulk conductivity is way too low to be used as an 
electron emitter for the Edison effect.

 

However, a form of alumina (called beta alumina) is an excellent conductor of 
positive charge carries such as sodium + ions. 

 

Positive charge carriers are usually not emitted so much as transferred through 
a membrane or solid electrolyte -- as in the sodium-sulfur battery – which 
relies on beta alumina.

 

The E-cat X could use a beta-alumina tube as a solid electrolyte to pass 
lithium ions (or sodium, potassium, or protons) but not electrons or negative 
charge carriers. 

 

From: Axil Axil 

 

Speculation on how the E-Cat X works.

The E-Cat-X might works as a Hot cathode. Photons produce hot electrons on the 
surface of the alumina that are emitted from the surface. If a anode is placed 
on the outside of the cathode to capture the emitted electrons, then this will 
setup a current flow between the alumina and the wire grid acting as a anode 
that surrounds the alumina.

Alumina is a well known thermionic emitter.

The steel clad core must produce particle emissions (meson) that set up a LENR 
reaction in the alumina where the alumina gets hotter than the core. Rossi may 
have seen the heater wire shadow in the Lugano test which shows that the 
alumina was hotter than the heater wire which means that the alumina is the 
site where the LENR reaction is taking place.

Why would Rossi keep people away from his E-Cat-X? IF someone saw a wire grid 
surrounding the alumina shell, it is easy to deduce how the E-Cat-X is 
producing electricity.

Rossi may have placed the E-Cat-X is a vacuum to optimize electron flow between 
the cathode(alumina) and the anode (Wire grid or plate).

[Vo]:Speculation on how the E-Cat X works.

[Axil Axil]

Speculation on how the E-Cat X works.

The E-Cat-X might works as a Hot cathode. Photons produce hot electrons on
the surface of the alumina that are emitted from the surface. If a anode is
placed on the outside of the cathode to capture the emitted electrons, then
this will setup a current flow between the alumina and the wire grid acting
as a anode that surrounds the alumina.

Alumina is a well known thermionic emitter.

The steel clad core must produce particle emissions (meson) that set up a
LENR reaction in the alumina where the alumina gets hotter than the core.
Rossi may have seen the heater wire shadow in the Lugano test which shows
that the alumina was hotter than the heater wire which means that the
alumina is the site where the LENR reaction is taking place.

Why would Rossi keep people away from his E-Cat-X? IF someone saw a wire
grid surrounding the alumina shell, it is easy to deduce how the E-Cat-X is
producing electricity.

Rossi may have placed the E-Cat-X is a vacuum to optimize electron flow
between the cathode(alumina) and the anode (Wire grid or plate).

Re: [Vo]:Speculation on how the E-Cat X works.

[Axil Axil]

Alumina pulls in electrons rather than pushing them out, Is that correct?

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Axil,
>
>
>
> You seem to be misguided about the possibility of alumina as a thermionic
> emitter of electrons.
>
>
>
> Alumina would not work as a glow tube cathode since it is a poor conductor
> of electrons. Alumina has been used as a component for a ultra-thin oxide
> coating of metal cathodes, but its bulk conductivity is way too low to be
> used as an electron emitter for the Edison effect.
>
>
>
> However, a form of alumina (called beta alumina) is an excellent conductor
> of positive charge carries such as sodium + ions.
>
>
>
> Positive charge carriers are usually not emitted so much as transferred
> through a membrane or solid electrolyte -- as in the sodium-sulfur battery
> – which relies on beta alumina.
>
>
>
> The E-cat X could use a beta-alumina tube as a solid electrolyte to pass
> lithium ions (or sodium, potassium, or protons) but not electrons or
> negative charge carriers.
>
>
>
> *From:* Axil Axil
>
>
>
> Speculation on how the E-Cat X works.
>
> The E-Cat-X might works as a Hot cathode. Photons produce hot electrons on
> the surface of the alumina that are emitted from the surface. If a anode is
> placed on the outside of the cathode to capture the emitted electrons, then
> this will setup a current flow between the alumina and the wire grid acting
> as a anode that surrounds the alumina.
>
> Alumina is a well known thermionic emitter.
>
> The steel clad core must produce particle emissions (meson) that set up a
> LENR reaction in the alumina where the alumina gets hotter than the core.
> Rossi may have seen the heater wire shadow in the Lugano test which shows
> that the alumina was hotter than the heater wire which means that the
> alumina is the site where the LENR reaction is taking place.
>
> Why would Rossi keep people away from his E-Cat-X? IF someone saw a wire
> grid surrounding the alumina shell, it is easy to deduce how the E-Cat-X is
> producing electricity.
>
> Rossi may have placed the E-Cat-X is a vacuum to optimize electron flow
> between the cathode(alumina) and the anode (Wire grid or plate).
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[mixent]

In reply to  's message of Thu, 31 Dec 2015 12:26:56
+0100:
Hi Peter,

While true of normal solar cells, I seem to recall that there are also high
efficiency cells designed to be used with solar concentrators. I'm guessing that
these will also function at boiling water temperatures. Is this not the case?

