Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

I still thinks they will reach 500 degrees months before 3000 degrees. I
have got a lot of respect for getting that thing up to 3000.

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 4:00 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> PEVs are pocket change in a game of this magnitude. Time is of the
> essence.   If they were going to have trouble with a controller, that would
> still happen.
>
> AA
>
>
> On 3/27/2017 6:44 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
>
> >> That does not sound logical to me.  They are close enough to having
> photovoltaics that it seems pointless to mess around with water calorimetry.
>
> I believe that they would not risk damaging the photovoltaics with a bad
> controller and spend quite some time to make it robust and verified, why not
> spend time on validating the technology first or in parallel with this
> effort. My impression is that they treat the PEV's as expensive equipment
> that used
> wrongly could stall the development. But you are right that if these risks
> are small and if adding the PEV are a simple add-on then why not buy a Tesla
> and have some fun.
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:19 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> Stefan,
>> "I got the impression that these validatoins will be done when they close
>> the system reliably and not when they manage to get the photovoltaics
>> functioning which is logical."
>>
>> That does not sound logical to me.  They are close enough to having
>> photovoltaics that it seems pointless to mess around with water calorimetry.
>>
>> AA
>>
>>
>> On 3/27/2017 1:54 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
>>
>> As I understand the crucial thing to achieve good evidences is to close
>> the reactor and run it for long enough time with plain old water bath
>> calormetry. Previously he had to shut down the experiment after just a
>> short time. Closing the system can reveal new caveats and difficulties so
>> this step can take considerable more time than what we heard so far. I got
>> the impression that these validatoins will be done when they close the
>> system reliably and not when they manage to get the photovoltaics
>> functioning which is logical. But sure they should know by know the ball
>> park of the release of energy if they are honest, and there have been
>> several attempts to characterize this ballpark and all tell the same story.
>> Also a system that releases 10MW from 10KW for say 15s should be obvious
>> from pure inspection and rules of thumb estimates - but that conclusion is
>> hard from just the videos so the careful need to wait for better evidences
>> as always. As I tell all people I discuss this with, let's wait and see,
>> what comes will come but sure it is a fun and entertaining ride - making
>> energy from constructing dark matter, thats a great lol, and even greater
>> so if it turns out to be real.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Bob Higgins 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has made
>>> even 1W of excess heat from any of his devices.  The one quick bomb
>>> calorimetry demo done was very crude calorimetry, was not believable, and a
>>> paper was not published on it.  If Mills wants to convince his critics, he
>>> should publish credible calorimetry of one of his devices over the course
>>> of a reasonable time period (at least twelve hours).  He should describe
>>> the experiment in detail, and provide data and analysis.  He wouldn't have
>>> to publish anything about what is inside his black box.  He doesn't need to
>>> wait on mythical photovoltaics to make this measurement.  He could
>>> establish credibility with one such paper.  If he published a credible
>>> paper, we would believe his result with some measure of confidence.  There
>>> must be a reason he hasn't established his credibility this way.
>>>
>>> Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the same class
>>> of pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated science.  He shows pretty
>>> stuff, but the data is never published, and then he moves on to something
>>> else.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Brian,

 He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences.  Mills says he
 will demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon after the required
 photovoltaics are developed and in pace - later this year.  Obviously he
 can't do that before.

 You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without proof.  I
 have trouble understanding the vocal critics here who seem to be of a class
 "NO! What was the question?"  Strikes me as very unscientific.

 Slightly  related see.  http://www.scotsman.com/news/o
 pinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-
 cold-fusion-system-1-4400376

 AA

 On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:

 It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.


 

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[a.ashfield]

PEVs are pocket change in a game of this magnitude. Time is of the 
essence.   If they were going to have trouble with a controller, that 
would still happen.


AA

On 3/27/2017 6:44 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
>> That does not sound logical to me.  They are close enough to having 
photovoltaics that it seems pointless to mess around with water 
calorimetry.


I believe that they would not risk damaging the photovoltaics with a 
bad controller and spend quite some time to make it robust and 
verified, why not
spend time on validating the technology first or in parallel with this 
effort. My impression is that they treat the PEV's as expensive 
equipment that used
wrongly could stall the development. But you are right that if these 
risks are small and if adding the PEV are a simple add-on then why not 
buy a Tesla

and have some fun.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:19 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Stefan,
"I got the impression that these validatoins will be done when
they close the system reliably and not when they manage to get the
photovoltaics functioning which is logical."

That does not sound logical to me.  They are close enough to
having photovoltaics that it seems pointless to mess around with
water calorimetry.

