Re: [Vo]:Events at the end of Jiang's run #2, Fig. 3

[Alain Sepeda]

>From the exchanges it seems we miss some "metadata" associated with the
curve.

One thing that amazed me was pressure change, but if there is presurization
by bottle, then there is no mystery.

hot H2 and TC seems not to work together, even if Pr Songsheng reports
documents that state compatibility of reductive/H2 athmosphere with K-type
TC (maybe the document refers to reductive, not to H2 which is an uncommon
gas)

from the comments, I step back to pessimism .

recently the only solid calorimetry I've seen is Ed, and his seebeck
calorimeter.

even if people stay to NiH(Li) studies, there are many good ideas to take
from his setup, and from his old book "the science of LENR" (of the student
guide to cold fusion).

maybe there is a marker for selling ready to use flow, or seebeck,
calorimeters. pre-characterized, calibrated, with redundancy, with
integrated logging, with integrated continuous selfcalibration ...

something that can measure precisely even the chemistry reaction and phase
change heat.

No need of LENR competence, just calorimetry.


2016-03-02 2:20 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell :

> H LV  wrote:
>
> I think you interchanged T1 and T2.
>>
>
> I do not think so, but you can check my work. Copy the original image out
> of the Chinese .pdf paper and paste it into a graphics program. It comes
> out in one chunk, easily.
>
> I am pretty sure that at that point, T2 is slightly higher. It may not
> actually be higher; I do not know the error margin. Plus, T1 is the one
> which goes bonkers. Ed Storms and others think it went bonkers because it
> is in hot hydrogen gas.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks

[Axil Axil]

   1. Lars
   March 1, 2016 at 7:48 PM
   

   Can the Quark power itself?
   2. Andrea Rossi
   March 1, 2016 at 9:18 PM
   

   Lars:
   Partly.
   Warm Regards,
   A.R.



Awhile back, Rossi said that an E Cat X would need two other feeder units
to become self powering,



On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 5:34 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> I see that he clarified his original statement somewhat.  His original
> post was quite misleading.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 5:00 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks
>
>
>1. Lars
>March 1, 2016 at 12:05 PM
>
>Is your goal with E-Cat X to only produce electricity and with that
>being able to produce heat and light?
>2. Andrea Rossi
>March 1, 2016 at 2:40 PM
>
>Lars:
>No, she makes the three.
>Warm Regards,
>A.R.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:18 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> I just read Rossi's answer to a question where he is asked if a quark
>> can be built that only puts out electricity with no heat.  Frank Acland
>> asked the question and Rossi responded yes with his f9 key active.  The
>> answer was fairly clear to me and extremely difficult to believe!  I hope
>> his response was due to a missunderstanding of what was asked.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 1:35 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks
>>
>> What Rossi wants to do is produce the most basic LENR module that is
>> possible and do it as efficiently as possible using economies of scale.
>> It will be up to the systems integrator to design the backplane and heat
>> transfer system to meet the spec that is required.
>> A factory steam boiler, a railroad locomotive, a ship engine, a steel
>> blast furnace, a cement plant, or a jet engine will all use the Quark as
>> the basic module. How the Quark is put together it its thousands will be
>> the responsibility of the systems developer.
>> The Quark will be the lowest common denominator of all LENR based
>> systems. How it is configured to produce heat and/or light, and/or
>> electricity are defined by how it is configured.
>> For example, an existing 200 megawatt pebble bed reactor might be
>> configured by encasing a single Quark inside a carbon ball and placing that
>> ball inside an existing pebble bed reactor. It is up to the Chinese reactor
>> designer to test each ball for status and replace it when its operational
>> life is over as it goes through its daily inspection cycle.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 1:20 PM, David Roberson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That is what I recall.   Perhaps it is time to recheck this fact within
>>> his blog.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Axil Axil 
>>> To: vortex-l 
>>> Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 12:50 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks
>>>
>>> Was it stated somewhere that the quark produces little or no heat?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:34 PM, David Roberson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I read his postings and remain quite skeptical.  I especially find it
 difficult to believe that the output of one of these devices can be
 entirely electrical with no residual heat.

 Dave



 -Original Message-
 From: a.ashfield 
 To: vortex-l 
 Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 11:19 am
 Subject: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks

 Rossi has made several comments about a tiny version of the E-Cat X. He
 says he is thinking of using it as a basic module for larger units. How
 would he control it? Unless it is much more stable in the smaller size
 the cost of the control system would be a disadvantage.
 Interesting that it can be made that small though, There are many
 portable devices that could be powered by it.

 See E-CatWorld

 http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/29/rossi-small-e-cat-prototype-units-are-100-w-called-quarks/


>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Events at the end of Jiang's run #2, Fig. 3

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:

I think you interchanged T1 and T2.
>

I do not think so, but you can check my work. Copy the original image out
of the Chinese .pdf paper and paste it into a graphics program. It comes
out in one chunk, easily.

I am pretty sure that at that point, T2 is slightly higher. It may not
actually be higher; I do not know the error margin. Plus, T1 is the one
which goes bonkers. Ed Storms and others think it went bonkers because it
is in hot hydrogen gas.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Events at the end of Jiang's run #2, Fig. 3

[H LV]

I think you interchanged T1 and T2.