>Hello Robin
>
>To store heat economically they can not use water heated by the
>PV cells, bcs these cells have to be as cool as possible to work 
>efficiently.
>By concentrating the rest of the direct sunlight on a thermal absorber
>it is possible to get much higher temperatures to store heat effectively, 
>while keeping the
>solar cells at a much lower temperature
>
>Peter v Noorden
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Re: Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jed Rothwell]

ChemE Stewart  wrote:


> Wrong, Ivanpah uses steam drum boiler technology and steam turbine
> technology and Home Depot flat mirror technology that have been around for
> 100 years.
>

I believe the mirrors are more high tech than the ones at Home Depot, but
if they were 100-year-old technology that would be an advantage, not a
problem. Simple, cheap, proven old technology is good. However, as you see
in the ASME document I referenced below, these are not ordinary mirrors.

Wind turbine technology has been around since 1000 BC, with windmills.
There were experimental giant 3-blade wind turbines in the 1940s. Even
though wind energy has been around for centuries, tremendous improvements
in wind energy have been made since the 1970s.

There is no technology that cannot be improved and updated to the latest
techniques. Combustion engineering (fire) has been used for 4.3 million
years, and yet we are still improving it. I read that the production of
wine and the quality of wine has improved more in the last 50 years than in
all the thousands of years previously.


Nothing to mature except maybe some of your robots to wash mirrors.  Where
> are they?
>

Any technology can "mature" more than it is now. Here is an ASME
publication describing some recent advances in CSP technology. This is
sophisticated, 21st century engineering:

https://www.asme.org/getmedia/44edaee0-d607-4ec4-b241-1b7877bdbd01/Catching-the-Sun.aspx

I believe they are using HECTOR robots to wash the mirrors:

http://social.csptoday.com/technology/hector-meet-future-solar-field-mirror-washing

The mirrors are mostly self-cleaning, because they are made with a
high-tech coating that keeps water and dust from sticking. Quoting the ASME
document:

"By using transparent superhydrophobic coatings on collector mirrors, we’ll
be able to create high-performance and low-maintenance concentrating solar
power electricity generation . . ."


The reflector coatings are expected to provide as much as a 90 percent
reduction in mirror cleaning and maintenance costs, and provide about a 20
percent improvement in the average amount of reflected solar energy.


There are any number of improvements that could be made. If history had
been different, and someone had made this coating in 1980 instead of
improving wind turbine blade technology, we might have giant CSP plants,
and everyone would be saying how high-tech and 21st century they appear.

If you look up Ivanpah you will find the WSJ and many others attacking it
because it failed. This is unfair. CSP did not fail so much as PV and wind
*succeeded* better than anticipated. People who have never made a new
product or risked money in R are always quick to criticize those who try
yet lose the competition. If history had been a little different, the WSJ
would be excoriating wind turbines and PV, saying "people should be using
tried-and-true CSP generators instead of wasting money on unproven,
speculative technology."

- Jed

[Vo]:unsubscribe

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
I am not bragging but I actually have studied some history.

That, however, is not important. I have experience from real life and that
counts. You say I have no data to back up my statements! Did you read about
the Swedish pension funds I wrote about?

However, that is no so important either. Your misconception of government's
role and its achievements are scary. I have said it before; 'Organizations
cannot achieve result, people can.' If we channel most funds to one
organization (government in this case) then they are able to take the glory
for all positive development. You allow them to although they just used
your money without you having any say (Yes, I know about voting rights.)
You think that small scandals in the billion dollar size is OK as they do
so much other good thing. Well, we have the government you deserve. You are
pointing out what areas the government have been involved in one way or the
other. It is unavoidable as I said above if we channelize all funding that
way. As you suggest that I better my history knowledge, maybe you can tell
me why 1750 is the year the government became good. Does it have to do with
the creation of USA? I guess the old guys, I have read about (Archimedes to
Kopernicus,) they were just lucky to do anything good, as they did not even
have the support the church in some instances. Are you still of the
*opinion* that I have no* facts*?
Your opinion that government made a lot of progress in science since the
renaissance is barock (pun intended). The fact as you call it is;
scientists has made a lot of progress since the renaissance and you want
the government to have the credit for that. Talk about history but some
guys in Russia about 100 years ago they said that government can produce
much better than those individuals, which control the resources today. Let
us make it everybody's resources and we will all benefit. Well, the
experiment lasted for some 75 years. In China they adopted the same system
30 years later and it has no resemblance with the ideas of Mr. Marx any
longer. I know you think, that when it comes to science,  the government is
well equipped. Think again.
Happy New Year.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
> Your faith in government is disturbing because that kind of mindset is
>> what allows this totally immoral and unaccounted for misuse of the
>> taxpayer's money.
>>
>
> Such as the development of railroads, steamships, aviation, highways,
> subways, city traffic light control, sewers, water treatment plants,
> nuclear power, the computer, the laser, space based weather forecasting,
> the GPS, the Internet and decoding the human genome. Right? All paid for by
> governments. All bad, bad, BAD misuses of the taxpayer's money.
>
> Oh, and cold fusion. Discovered by government researchers. Paid for by
> governments.
>
> Add to that technology subsidized by governments, such as precision
> machine tools and mass produced interchangeable parts (both invented for
> military firearms), antibiotics (also used in war), telegraphs,
> semiconductors and PV and what is left? Nothing! Essentially, no important
> technology has been developed since 1750 without direct involvement and
> funding by governments.
>
> You need to study history. You keep making this empty assertion, but you
> have no historical data or present data to back it up. This is a matter of
> fact, not opinion.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Lennart Thornros]