AA


On 3/27/2017 1:54 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:

As I understand the crucial thing to achieve good evidences is to
close the reactor and run it for long enough time with plain old
water bath calormetry. Previously he had to shut down the
experiment after just a short time. Closing the system can reveal
new caveats and difficulties so this step can take considerable
more time than what we heard so far. I got the impression that
these validatoins will be done when they close the system
reliably and not when they manage to get the photovoltaics
functioning which is logical. But sure they should know by know
the ball park of the release of energy if they are honest, and
there have been several attempts to characterize this ballpark
and all tell the same story. Also a system that releases 10MW
from 10KW for say 15s should be obvious from pure inspection and
rules of thumb estimates - but that conclusion is hard from just
the videos so the careful need to wait for better evidences as
always. As I tell all people I discuss this with, let's wait and
see, what comes will come but sure it is a fun and entertaining
ride - making energy from constructing dark matter, thats a great
lol, and even greater so if it turns out to be real.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Bob Higgins
> wrote:

I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he
has made even 1W of excess heat from any of his devices.  The
one quick bomb calorimetry demo done was very crude
calorimetry, was not believable, and a paper was not
published on it.  If Mills wants to convince his critics, he
should publish credible calorimetry of one of his devices
over the course of a reasonable time period (at least twelve
hours).  He should describe the experiment in detail, and
provide data and analysis.  He wouldn't have to publish
anything about what is inside his black box.  He doesn't need
to wait on mythical photovoltaics to make this measurement.
He could establish credibility with one such paper.  If he
published a credible paper, we would believe his result with
some measure of confidence.  There must be a reason he hasn't
established his credibility this way.

Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the
same class of pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated
science.  He shows pretty stuff, but the data is never
published, and then he moves on to something else.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield
> wrote:

Brian,

He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences.
Mills says he will demonstrate the SunCell producing
power soon after the required photovoltaics are developed
and in pace - later this year.  Obviously he can't do
that before.

You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that,
without proof.  I have trouble understanding the vocal
critics here who seem to be of a class "NO! What was the
question?"  Strikes me as very unscientific.

Slightly  related see.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[a.ashfield]

Brian,
Neither you not I are close enough to know why Mills hasn't gone after 
it.  Probably he doesn't need it.  You don't know what conditions are 
attached to the $1B either.
Of course you assume the worst.  Where in every house is there a plasma 
again?  Mills' plasma can melt large  tungsten electrodes but of course 
that is no proof of high heat, right?

You asked me if I knew what a capacitor was.  Talk about arrogance.

AA


On 3/27/2017 6:17 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


Sometimes it is best to shave with Occam's razor.


Bill Gates says he will invest $1B in any real new source of energy. 
Why hasn't Mills addressed this source.



Mills will not allow any discussion of this opportunity, because he 
would have to submit to due diligence.



But the mindless followers will argue about IP strategies to avoid 
this technological collision.



The people who want to give Mills, Rossi and Godes a free pass have 
succumbed to the infinite upside potential in contrast to modest 
investment.   They cannot fathom the magnitude of a successful 
experiment, so the risk/rewards calculations are obtained by division 
by zero.





*From:* Brian Ahern 
*Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 5:38 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.


If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.




*From:* a.ashfield 
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Supposedly the plasma is  >3500C.  As it runs without any input power 
why do you not think it generates any (excess) heat?


AA

On 3/26/2017 7:35 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


They needn't be lying. Measuring energy flow with a plasma is 
challenging.





*From:* a.ashfield 
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Brian,
Apart from some calorimetry on the SunCell in the early days, would 
you not think a self perpetuating plasma would produce some heat? 
Several (hired) independent investigators also back Mill's claims, or 
do you think they are all lying?


AA


On 3/26/2017 12:00 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


A...". there is good evidence that the SunCell produces a large 
amount of excess heat..."



Amazingly, even RM offers no data or measurements on this issue. He 
could show water flow calorimetry to an accuracy of 50% within two 
days of set up and calibration. I would offer to pay for it and 
conduct it for him.


Alas, there is no calorimetry offered to the suggestible investors.

The mantra for Mills, Rossi and Godes is:  No data =   no failure = 
 ambiguity coupled with  enticing potential profits = large 
investments while showing nothing.


If they conducted tests and failed the investment stream would cease.


*From:* a.ashfield 
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 11:23 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Eric,
I don't feel expert enough to pass judgement.  I think that is the 
point.  Physicists more expert than me can't make up their minds 
whether Mills is a genius or delusional. That he can come up with 
values for particles that are more accurate than from QM and that 
his program can show the position nuclei and electrons for 
complicated molecules (proven) suggests to me that it is premature 
to be so dogmatic that he is wrong.  Likewise there is good evidence 
that the SunCell produces a large amount of excess heat, though one 
might quibble about the actual value.


AA

On 3/25/2017 5:52 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:49 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the
skeptics.  I have yet to see a specific item that is wrong in
Mills theories highlighted by them.


Did you take a look at the link I sent?  Can you help us to make 
sense of those equations?  What would be ideal would be an explicit 
derivation of the electron-neutron mass ratio, which is purportedly 
based on those equations.  If you can do this, it would be a very 
helpful thing.  My strong hunch:  it is not possible, because the 
Mills neutron-electron mass ratio is ad hoc and was not derived 
from them.  But your knowledge here can help to dispel this impression.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Niobium - Iridium thermocouples

[a.ashfield]

Bob
I think Type S would be good for your range.  Type S works well for 
months.  I never understood why MFMP used type K.   I offered them an 
oz. of Pl/Rh alloy some while ago, that they could trade for type S 
thermocouples, but they never took me up on it.