Harry

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> I printed out the graph and measured the elapsed time between events toward
> the end of the run, starting around hour 14:00. I measured some temperatures
> on the right Y axis. I assume T2 and T4 are correct. I do not trust T1.
> Times are approximate:
>
> Minute 0. T1 and T2 begin rising. T4 stable.
>
> Minute 14. T4 suddenly rises from 110°C up to around 120°C.
>
> Minute 30. T1 falls abruptly. Becomes erratic.
>
> Minute 34. Power off. T2 begins falling. T4 still rising.
>
> Minute 41. T2 begins falling much faster.
>
> Minute 68. T4 reaches a peak temperature of 167°C. This is 34 minutes after
> the power has cut off.
>
> Note that from ~9:00 to 13:15, T4 rose from ~20°C and stabilized at 110°C,
> in response to internal power levels that raised T1 and T2 up to around
> 1100°C. In other words, T4 goes up 90°C, or 1 degree for each 12 degree
> increase in T1 and T2.
>
> Then when T1 and T2 rose only about 100°C more, up to around 1200°C, T4 rose
> proportionally much more than before. It should have gone up ~8°C. Instead,
> it jumped up by around 24°C initially, then it gradually climbed to a peak
> of 167°C, a 57°C increase, even though T1 and T2 had already fallen
> drastically when it peaked.
>
> I cannot make head or tail of this behavior. If there is heat after death,
> it should show up on T2, but I don't see it. T1 is probably damaged, but T2
> seems intact.
>
> - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Events at the end of Jiang's run #2, Fig. 3

[Bob Higgins]

The events leading up to the excess heat are also significant.  Apparently
in the heat treatment phase the H2 pressure was topped up with a tank to
500kPa and it stayed there a while.  Then the pressure began to fall
gradually to 300kPa where, at about 14:15, the pressure was topped up again
to 500kPa.  At about 14:30, the pressure suddenly drops to about 100kPa (1
bar absolute), presumably by the pressure being quickly vented.  The
venting seems to be responsible for sudden cooling of T2 1260C to 1150C.
It is possible that by gas expansion out of the fuel capsule, the whole
fuel capsule cooled by Joule-Thompson effect.  So, venting the gas cooled
the fuel.  The fuel stayed at this temperature or increased a little as
long as T1 was bigger than T2.  Up until this point, the temperature of T2
seems mostly explainable.

However, at some point, when T1 had fallen to about the same temperature as
T2, T2 began rising even though T1 was still declining.  This is a smooth
change in T2 temperature and looks to be a valid temperature measurement,
indicating heat coming from the fuel.  If I saw this, I would have been
excited.

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> Minute 41. T2 begins falling much faster.
>>
>
> This is a little hard to see. Look carefully. The slope of T2 changes a
> lot. At face value, that does indicate there is a source of heat in the
> cell which cuts off when the slope increases.
>
> I am not saying this is definitive.
>
> Let me illustrate this with a small image. Slope 1 is shown with a green
> line, (and marked "1"). Slope 2 is shown with a red line:
>
>
> ​
>
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Events at the end of Jiang's run #2, Fig. 3

[Jed Rothwell]

Let me send this message again, with a very small copy of the image
attached.


I wrote:


> Minute 41. T2 begins falling much faster.
>

This is a little hard to see. Look carefully. The slope of T2 changes a
lot. At face value, that does indicate there is a source of heat in the
cell which cuts off when the slope increases.

I am not saying this is definitive.

Let me illustrate this with a small image. Slope 1 is shown with a green
line, (and marked "1"). Slope 2 is shown with a red line.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Events at the end of Jiang's run #2, Fig. 3

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> Minute 41. T2 begins falling much faster.
>

This is a little hard to see. Look carefully. The slope of T2 changes a
lot. At face value, that does indicate there is a source of heat in the
cell which cuts off when the slope increases.

I am not saying this is definitive.

Let me illustrate this with a small image. Slope 1 is shown with a green
line, (and marked "1"). Slope 2 is shown with a red line:


​


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks

[David Roberson]

I see that he clarified his original statement somewhat.  His original post was 
quite misleading.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 5:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks





Lars
March 1, 2016 at 12:05 PM
Is your goal with E-Cat X to only produce electricity and with that being able 
to produce heat and light?


Andrea Rossi
March 1, 2016 at 2:40 PM
Lars:
No, she makes the three.
Warm Regards,
A.R.




On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:18 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

I just read Rossi's answer to a question where he is asked if a quark can be 
built that only puts out electricity with no heat.  Frank Acland asked the 
question and Rossi responded yes with his f9 key active.  The answer was fairly 
clear to me and extremely difficult to believe!  I hope his response was due to 
a missunderstanding of what was asked.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 

Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 1:35 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks



What Rossi wants to do is produce the most basic LENR module that is possible 
and do it as efficiently as possible using economies of scale.
It will be up to the systems integrator to design the backplane and heat 
transfer system to meet the spec that is required.
A factory steam boiler, a railroad locomotive, a ship engine, a steel blast 
furnace, a cement plant, or a jet engine will all use the Quark as the basic 
module. How the Quark is put together it its thousands will be the 
responsibility of the systems developer.
The Quark will be the lowest common denominator of all LENR based systems. How 
it is configured to produce heat and/or light, and/or electricity are defined 
by how it is configured.
For example, an existing 200 megawatt pebble bed reactor might be configured by 
encasing a single Quark inside a carbon ball and placing that ball inside an 
existing pebble bed reactor. It is up to the Chinese reactor designer to test 
each ball for status and replace it when its operational life is over as it 
goes through its daily inspection cycle.