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Yes, because the government paid for it. Also organized it. The scientists
> could not have done what they did without the government.
> ​ Any organization could have done that. It would be better if there at
> least were several organizations competing about the funding (They tried in
> Russia as I said). I guarantee the scientists could do it with support from
> many organizations. If free enterprise we would see organizations much more
> efficient .​
>
>
> If I build a factory and I hire people to work in it, I get some of the
> credit for what they do, even though they do the actual work.
> ​ Yeah, in Karl Marx ideal society. Besides that if you do not do a good
> job you go bankrupt. Also called accountability - that does not exist
> without competition.​
>
>
> I definitely think the State of Utah deserves some credit for cold fusion,
> since it employed Pons and provided the lab space for the experiments. F
> could not have done it without a paycheck and lab equipment.
> ​ Your logics are just in a class by itself.​
>
>
> Bardeen, Brattain and Shockley deserved the Nobel prize, but we also have
> to thank the management at Bell Labs for hiring them, paying their
> salaries, providing lab space, secretarial help, etc. I am sure the
> secretaries and the other support staff did a lot essential work to enable
> the discovery. Everyone at Bell Labs deserved a small share of the credit.
> ​
>  Your logics are just in a class by itself.​
> ​ If you eliminate the three names there would be very little fame to
> share or  . . . ​
> ​
>
>
> Governments pay for most fundamental research. Corporations do not
> contribute much, because it does not often pay back directly. Of course
> corporations have made important contributions, such as integrated circuits
> invented at Texas Instruments. Following that invention, rapid progress was
> made mainly thanks to NASA and Defense Dept., which ordered many ICs and
> paid for additional R
> ​ BTW I ordered a few 7400  series IC's in 1965. Do I deserve credit for
> TI's invention?:) To your statement; Why corporations have short term goals
> is determined by how funds can be allocated and how corporations can
> benefit over short and long time​. That in  its turn is decided by tax
> laws and if our philosophy is distributed resources or all in
> one uncontrollable pile. That my friend is the pivot point.
>
>
> Most real-time computer technology such as core memory, the CPU designs,
> and so on, were invented at MIT in Project Whirlwind (1946 - 1953). Just
> about every future important hardware designer participated at one time or
> another. It was the training ground for the whole generation of people who
> went on to invent modern computing. "Whirlwind alumni/ae have founded
> countless companies and have made numerous innovations in technology and
> software." (http://museum.mit.edu/150/21)
> ​
>  Your logics are just in a class by itself.​
> ​
>
>
> That was entirely paid for by the U.S. Air Force.
> ​
>  Your logics are just in a class by itself.​
> ​
>
>
> In the 1960s, IBM and other corporations took the lead in computer R
> The Air Force had to lead in the early 1950s because the research was not
> profitable yet. It was more theoretical. It was vitally important to the
> military, but not yet profitable.
> ​
>  Your logics are just in a class by itself.​
> ​
>



Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)

RE: [Vo]:Speculation on how the E-Cat X works.

[Jones Beene]

From: Axil Axil 

*   Alumina pulls in electrons rather than pushing them out, Is that 
correct?

Technically alumina is a good electrical insulator, as seen in the white 
ceramic part of a spark plug. Beta-alumina however is different, and can be 
produced in such a way as to conduct only positive ions. As such those ions 
would “pull in” electrons after the ions moved through the alumina. This, in 
fact, is the way that some sodium batteries operate, using beta-alumina as a 
solid electrolyte (oversimplified). I do not think Rossi is doing this.

The simplest way to get direct current, if one had a glow tube reactor, 
operating inside a larger metal vacuum tube, which functions as an anode, as 
you suggest – is to wind the tube with heater wire which also is a good 
thermionic emitter like tungsten, then that heater coil itself could also 
function as a cathode with a small change in the circuitry. In this case, it 
would be wise to use thoriated tungsten as the heater wire, which is known as a 
good emitter but needs to be in a vacuum as it is easily oxidized in air.