On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 1:20 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

That is what I recall.   Perhaps it is time to recheck this fact within his 
blog.
 

 Dave

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 

Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 12:50 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks



Was it stated somewhere that the quark produces little or no heat?


On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:34 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

I read his postings and remain quite skeptical.  I especially find it difficult 
to believe that the output of one of these devices can be entirely electrical 
with no residual heat.

Dave


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 11:19 am
Subject: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks

Rossi has made several comments about a tiny version of the E-Cat X.  He 
says he is thinking of using it as a basic module for larger units.  How 
would he control it?  Unless it is much more stable in the smaller size 
the cost of the control system would be a disadvantage.
Interesting that it can be made that small though,  There are many 
portable devices that could be powered by it.

See  E-CatWorld 
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/29/rossi-small-e-cat-prototype-units-are-100-w-called-quarks/

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks

[Axil Axil]

   1. Lars
   March 1, 2016 at 12:05 PM
   

   Is your goal with E-Cat X to only produce electricity and with that
   being able to produce heat and light?
   2. Andrea Rossi
   March 1, 2016 at 2:40 PM
   

   Lars:
   No, she makes the three.
   Warm Regards,
   A.R.


On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:18 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> I just read Rossi's answer to a question where he is asked if a quark can
> be built that only puts out electricity with no heat.  Frank Acland asked
> the question and Rossi responded yes with his f9 key active.  The answer
> was fairly clear to me and extremely difficult to believe!  I hope his
> response was due to a missunderstanding of what was asked.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 1:35 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks
>
> What Rossi wants to do is produce the most basic LENR module that is
> possible and do it as efficiently as possible using economies of scale.
> It will be up to the systems integrator to design the backplane and heat
> transfer system to meet the spec that is required.
> A factory steam boiler, a railroad locomotive, a ship engine, a steel
> blast furnace, a cement plant, or a jet engine will all use the Quark as
> the basic module. How the Quark is put together it its thousands will be
> the responsibility of the systems developer.
> The Quark will be the lowest common denominator of all LENR based systems.
> How it is configured to produce heat and/or light, and/or electricity are
> defined by how it is configured.
> For example, an existing 200 megawatt pebble bed reactor might be
> configured by encasing a single Quark inside a carbon ball and placing that
> ball inside an existing pebble bed reactor. It is up to the Chinese reactor
> designer to test each ball for status and replace it when its operational
> life is over as it goes through its daily inspection cycle.
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 1:20 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> That is what I recall.   Perhaps it is time to recheck this fact within
>> his blog.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 12:50 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks
>>
>> Was it stated somewhere that the quark produces little or no heat?
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:34 PM, David Roberson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I read his postings and remain quite skeptical.  I especially find it
>>> difficult to believe that the output of one of these devices can be
>>> entirely electrical with no residual heat.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: a.ashfield 
>>> To: vortex-l 
>>> Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 11:19 am
>>> Subject: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks
>>>
>>> Rossi has made several comments about a tiny version of the E-Cat X. He
>>> says he is thinking of using it as a basic module for larger units. How
>>> would he control it? Unless it is much more stable in the smaller size
>>> the cost of the control system would be a disadvantage.
>>> Interesting that it can be made that small though, There are many
>>> portable devices that could be powered by it.
>>>
>>> See E-CatWorld
>>>
>>> http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/29/rossi-small-e-cat-prototype-units-are-100-w-called-quarks/
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks

[Nick]

Back in 2013 on his Blog, Rossi said a Cold Cat might be possible ;
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=771=5#comment-520563 Nixter, 
NICK

 

  

RE: [Vo]:Events at the end of Jiang's run #2, Fig. 3

[Russ George]

It is a telling and sad story on the character of LENR when this Chinese report 
that shows inadequate experimental design and clearly defective thermocouples 
with no redundancy is proposed by some as a ‘confirmation’ of lenr. Whether the 
reported experiment(s) are shoddy or not, the data presented can certainly not 
make anything clear, save to reveal a path to repeat with improved design and 
methods. 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2016 11:47 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Events at the end of Jiang's run #2, Fig. 3

 

I printed out the graph and measured the elapsed time between events toward the 
end of the run, starting around hour 14:00. I measured some temperatures on the 
right Y axis. I assume T2 and T4 are correct. I do not trust T1. Times are 
approximate:


Minute 0. T1 and T2 begin rising. T4 stable.

Minute 14. T4 suddenly rises from 110°C up to around 120°C.

Minute 30. T1 falls abruptly. Becomes erratic.

Minute 34. Power off. T2 begins falling. T4 still rising.

Minute 41. T2 begins falling much faster.

Minute 68. T4 reaches a peak temperature of 167°C. This is 34 minutes after the 
power has cut off.

Note that from ~9:00 to 13:15, T4 rose from ~20°C and stabilized at 110°C, in 
response to internal power levels that raised T1 and T2 up to around 1100°C. In 
other words, T4 goes up 90°C, or 1 degree for each 12 degree increase in T1 and 
T2.

Then when T1 and T2 rose only about 100°C more, up to around 1200°C, T4 rose 
proportionally much more than before. It should have gone up ~8°C. Instead, it 
jumped up by around 24°C initially, then it gradually climbed to a peak of 
167°C, a 57°C increase, even though T1 and T2 had already fallen drastically 
when it peaked.

I cannot make head or tail of this behavior. If there is heat after death, it 
should show up on T2, but I don't see it. T1 is probably damaged, but T2 seems 
intact.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Higgins  wrote:

I sent a copy of my translation of Songsheng Jiang's paper to him for
> review.  He found a couple of typos and a couple other small things to
> revise. . . .
>

Thanks again!

- Jed

[Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Bob Higgins]

I sent a copy of my translation of Songsheng Jiang's paper to him for
review.  He found a couple of typos and a couple other small things to
revise.  So, I have made the changes and here is the revision 1 of Dr.
Jiang's paper for your records.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2X1F6TjJ1RkI5eGc

Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks

[H LV]

Maybe he means the E-Cat X will will be sold with an electrical
voltage like a battery.

Harry

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:18 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
> I just read Rossi's answer to a question where he is asked if a quark can be
> built that only puts out electricity with no heat.  Frank Acland asked the
> question and Rossi responded yes with his f9 key active.  The answer was
> fairly clear to me and extremely difficult to believe!  I hope his response
> was due to a missunderstanding of what was asked.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 1:35 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks
>
> What Rossi wants to do is produce the most basic LENR module that is
> possible and do it as efficiently as possible using economies of scale.
> It will be up to the systems integrator to design the backplane and heat
> transfer system to meet the spec that is required.
> A factory steam boiler, a railroad locomotive, a ship engine, a steel blast
> furnace, a cement plant, or a jet engine will all use the Quark as the basic
> module. How the Quark is put together it its thousands will be the
> responsibility of the systems developer.
> The Quark will be the lowest common denominator of all LENR based systems.
> How it is configured to produce heat and/or light, and/or electricity are
> defined by how it is configured.
> For example, an existing 200 megawatt pebble bed reactor might be configured
> by encasing a single Quark inside a carbon ball and placing that ball inside
> an existing pebble bed reactor. It is up to the Chinese reactor designer to
> test each ball for status and replace it when its operational life is over
> as it goes through its daily inspection cycle.
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 1:20 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>>
>> That is what I recall.   Perhaps it is time to recheck this fact within
>> his blog.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 12:50 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks
>>
>> Was it stated somewhere that the quark produces little or no heat?
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:34 PM, David Roberson 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I read his postings and remain quite skeptical.  I especially find it
>>> difficult to believe that the output of one of these devices can be entirely
>>> electrical with no residual heat.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: a.ashfield 
>>> To: vortex-l 
>>> Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 11:19 am
>>> Subject: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks
>>>
>>> Rossi has made several comments about a tiny version of the E-Cat X. He
>>> says he is thinking of using it as a basic module for larger units. How
>>> would he control it? Unless it is much more stable in the smaller size
>>> the cost of the control system would be a disadvantage.
>>> Interesting that it can be made that small though, There are many
>>> portable devices that could be powered by it.
>>>
>>> See E-CatWorld
>>>
>>> http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/29/rossi-small-e-cat-prototype-units-are-100-w-called-quarks/
>>>
>>
>

[Vo]:Events at the end of Jiang's run #2, Fig. 3

[Jed Rothwell]

I printed out the graph and measured the elapsed time between events toward
the end of the run, starting around hour 14:00. I measured some
temperatures on the right Y axis. I assume T2 and T4 are correct. I do not
trust T1. Times are approximate:

Minute 0. T1 and T2 begin rising. T4 stable.

Minute 14. T4 suddenly rises from 110°C up to around 120°C.

Minute 30. T1 falls abruptly. Becomes erratic.

Minute 34. Power off. T2 begins falling. T4 still rising.

Minute 41. T2 begins falling much faster.

Minute 68. T4 reaches a peak temperature of 167°C. This is 34 minutes after
the power has cut off.

Note that from ~9:00 to 13:15, T4 rose from ~20°C and stabilized at 110°C,
in response to internal power levels that raised T1 and T2 up to around
1100°C. In other words, T4 goes up 90°C, or 1 degree for each 12 degree
increase in T1 and T2.

Then when T1 and T2 rose only about 100°C more, up to around 1200°C, T4
rose proportionally much more than before. It should have gone up ~8°C.
Instead, it jumped up by around 24°C initially, then it gradually climbed
to a peak of 167°C, a 57°C increase, even though T1 and T2 had already
fallen drastically when it peaked.

I cannot make head or tail of this behavior. If there is heat after death,
it should show up on T2, but I don't see it. T1 is probably damaged, but T2
seems intact.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks

[David Roberson]

I just read Rossi's answer to a question where he is asked if a quark can be 
built that only puts out electricity with no heat.  Frank Acland asked the 
question and Rossi responded yes with his f9 key active.  The answer was fairly 
clear to me and extremely difficult to believe!  I hope his response was due to 
a missunderstanding of what was asked.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 1:35 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks



What Rossi wants to do is produce the most basic LENR module that is possible 
and do it as efficiently as possible using economies of scale.
It will be up to the systems integrator to design the backplane and heat 
transfer system to meet the spec that is required.
A factory steam boiler, a railroad locomotive, a ship engine, a steel blast 
furnace, a cement plant, or a jet engine will all use the Quark as the basic 
module. How the Quark is put together it its thousands will be the 
responsibility of the systems developer.
The Quark will be the lowest common denominator of all LENR based systems. How 
it is configured to produce heat and/or light, and/or electricity are defined 
by how it is configured.
For example, an existing 200 megawatt pebble bed reactor might be configured by 
encasing a single Quark inside a carbon ball and placing that ball inside an 
existing pebble bed reactor. It is up to the Chinese reactor designer to test 
each ball for status and replace it when its operational life is over as it 
goes through its daily inspection cycle.