In operation, electrons emitted from the heater coil would decrease the heat 
given to the fuel (the Edison effect is a cooling effect). Also, they would 
require emf to overcome the space charge inside the gap (like any vacuum tube). 
However, if the LENR fuel (by this time) has reached strong self-sustain mode, 
with its own ability to produce heat without electrical input, then this device 
could be made to function almost like a self-powered amplifier tube of old. It 
could possibly function without a grid accelerator, if enough light was being 
produced inside the glow tube (to provide emf and overcome space charge).

This essentially means that a glow tube which has gone into self-powered mode 
(infinite OU) could indeed be arranged to produce electrical current flow as a 
side effect, when properly designed inside a vacuum, if the incandescent 
photons provide the emf. This is more likely what Rossi is doing.

In fact, when net electrical current is being produced, that would be a STRONG 
indication that the tube has gone into self-powered mode. As such, this might 
even be a better approach then the Parkhomov type of replication if one has a 
good vacuum system and a proper Dewar. 

The $64 question is can he provide electrical output with no input for longer 
than a few minutes. The thermal inertia of a very hot system could allow tens 
of seconds, but not minutes.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

The fact as you call it is; scientists has made a lot of progress since the
> renaissance and you want the government to have the credit for that.
>

Yes, because the government paid for it. Also organized it. The scientists
could not have done what they did without the government.

If I build a factory and I hire people to work in it, I get some of the
credit for what they do, even though they do the actual work.

I definitely think the State of Utah deserves some credit for cold fusion,
since it employed Pons and provided the lab space for the experiments. F
could not have done it without a paycheck and lab equipment.

Bardeen, Brattain and Shockley deserved the Nobel prize, but we also have
to thank the management at Bell Labs for hiring them, paying their
salaries, providing lab space, secretarial help, etc. I am sure the
secretaries and the other support staff did a lot essential work to enable
the discovery. Everyone at Bell Labs deserved a small share of the credit.

Governments pay for most fundamental research. Corporations do not
contribute much, because it does not often pay back directly. Of course
corporations have made important contributions, such as integrated circuits
invented at Texas Instruments. Following that invention, rapid progress was
made mainly thanks to NASA and Defense Dept., which ordered many ICs and
paid for additional R

Most real-time computer technology such as core memory, the CPU designs,
and so on, were invented at MIT in Project Whirlwind (1946 - 1953). Just
about every future important hardware designer participated at one time or
another. It was the training ground for the whole generation of people who
went on to invent modern computing. "Whirlwind alumni/ae have founded
countless companies and have made numerous innovations in technology and
software." (http://museum.mit.edu/150/21)

That was entirely paid for by the U.S. Air Force.

In the 1960s, IBM and other corporations took the lead in computer R The
Air Force had to lead in the early 1950s because the research was not
profitable yet. It was more theoretical. It was vitally important to the
military, but not yet profitable.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Speculation on how the E-Cat X works.

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

However, if the LENR fuel (by this time) has reached strong self-sustain
> mode, with its own ability to produce heat without electrical input, then
> this device could be made to function almost like a self-powered amplifier
> tube of old.


This is similar to the idea I had, working off of the assumption that
Rossi's fuel is emitting beta or alpha particles:

http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2421-Rossi-The-E-Cat-X-Does-Produce-Electricity-Directly/?postID=10752#post10752

Later in the thread it was pointed out that this is the principle behind
atomic batteries. In addition, the geometry seen in the image can be
improved upon in various ways, including using an outer cylindrical cathode
and an inner rod of fuel, with a vacuum between the two. I assume that none
of this is novel.

The $64 question is can he provide electrical output with no input for
> longer than a few minutes. The thermal inertia of a very hot system could
> allow tens of seconds, but not minutes.


It seems that if Rossi is indeed getting direct conversion to electricity,
it would be possible to charge up a capacitor or a rechargeable battery to
handle what input stimulation is needed, and then flip a switch over to SSM
at some point.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jed Rothwell]

 wrote:


> While true of normal solar cells, I seem to recall that there are also high
> efficiency cells designed to be used with solar concentrators. I'm
> guessing that
> these will also function at boiling water temperatures. Is this not the
> case?
>

Yes, I recall reading about them years ago. This kind of hybrid approach is
a nifty idea, but I believe it has now been dropped because so much
progress has been made in conventional PVs. It has been overtaken.

This is what has happened to the Ivanpah CSP design. It was a promising
approach. Many smart people thought it deserved a chance. Unfortunately for
the investors, conventional PV made such rapid progress that by the time
they built Ivanpah it was obsolete. It was too expensive.

This often happens in commercial technology. Many great computer
innovations came and went in the 1970s and 1980s, especially in the
minicomputer CPU designs and operating systems, and things like RISC
processors.