On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 1:20 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

That is what I recall.   Perhaps it is time to recheck this fact within his 
blog.
 

 Dave

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 

Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 12:50 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks



Was it stated somewhere that the quark produces little or no heat?


On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:34 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

I read his postings and remain quite skeptical.  I especially find it difficult 
to believe that the output of one of these devices can be entirely electrical 
with no residual heat.

Dave


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 11:19 am
Subject: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks

Rossi has made several comments about a tiny version of the E-Cat X.  He 
says he is thinking of using it as a basic module for larger units.  How 
would he control it?  Unless it is much more stable in the smaller size 
the cost of the control system would be a disadvantage.
Interesting that it can be made that small though,  There are many 
portable devices that could be powered by it.

See  E-CatWorld 
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/29/rossi-small-e-cat-prototype-units-are-100-w-called-quarks/

Re: [Vo]:Solving the mystery of SPP

[Axil Axil]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String-net_liquid

The vacuum is considered a String-net liquid and the electron and photon
are emergent properties that derive from the vacuum.

"Their model purports to show the derivation of photons, electrons, and
U(1) gauge charge, small (relative to the planck mass
) but nonzero masses, and
suggestions that the leptons , quarks
, and gluons
, can be modeled in the same way. In
other words, string-net condensation provides an unification of photon
 and electron
 (or gauge bosons
 and fermions
). It can be viewed as an origin of
light  and electron
 (or gauge interactions
 and Fermi statistics
). "

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> There is an interesting artist (yup, artiste) and intuitive (i.e.
> potential crackpot or potential genius, not sure) and physics theorist
> name Miles Mathis … which many have heard of in a negative light, because, 
> despite
> his brilliance, well he does things like this (propose that Pi=4).
>
> *http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbxrvcK4pk1qbylvso1_400.png*
> 
>
> There are old (unfavorable) threads on Mathis in the archive.  Yet he has
> something to say that could be relevant to LENR (to those capable of
> thinking outside the box) and to the extent that the SPP is the precursor
> to densification of hydrogen, which is the precursor or LENR. Here is a
> taste:
>
> *http://milesmathis.com/photon.html* 
>
> Operating with the curious motto: “Instinct is stronger than all
> metaphysics” (Poincaré), Mathis has provided a prima facie case for a
> complete GUT theory beginning with G, which envisions the electron as a
> photon with stacked spins, where each spin is a separable wavelength.
> This is a model which can overlap with Mills’ OS model to a degree. It is
> possible to imagine how the OS of Mills could be described in a similar
> way and how this facilitates SPP.
>
> This model is a step removed from another interesting attempt by
> Williamson to describe the electron as a toroidal photon, which I prefer
> to Mathis. Mathis suggests that G acts as a transform between the two
> separate fields that compose the uber-field of Newton's gravitational
> equation. Williamson’s theory is more facile at explaining how a photon
> can merge into an electron with a much smaller wave-length (which is the
> crux of the SPP). Both theories have weaknesses, no doubt and will never
> make it to prime-time unless LENR is eventually proved, and brings them
> along for the ride. Nevertheless, I think there is something valid in
> that the electron and photon are conjoined is some unknown way, which is
> magnified by understanding SPP.
>
> What needs to happen at this juncture, aside from replication of Holmlid’s
> muon findings, is to provide formalism which can take us all the way from
> photons+electrons to SPP, then to UDD, then to muons, and then to thermal
> gain.
>
> That will not be easy… but it is instinctive and probably stronger than
> metaphysics.
>

Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Video shows how superior animal intelligence is compared to artificial intelligence

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:

I wonder if the cat felt surprised, annoyed and/or amused after
> realizing the glass had been moved.
>

I am pretty sure she was surprised, based on her reaction. If the video had
lasted longer we might be able to read other emotions, especially by
watching the tail. For the brief time before it ends she does not seem
particularly excited.

People have recently discovered that cats are frightened when confronted by
cucumbers they are not expecting to see. I suppose this is an instinctual
reaction against snakes. Anyway, it is obvious that the cats are
frightened. See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BRp7ezUqbI

The black cat at 1:38 sees the cucumber from a safe distance (safe if it
were a snake). The cat gets excited as you see from the tail, and then
investigates the cucumber by carefully approaching it and poking it with a
paw. This is a clear expression of caution and excitement.

- Jed

[Vo]:Solving the mystery of SPP

[Jones Beene]

There is an interesting artist (yup, artiste) and intuitive (i.e. potential
crackpot or potential genius, not sure) and physics theorist name Miles
Mathis … which many have heard of in a negative light, because, despite his
brilliance, well he does things like this (propose that Pi=4).
http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbxrvcK4pk1qbylvso1_400.png
There are old (unfavorable) threads on Mathis in the archive.  Yet he has
something to say that could be relevant to LENR (to those capable of
thinking outside the box) and to the extent that the SPP is the precursor to
densification of hydrogen, which is the precursor or LENR. Here is a taste:

http://milesmathis.com/photon.html

Operating with the curious motto: “Instinct is stronger than all
metaphysics” (Poincaré), Mathis has provided a prima facie case for a
complete GUT theory beginning with G, which envisions the electron as a
photon with stacked spins, where each spin is a separable wavelength. This
is a model which can overlap with Mills’ OS model to a degree. It is
possible to imagine how the OS of Mills could be described in a similar way
and how this facilitates SPP.