In a competition for the best commercial technology you only have room for
one or two winners. Everyone else loses. By that I mean there is usually
only room in the marketplace for one or two standards: the PC and the Mac;
33 rpm and 48 rpm records; AM and FM radio; the U.S. NTSC and the European
TV broadcast standard. Design engineers could probably come up with many
alternatives to these standards that would be better in some ways, but the
market can only support a few standards because the engineers, installers,
technicians, salespeople and others do not have time to learn multiple
standards.

Often the technology that wins is not the "best" by every standard. If some
other approach had been pursued earlier, it might have deserved to win.
Suppose that in the 1990s someone had put a lot of money into solar CSP
technology. The cost might have fallen quickly and perhaps today it would
be cheaper than PV or wind. The power companies would have constructed many
giant CSP installations in the Southwest, especially the Mojave Desert. In
this alternative universe, Southern California and Nevada might have
cheaper electricity than they do now, most of it from CSP. This did not
happen, and by now I think it is too late and it will never happen.

In another alternative universe, electric cars performance would not have
fallen so far behind gasoline models in from 1900 to 1914. The 1907
gasoline-electric hybrid automobile might have been developed. In this
scenario, I think there would have been more breakthroughs in battery
technology over the last 100 years, because there would be more incentive,
and more R money. By now, every car would be electric, OPEC would not
exist, and we would not have fought all those wars in the Middle East.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[ChemE Stewart]

Jed:

"Suppose that in the 1990s someone had put a lot of money into solar CSP
technology. The cost might have fallen quickly and perhaps today it would
be cheaper than PV or wind"


Wrong, Ivanpah uses steam drum boiler technology and steam turbine
technology and Home Depot flat mirror technology that have been around for
100 years. Nothing to mature except maybe some of your robots to wash
mirrors.  Where are they?

Also, please show where Ivanpah is profitable, that division of NRG with a
share in Ivanpah had a net loss in Q3. Ivanpah was producing 40% less steam
and using 40% more natural gas and had higher than expected development
costs.

On Thursday, December 31, 2015, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> >
> wrote:
>
>
>> While true of normal solar cells, I seem to recall that there are also
>> high
>> efficiency cells designed to be used with solar concentrators. I'm
>> guessing that
>> these will also function at boiling water temperatures. Is this not the
>> case?
>>
>
> Yes, I recall reading about them years ago. This kind of hybrid approach
> is a nifty idea, but I believe it has now been dropped because so much
> progress has been made in conventional PVs. It has been overtaken.
>
> This is what has happened to the Ivanpah CSP design. It was a promising
> approach. Many smart people thought it deserved a chance. Unfortunately for
> the investors, conventional PV made such rapid progress that by the time
> they built Ivanpah it was obsolete. It was too expensive.
>
> This often happens in commercial technology. Many great computer
> innovations came and went in the 1970s and 1980s, especially in the
> minicomputer CPU designs and operating systems, and things like RISC
> processors.
>
> In a competition for the best commercial technology you only have room for
> one or two winners. Everyone else loses. By that I mean there is usually
> only room in the marketplace for one or two standards: the PC and the Mac;
> 33 rpm and 48 rpm records; AM and FM radio; the U.S. NTSC and the European
> TV broadcast standard. Design engineers could probably come up with many
> alternatives to these standards that would be better in some ways, but the
> market can only support a few standards because the engineers, installers,
> technicians, salespeople and others do not have time to learn multiple
> standards.
>
> Often the technology that wins is not the "best" by every standard. If
> some other approach had been pursued earlier, it might have deserved to
> win. Suppose that in the 1990s someone had put a lot of money into solar
> CSP technology. The cost might have fallen quickly and perhaps today it
> would be cheaper than PV or wind. The power companies would have
> constructed many giant CSP installations in the Southwest, especially the
> Mojave Desert. In this alternative universe, Southern California and Nevada
> might have cheaper electricity than they do now, most of it from CSP. This
> did not happen, and by now I think it is too late and it will never happen.
>
> In another alternative universe, electric cars performance would not have
> fallen so far behind gasoline models in from 1900 to 1914. The 1907
> gasoline-electric hybrid automobile might have been developed. In this
> scenario, I think there would have been more breakthroughs in battery
> technology over the last 100 years, because there would be more incentive,
> and more R money. By now, every car would be electric, OPEC would not
> exist, and we would not have fought all those wars in the Middle East.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:An update on my on-going Kepler research efforts

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

After having been kicked out of Dr. Mills Yahoo Classical Physics group
earlier this year I came to the realization that I should probably spend
more time focusing on my own personal research work rather than wasting
endless hours indulging in circuitous conjecture that never gets resolved.
Resolution will only happen when (and if) Dr. Mills can pull his CHIT
technology together and demonstrate a working prototype that generates
electricity from the breakdown of water, some powdered metal, and the CHIT
catalyst. After that defrocking, combined with some additional
self-reflection I decided to unsubscribe from Vortex as well. This
additional self-imposed banishment was also done to help encourage me to
redouble my efforts to work on my on-going Kepler project. That I have done.

 

As 2015 comes to an end I decided to briefly re-subscribe to Vortex... just
long enough to give a brief update to the Collective on how my research is
going. So. here goes:

 

Back in October I experienced a minor epiphany concerning my Kepler
research. It occurred at my local Noodles and Co restaurant while scarfing
down a chicken Caesar salad. I was pouring over some Mathematica generated
graphics depicting plotted orbital positions and accompanying velocity
vectors. I suddenly noticed an interesting correlation having to do with the
two foci that make up a typical elliptical orbit. My epiphany came from
looking at the following link over the duration of several years. See:

 

http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/orbit/orbit.2d.html

 

These simple Mathematica graphics were generated from the physics department
of College of Saint Benedict (Saint John's University) located in Minnesota.
Besides Wikipedia, additional useful resources for understanding much of the
physics behind Orbital Mechanics can be found at:

 

http://www.jgiesen.de/kepler/

and

http://www.stargazing.net/kepler/kepler.html

 

 

The subtle information pertaining to my personal epiphany is embedded in the
geometry of the Mathematica diagrams. It's related to how we apply "Kepler's
equation" in order to plot the position of planets traversing an elliptical
orbit. The new information isn't obvious at first sight. In fact, it took me
years to notice the startling new correlation. As best as I can tell none of
these orbital mechanical websites have carried through and rearranged the
geometry of some of these Keplerian diagrams in a manner that I think Kepler
would have eventually found himself doing had he lived long enough to do so.
Based on my own research I think it wouldn't have taken Kepler not all that
much more observational powers to have discovered three more Keplerian laws,
additional laws that are just as important as the 1st, 2nd law and 3rd laws.
What stopped Johannes was the eventual morality we all must face: Short
lives. and perhaps not having sufficient computing power at his quill to
plot out a few additional theoretical orbits to verify certain suspicions he
may have speculated about.

 

As we all know Kepler's 1st law of planetary motion states: "The path of the
planets about the sun is elliptical in shape, with the center of the sun
being located at one focus. (The Law of Ellipses)" Over the centuries there
has been conjecture as to what might be happening at the other (empty) foci.
Does this seemingly unused focal point exhibit any kind of particular
Keplerian law of the same caliber as Kepler's 1st law? As best as I can tell
nobody has managed to uncover a unique Kepler law that specifically uses the
other empty foci in an exclusive manner similar to Kepler's 1st law. Over
the centuries respected researchers have puzzled over this enigma including
Richard Feynman. You can view some of Feynman's ponderings on the matter out
at:

 

http://tinyurl.com/qzcrpoy

 

The best representation, to date, that I know of that tries to employ the
other "empty" foci is the string tied into a loop method which is then
placed around two separated thumbtacks. The two thumbtacks represent the two
foci of a hypothetical ellipse arrangement. This allows one to trace out an
ellipse when a pencil is placed between the two tacks and the string is held
tight. It's quite clever in all honesty! Nevertheless, this arrangement does
not reveal anything exclusive as to what the empty foci might reveal in its
own right, similar to what Kepler's 1st law reveals. I confess, WHAT THE
EMPTY UNFILED FOCI MIGHT REVEAL HAS BEEN AN OBSESSIVE CURIOSITY THAT HAS
SUCK WITH ME FOR, FOR DECADES. And now, in my early 60s, I think I have
managed to uncover the mystery of what the so-called empty foci represents.

 

I admit it is probably arrogant for me to say this (and it's still possible
I may be proven wrong) but I believe I know exactly what kind of information
the empty foci reveals - in Keplerian terms. In order to explain it in
Keplerian terms I believe it will be important for me to establish three
additional honorary Keplerian laws. The first two of these new laws are
based 

RE: [Vo]:unsubscribe

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Dang! I always forget to use the correct address when unsubscribing. 

 

[Vo]:Rossi's Reveal

[Axil Axil]