This model is a step removed from another interesting attempt by Williamson
to describe the electron as a toroidal photon, which I prefer to Mathis.
Mathis suggests that G acts as a transform between the two separate fields
that compose the uber-field of Newton's gravitational equation. Williamson’s
theory is more facile at explaining how a photon can merge into an electron
with a much smaller wave-length (which is the crux of the SPP). Both
theories have weaknesses, no doubt and will never make it to prime-time
unless LENR is eventually proved, and brings them along for the ride.
Nevertheless, I think there is something valid in that the electron and
photon are conjoined is some unknown way, which is magnified by
understanding SPP.

What needs to happen at this juncture, aside from replication of Holmlid’s
muon findings, is to provide formalism which can take us all the way from
photons+electrons to SPP, then to UDD, then to muons, and then to thermal
gain. 

That will not be easy… but it is instinctive and probably stronger than
metaphysics.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks

[Axil Axil]

What Rossi wants to do is produce the most basic LENR module that is
possible and do it as efficiently as possible using economies of scale.

It will be up to the systems integrator to design the backplane and heat
transfer system to meet the spec that is required.

A factory steam boiler, a railroad locomotive, a ship engine, a steel blast
furnace, a cement plant, or a jet engine will all use the Quark as the
basic module. How the Quark is put together it its thousands will be the
responsibility of the systems developer.

The Quark will be the lowest common denominator of all LENR based systems.
How it is configured to produce heat and/or light, and/or electricity are
defined by how it is configured.

For example, an existing 200 megawatt pebble bed reactor might be
configured by encasing a single Quark inside a carbon ball and placing that
ball inside an existing pebble bed reactor. It is up to the Chinese reactor
designer to test each ball for status and replace it when its operational
life is over as it goes through its daily inspection cycle.

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 1:20 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> That is what I recall.   Perhaps it is time to recheck this fact within
> his blog.
>
> Dave
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 12:50 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks
>
> Was it stated somewhere that the quark produces little or no heat?
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:34 PM, David Roberson 
> wrote:
>
>> I read his postings and remain quite skeptical.  I especially find it
>> difficult to believe that the output of one of these devices can be
>> entirely electrical with no residual heat.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: a.ashfield 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 11:19 am
>> Subject: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks
>>
>> Rossi has made several comments about a tiny version of the E-Cat X. He
>> says he is thinking of using it as a basic module for larger units. How
>> would he control it? Unless it is much more stable in the smaller size
>> the cost of the control system would be a disadvantage.
>> Interesting that it can be made that small though, There are many
>> portable devices that could be powered by it.
>>
>> See E-CatWorld
>>
>> http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/29/rossi-small-e-cat-prototype-units-are-100-w-called-quarks/
>>
>>
>

[Vo]:OT: Restorative Justice

[H LV]

Three minute video explaining the difference between Restorative
Justice and Criminal Justice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE8TDzlR2tg

Some key points:

Restorative justice represents a paradigm change from thinking about
justice as a mechanism for social control to thinking about justice as
a mechanism for social engagement.

In a criminal justice process the questions that get asked are: what
happened? who did it? what do they deserve?

In a restorative justice process the questions that get asked are:
what happened?
whose obligations are these? what do we need to do to right the wrongs?

Injustice creates social and emotional harms to people and
relationships, and so restorative justice is about repairing the harm
done.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[H LV]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV
>
>> The 'self-sustaining' phase that follows represents the release of energy 
>> which was being stored while the power was on.
>
> Harry - If you are talking about Fig2 - the May run, that conclusion is not 
> supported by the facts, since --- when the power was turned off - the heat 
> first increased for hours, which cannot easily happen from a stored source, 
> and then continued on for ~60 more hours at a significant rate - without the 
> slightest reduction. (according to the chart).
>
>
> OTOH - it was brain-dead for the Jiang team to then try to restart the heater 
> at that point - if the experimenters knew the unpowered gain was continuing. 
> They should have let the gain subside first before restarting.
>
>
> By not letting the gain subside, they tacitly could be admitting that it was 
> a relic of measurement, instead of reliable data.

Maybe. The problem is they don't explain why they restarted it.
Perhaps they were anxious to repeat the  'excess heat' phase.

You seem to approach scientific 'wrong doing' according to the
principles and procedures of criminal justice. There is another
approach
to approach to 'wrong doing' known as restorative justice.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks

[David Roberson]

That is what I recall.   Perhaps it is time to recheck this fact within his 
blog.
 

 Dave

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 12:50 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks



Was it stated somewhere that the quark produces little or no heat?


On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:34 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

I read his postings and remain quite skeptical.  I especially find it difficult 
to believe that the output of one of these devices can be entirely electrical 
with no residual heat.

Dave


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 11:19 am
Subject: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks

Rossi has made several comments about a tiny version of the E-Cat X.  He 
says he is thinking of using it as a basic module for larger units.  How 
would he control it?  Unless it is much more stable in the smaller size 
the cost of the control system would be a disadvantage.
Interesting that it can be made that small though,  There are many 
portable devices that could be powered by it.

See  E-CatWorld 
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/29/rossi-small-e-cat-prototype-units-are-100-w-called-quarks/

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks

[a.ashfield]

Rossi has said elsewhere that of course the E Cat X is hot.  What I 
think he means is that the excess power can be taken off almost entirely 
by electrical energy.  He adds that this is less efficient.