Andrea Rossi
January 1st, 2016 at 12:19 AM

Dear Readers of the JoNP:
It’s 00.00.01″ of January 1st 2016.
Update: the 1 MW E-Cat is stable and in ssm, the E-Cat X is very promising
and still operating and making heat, electricity.
The E-Cat X is very close to the design of the core of the apparatus
described in the US Patent, I mean the wafer. It has been engineered to
resist to very high temperatures. The electricity exits directly from the
wafer.
As I said , several nights ago I had a dream. The E-Cat X had been produced
in billions pieces, each of them assembled with others in various
combinations to make public lamps: a town was totally illuminated by the
E-Cat X and from every lamp a network of pipes and of wires was able to
distribute heat and electricity to the houses.
In that town there were about 1 million lamps each of them of 500 watts,
consuming about 50 watts; consequently, there were 450 MWh/h produced, of
which about half were turned into heat distributed to the houses through a
network of well insulated pipes, running inderground, like optic fibers,
the other half was used to enlight the town and to distribute electricity
to the households. The cost of the E-Cat X was around 50 $/kW of power, due
to the production of billions of pieces per year in all the world, with
tens of thousands of jobs. Less taxes were paid by the people, due to the
saves derived from low pollution and low energy cost for public services.
Millions of persons were also earning money selling E-Cats and every owner
of E-Cats was saving money in utilities ( electricity, heat, light).
Then I heard the alarm clock: it was time to return to the factory, to make
true the dream. F9.
Happy new year, I love you all.
I am drinking my cup of Korbel champagne, then i have to return to the
gauges of the plant. She is good, tonight.
Again, Happy 2016, May God bless you all,
Andrea

Re: [Vo]:An update on my on-going Kepler research efforts

[Lennart Thornros]

Good.
One needs to focus.
Happy new year.
On Dec 31, 2015 5:21 PM, "Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson" <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> After having been kicked out of Dr. Mills Yahoo Classical Physics group
> earlier this year I came to the realization that I should probably spend
> more time focusing on my own personal research work rather than wasting
> endless hours indulging in circuitous conjecture that never gets resolved.
> Resolution will only happen when (and if) Dr. Mills can pull his CHIT
> technology together and demonstrate a working prototype that generates
> electricity from the breakdown of water, some powdered metal, and the CHIT
> catalyst. After that defrocking, combined with some additional
> self-reflection I decided to unsubscribe from Vortex as well. This
> additional self-imposed banishment was also done to help encourage me to
> redouble my efforts to work on my on-going Kepler project. That I have done.
>
>
>
> As 2015 comes to an end I decided to briefly re-subscribe to Vortex...
> just long enough to give a brief update to the Collective on how my
> research is going. So… here goes:
>
>
>
> Back in October I experienced a minor epiphany concerning my Kepler
> research. It occurred at my local Noodles and Co restaurant while scarfing
> down a chicken Caesar salad. I was pouring over some Mathematica generated
> graphics depicting plotted orbital positions and accompanying velocity
> vectors. I suddenly noticed an interesting correlation having to do with
> the two foci that make up a typical elliptical orbit. My epiphany came from
> looking at the following link over the duration of several years. See:
>
>
>
> http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/orbit/orbit.2d.html
>
>
>
> These simple Mathematica graphics were generated from the physics
> department of College of Saint Benedict (Saint John’s University) located
> in Minnesota. Besides Wikipedia, additional useful resources for
> understanding much of the physics behind Orbital Mechanics can be found at:
>
>
>
> http://www.jgiesen.de/kepler/
>
> and
>
> http://www.stargazing.net/kepler/kepler.html
>
>
>
>
>
> The subtle information pertaining to my personal epiphany is embedded in
> the geometry of the Mathematica diagrams. It’s related to how we apply
> “Kepler’s equation” in order to plot the position of planets traversing an
> elliptical orbit. The new information isn’t obvious at first sight. In
> fact, it took me years to notice the startling new correlation. As best as
> I can tell none of these orbital mechanical websites have carried through
> and rearranged the geometry of some of these Keplerian diagrams in a manner
> that I think Kepler would have eventually found himself doing had he lived
> long enough to do so. Based on my own research I think it wouldn’t have
> taken Kepler not all that much more observational powers to have discovered
> three more Keplerian laws, additional laws that are just as important as
> the 1st, 2nd law and 3rd laws. What stopped Johannes was the eventual
> morality we all must face: Short lives… and perhaps not having sufficient
> computing power at his quill to plot out a few additional theoretical
> orbits to verify certain suspicions he may have speculated about.
>
>
>
> As we all know Kepler’s 1st law of planetary motion states: *“The path of
> the planets about the sun is elliptical in shape, with the center of the
> sun being located at one focus.* (The Law of Ellipses)” Over the
> centuries there has been conjecture as to what might be happening at the
> other (empty) foci. Does this seemingly unused focal point exhibit any kind
> of particular Keplerian law of the same caliber as Kepler’s 1st law? As
> best as I can tell nobody has managed to uncover a unique Kepler law that
> specifically uses the other empty foci in an exclusive manner similar to
> Kepler’s 1st law. Over the centuries respected researchers have puzzled
> over this enigma including Richard Feynman. You can view some of Feynman’s
> ponderings on the matter out at:
>
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/qzcrpoy
>
>
>
> The best representation, to date, that I know of that tries to employ the
> other "empty" foci is the string tied into a loop method which is then
> placed around two separated thumbtacks. The two thumbtacks represent the
> two foci of a hypothetical ellipse arrangement. This allows one to trace
> out an ellipse when a pencil is placed between the two tacks and the string
> is held tight. It’s quite clever in all honesty! Nevertheless, this
> arrangement does not reveal anything exclusive as to what the empty foci
> might reveal in its own right, similar to what Kepler’s 1st law reveals. I
> confess, WHAT THE EMPTY UNFILED FOCI MIGHT REVEAL HAS BEEN AN OBSESSIVE
> CURIOSITY THAT HAS SUCK WITH ME FOR, FOR DECADES. And now, in my early 60s,
> I think I have managed to uncover the mystery of what the so-called empty
> foci represents.
>
>
>
> I admit it is probably arrogant for me to say this (and it’s still
> 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jed Rothwell]

Note: The ASME document may not describe the coating used at Ivanpah.
However, I read an article about the glass there some time ago that said it
has some similar coating. It resembles Teflon. Water and dust do not easily
adhere to it; they blow right off again.

I wish they would invent something like that for eye glasses.

The ASME document describes heat transfer fluid and many other aspects of
CSP that are at the cutting edge, and that may be useful in other
technology.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[ChemE Stewart]

Interesting that Ivanpah is a high wind area with land sailing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Lake

Flat mirrors catch a lot more wind than a low profile trough, like a sail.

I guess without the mirror coating the system would be be performing
even worse than 40% below design...

Troughs have used Dowtherm fluid or equivalent for 40 years, molten salt is
a newer fluid with much less proven performance and design hazards
(corrosive & solidifies when it cools off)

The real play with Ivanpah was the IPO, which failed.  That way the crooks
would have had the taxpayers pay for it the first time and then investors
buy it a second time while they suck the money out and bankrupt it.

Having a big glare problem Ivanpah also, FAA is involved.

http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/07-AFC-05C/TN203395_20141203T090345_IVANPAH_SOLAR_GENERATING_SYSTEM_GLARE_INVESTIGATION.pdf

Bird problem takes care of itself, most vaporize before striking the ground
so they don't count. :)

Happy New Year!

On Thursday, December 31, 2015, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Note: The ASME document may not describe the coating used at Ivanpah.
> However, I read an article about the glass there some time ago that said it
> has some similar coating. It resembles Teflon. Water and dust do not easily
> adhere to it; they blow right off again.
>
> I wish they would invent something like that for eye glasses.
>
> The ASME document describes heat transfer fluid and many other aspects of
> CSP that are at the cutting edge, and that may be useful in other
> technology.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Speculation on how the E-Cat X works.

[Axil Axil]

The core is producing the electric power and is acting as the negative
cathode and the alumina the anode. Perhaps with a grid between for flow
control. A grid between might control the electric vs, heat output.

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Axil Axil
>
> Ø   Alumina pulls in electrons rather than pushing them out, Is that
> correct?
>
> Technically alumina is a good electrical insulator, as seen in the white
> ceramic part of a spark plug. Beta-alumina however is different, and can
> be produced in such a way as to conduct only positive ions. As such those
> ions would “pull in” electrons after the ions moved through the alumina.
> This, in fact, is the way that some sodium batteries operate, using
> beta-alumina as a solid electrolyte (oversimplified). I do not think
> Rossi is doing this.
>
> The simplest way to get direct current, if one had a glow tube reactor,
> operating inside a larger metal vacuum tube, which functions as an anode,
> as you suggest – is to wind the tube with heater wire which also is a good
> thermionic emitter like tungsten, then that heater coil itself could also
> function as a cathode with a small change in the circuitry. In this case,
> it would be wise to use thoriated tungsten as the heater wire, which is
> known as a good emitter but needs to be in a vacuum as it is easily
> oxidized in air.
>
> In operation, electrons emitted from the heater coil would decrease the
> heat given to the fuel (the Edison effect is a cooling effect). Also, they
> would require emf to overcome the space charge inside the gap (like any
> vacuum tube). However, if the LENR fuel (by this time) has reached strong
> self-sustain mode, with its own ability to produce heat without electrical
> input, then this device could be made to function almost like a
> self-powered amplifier tube of old. It could possibly function without a
> grid accelerator, if enough light was being produced inside the glow tube
> (to provide emf and overcome space charge).
>
> This essentially means that a glow tube which has gone into self-powered
> mode (infinite OU) could indeed be arranged to produce electrical current
> flow as a side effect, when properly designed inside a vacuum, if the
> incandescent photons provide the emf. This is more likely what Rossi is
> doing.
>
> In fact, when net electrical current is being produced, that would be a
> STRONG indication that the tube has gone into self-powered mode. As such,
> this might even be a better approach then the Parkhomov type of
> replication if one has a good vacuum system and a proper Dewar.
>
> The $64 question is can he provide electrical output with no input for
> longer than a few minutes. The thermal inertia of a very hot system could
> allow tens of seconds, but not minutes.
>
> Jones
>