Of course there are no hard facts here, but Rossi watchers note that he 
is noticeably more excited by the E-Cat X than he has been before. 
Optimistically one hopes he has discovered how it works or at least 
something new.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks

[Axil Axil]

Was it stated somewhere that the quark produces little or no heat?

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:34 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> I read his postings and remain quite skeptical.  I especially find it
> difficult to believe that the output of one of these devices can be
> entirely electrical with no residual heat.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: a.ashfield 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 11:19 am
> Subject: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks
>
> Rossi has made several comments about a tiny version of the E-Cat X. He
> says he is thinking of using it as a basic module for larger units. How
> would he control it? Unless it is much more stable in the smaller size
> the cost of the control system would be a disadvantage.
> Interesting that it can be made that small though, There are many
> portable devices that could be powered by it.
>
> See E-CatWorld
>
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/29/rossi-small-e-cat-prototype-units-are-100-w-called-quarks/
>
>

[Vo]:about the so-called LENR swamp

[Peter Gluck]

Info-flow quite promisng

Yes, it is a swamp in LENR-land and it is created by the Problem itself
Senot by inadequate people or attitudes.See:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-01-2016-about-so-called-lenr-swamp.html


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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks

[David Roberson]

I read his postings and remain quite skeptical.  I especially find it difficult 
to believe that the output of one of these devices can be entirely electrical 
with no residual heat.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 11:19 am
Subject: [Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks

Rossi has made several comments about a tiny version of the E-Cat X.  He 
says he is thinking of using it as a basic module for larger units.  How 
would he control it?  Unless it is much more stable in the smaller size 
the cost of the control system would be a disadvantage.
Interesting that it can be made that small though,  There are many 
portable devices that could be powered by it.

See  E-CatWorld 
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/29/rossi-small-e-cat-prototype-units-are-100-w-called-quarks/

Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Video shows how superior animal intelligence is compared to artificial intelligence

[H LV]

I wonder if the cat felt surprised, annoyed and/or amused after
realizing the glass had been moved.

harry

Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Video shows how superior animal intelligence is compared to artificial intelligence

[Ken Deboer]

Nice work, Jed, and also the comments of Vibrator are right on.  As an old
retired biologist,it has been heartening to see the neurosciences admitting
to higher neural and mental functioning in animals, including the
near-human intellectual and cognitive achievements you noted in the cat.
Psycho-and neuro-sciences are indeed making great strides, allowing some
deep peeks into the mechanisms and substrates which produce some of our
human (or animal) behaviors and cognitions, even our thoughts and beliefs.
I survey some of this in my little (layman-directed) book on Amazon ("Mind
>From Matter") where I try to encourage expanding this into actual human
societal realms.  But the fact that our biological apparati, i.e. brain, is
the complete and sole substrate for our human thoughts, beliefs, actions
and behaviors is frequently ignored (or in many cases, totally
unsuspected).  While we all intuitively recognize that humanity is frail,
incomprehensibly complex, uncertain, and quirky, usually though we fail to
recognize too our biological facts.  We see though, that we are often lead
'astray' in various ways by our own brains with its inborn infinitude of
inborn programming and variations.  I beleive we are, however, making great
strides, mainly though science, in 'adjusting' (sometimes!) our thinking or
behavior as a society and a world.   But such a long, long way to go.  My
present wish is for social, and particularly political, scientists to get
with and make some serious efforts to use science to develop some
guidelines and principles to help societies in practical ways.   Of course,
science does not deliver truth, wisdom, judgement, comity, creativity, or
'correct' beliefs or anything of that sort directly, but we still do
require it as a societal facilitator and glue in a million ways.

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Vibrator !  wrote:

> Cool topic, cognitive science is one of my interests.  I think that at the
> stage we're at, the outstanding technical challenges aren't so much
> quantitative as qualitative - we need to crack the Hard Problem, for an
> emergent, bottom-up intelligence rather than a "brute forced" but top-down
> Turing champion.
>
>
> Although we've made strides in all areas of dynamical systems theory, we
> can still only speculate about the general principles of multicellular
> information processing - in particular we lack a general principle of
> informational binding (the so-called binding problem), that would unify all
> the disparate sensory modalities and the vagaries of their respective
> sensory systems with a general principle of consciousness.  So, some
> researchers will produce limited success with cellular automata, another
> team with game theory and so on... we already have the quantitative ability
> to simulate the smallest nervous systems (nematodes etc.), but no means of
> understanding whether a given simulation would be processing - or, more to
> the point, "feeling" - in the same manner as a living organism.
>
> And here, the field is still beset by philosophical dogma, such as the
> notion of "qualia" - essentially an argument for the irreducible complexity
> of subjective experience - and widespread doubts that any tractable handle
> on the problem is even possible (typified by David Chalmers "zombie Dave"
> poser - we cannot know that any other entity is conscious in the same
> manner as ourselves); but although i go along with Dennet in many of his
> contentions, i have in my own research identified something traditionally
> believed to be entirely subjective, but which is, in fact, an objective
> universal; namely, the perception of octave equivalence, which i believe
> does give us a "qualia", albeit one amenable to definitive description and
> replication.  In short, i believe it's possible to engineer a neural net
> that would percieve octaves as "equivalent" in the same way we do, and that
> as such it would be "feeling" and processing information about that
> sensation in a naturalistic manner.
>
> The key to the binding problem is deriving an objective theory of metadata
> - ie. identifying how living brains process information "about" other
> information, be that sensory input, motor control or general knowledge.
>
> Work on the "semantic web" (AKA "web of things" or web 2.0), in which
> information is indexed by context, will inevitably spin off advances in
> collating and processing metadata, but this alone won't see us out of the
> "zombie Dave" dilemma.
>
> There's always the question of "does it really matter" - if an AI says
> "here, hold my pint" before trashing a human in an ethics debate, who cares
> if it's genuinely conscious in the same way as us?  But look at where we're
> headed with autonomous vehicles etc. (some lawmakers have already ruled
> that such cars can be considered as "responsible" drivers from a legal
> persective) - if an AI is chauffeuring me around, then actually i'd be
> rather comforted in the 

[Vo]:Rossi's tiny 100W quarks

[a.ashfield]

Rossi has made several comments about a tiny version of the E-Cat X.  He 
says he is thinking of using it as a basic module for larger units.  How 
would he control it?  Unless it is much more stable in the smaller size 
the cost of the control system would be a disadvantage.
Interesting that it can be made that small though,  There are many 
portable devices that could be powered by it.


See  E-CatWorld 
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/29/rossi-small-e-cat-prototype-units-are-100-w-called-quarks/

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Vibrator !]

Calorimetry, external TC's and OT for internal temps would provide a fuller
picture.  K-type TC's typically contain nickel so have a low Curie point
and are often only rated up to 185°C anyway.  I also suspect they may be
susceptible to photoelectric induction since what they actually sense is
EMF, which is then presumed as thermoelectric in origin even though it may
not be.

An optical reading is both more accurate, and less ambiguous in the
interpretation of results.



On Tuesday, March 1, 2016, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Vibrator !  > wrote:
>
> Can't help thinking optical thermometry would be preferable since it's
>> impervious to heat damage...  assuming the steel currently used for
>> chambers is entirely incidental to the reaction, a transparent ceramic
>> would would allow direct observation - if not for the whole chamber, then
>> at least a via a small window...
>>
>
> Optical thermometry has the disadvantage of no one believing that the
> results are accurate.  Part of the difficulty is that the total power is a
> function of the fourth power of the temperature, so that you'd better get
> the temperature exactly right.  Getting the emissivity of the object under
> test exactly right is also important and something people will argue about
> for years, as in the case of the Lugano E-Cat test.
>
> In light of such issues, proper calorimetry seems like a saner way to go.
>
> Eric
>
>

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: H LV 

> The 'self-sustaining' phase that follows represents the release of energy 
> which was being stored while the power was on.

Harry - If you are talking about Fig2 - the May run, that conclusion is not 
supported by the facts, since --- when the power was turned off - the heat 
first increased for hours, which cannot easily happen from a stored source, and 
then continued on for ~60 more hours at a significant rate - without the 
slightest reduction. (according to the chart).

OTOH - it was brain-dead for the Jiang team to then try to restart the heater 
at that point - if the experimenters knew the unpowered gain was continuing. 
They should have let the gain subside first before restarting. 

By not letting the gain subside, they tacitly could be admitting that it was a 
relic of measurement, instead of reliable data.

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Alain Sepeda]

(about 2nd november experiment, fig3)
When I look at T4, at pressure, compared to input power, it seems there is
something weird happening.

does anybody know what causes the increase of pressure just when power is
slightly stepped ? about 14:00-14:15...
I suspect it is just heat ? since all other chemical reaction happened, and
since loading was happening until then.

from startup of the heating 8:30 to 9:30 it seems there is a delay of heat
from power to T4 of one hour, but from the little step of power and
pressure at 14:00 it seems much less...

note that if you imagine it is not LENR this second event looks absurd...
T4 cannot raise so fast, so much, compared to the 1400W initial powerstep .
chemical or LENR, there is something big happening at 14:00+.

people ask for calibration, let us assume the first part of the curve
before 14:00 is calibration around 1400W... after there is a rodeo.

about T1/T2 we have to consider failure is possible before the official
time.

Is it right to say, like Pr Songsheng, that when failing TC underestimate
temperature?

If so this makes T2 curve logical from 14:00 to the end.
Maybe T2 since 14:00 event  is toasted and playing yoyo, at above 1350,
displaying underestimated or very undersestimated temperature depending on
it's state. what we see is more T2 health state (bad or very bad), and not
a temperature

what is strange is T1, but a proxy for T2 is maybe the pressure after
heating.

maybe did the heating only happen from 14:00 to 14:30 when poweroff.
if so, T1 just represent the cooling period.

in that case T2 is hard to explain, except to assume that it shows higher
temperature than real (is it possible?)


my naive analysis,
1- T4 and pressure prove something anomalous happened. question is chemical
or LENR. amount and temperature point seems to exclude chemistry.
2- there is two alternative possibilities :
   a- an LENr event lasting half and hour until power is stopped, or
pressure go down, have toasted T2, and then T1 with T4 show heat
dissipation of that event
   b- an LENR event lasting few hours after poweroff maintained T2 above
1350C, while T1 is slowly dying because of overheating

where it I miss a point?

anyway, with stronger TC this seems a good candidate for an opposable
evidence.


2016-03-01 7:31 GMT+01:00 H LV :

> From Jiang's paper (courtesy Bob Higgins translation):