AA

On 3/27/2017 5:22 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
Presently I am using k-type thermocouples outside of their comfortable 
range to 1200C.  Bob Cook was suggesting the Nb-Ir thermocouples in 
place of k-type.  MFMP has used before a b-type thermocouple, but it 
was quite expensive.  I would love to find an inexpensive (but 
controlled) s-type or b-type thermocouple because they would be easy 
to integrate into my system.  If the Nb-Ir thermocouple were readily 
available at low cost and had a reasonable S/N I would welcome that 
too. When you buy from Omega, they have controls to insure the alloys 
are in spec. so as to control the voltage vs. temp to a standard.  I 
would like the same assurance for alternative thermocouple types too.  
I also need lead wires to the junction of about 40".


On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:09 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Bob,
What do you want the thermocouples for?  ie what temperature?
I have never used Niobium - Iridium thermocouples in the glass
industry.  We always used type S, and type B for more stable
results over years duration, for things like furnace crowns at
1550C, but this had the disadvantage of smaller output.  The
platinum migrates to the Rh leg over time, but we found a minimum
wire diameter was also necessary for long life due to
crystallization of Pl.
AA

On 3/27/2017 2:30 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:

Regarding the Nb-Ir thermocouples ... Bob, can you suggest a
source for these thermocouples and their voltage calibration
data? For my experiments, the cost of the hardware is coming out
of my own pocket - not someone else's deep pocket.  For k-type
thermocouples, the voltage-temperature profile is built into my
DAQ. For the Nb-Ir, I suspect, I will have to read the voltage
and convert it to temperature with a custom LUT in Labview.  All
doable if the voltage is not too low to be noisy and if the
couples are not too expensive.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:43 AM, > wrote:

Jones—

You note regarding the Lugano test and Higgins assessment the
following:

“The systemic optical false assumptions have rendered any
further conclusion unscientific. Levi was reportedly paid an
enormous amount of money by Elforsk and yet made stupid
errors, notably failing to use high temp thermocouples for
verification - plus he also failed to calibrate near the
running temperature - unforgivable, since his errors have
poisoned the positive aspects.”

I recently made the same comment about using good high
temperature T/C’s to Higgins with respect to his own Ni-H
automated test at MFMP.  I suggested he use a Nb-Ir couple
for high temperature measurements of the outside of his glow
stick-like experiment.  The couple is good for more than 2000
C I believe.

With a high temperature LENR heat source the Niobium/Iridium
combo is a reasonable thermo-electric source of power as
well, and it could well replace Pu-238 as a reliable,
long-term power supply for remote locations or space
applications without the hazard associated with Pu-238.

Bob Cook

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

>> That does not sound logical to me.  They are close enough to having
photovoltaics that it seems pointless to mess around with water calorimetry.

I believe that they would not risk damaging the photovoltaics with a bad
controller and spend quite some time to make it robust and verified, why not
spend time on validating the technology first or in parallel with this
effort. My impression is that they treat the PEV's as expensive equipment
that used
wrongly could stall the development. But you are right that if these risks
are small and if adding the PEV are a simple add-on then why not buy a Tesla
and have some fun.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:19 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Stefan,
> "I got the impression that these validatoins will be done when they close
> the system reliably and not when they manage to get the photovoltaics
> functioning which is logical."
>
> That does not sound logical to me.  They are close enough to having
> photovoltaics that it seems pointless to mess around with water calorimetry.
>
> AA
>
>
> On 3/27/2017 1:54 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
>
> As I understand the crucial thing to achieve good evidences is to close
> the reactor and run it for long enough time with plain old water bath
> calormetry. Previously he had to shut down the experiment after just a
> short time. Closing the system can reveal new caveats and difficulties so
> this step can take considerable more time than what we heard so far. I got
> the impression that these validatoins will be done when they close the
> system reliably and not when they manage to get the photovoltaics
> functioning which is logical. But sure they should know by know the ball
> park of the release of energy if they are honest, and there have been
> several attempts to characterize this ballpark and all tell the same story.
> Also a system that releases 10MW from 10KW for say 15s should be obvious
> from pure inspection and rules of thumb estimates - but that conclusion is
> hard from just the videos so the careful need to wait for better evidences
> as always. As I tell all people I discuss this with, let's wait and see,
> what comes will come but sure it is a fun and entertaining ride - making
> energy from constructing dark matter, thats a great lol, and even greater
> so if it turns out to be real.
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>> I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has made even
>> 1W of excess heat from any of his devices.  The one quick bomb calorimetry
>> demo done was very crude calorimetry, was not believable, and a paper was
>> not published on it.  If Mills wants to convince his critics, he should
>> publish credible calorimetry of one of his devices over the course of a
>> reasonable time period (at least twelve hours).  He should describe the
>> experiment in detail, and provide data and analysis.  He wouldn't have to
>> publish anything about what is inside his black box.  He doesn't need to
>> wait on mythical photovoltaics to make this measurement.  He could
>> establish credibility with one such paper.  If he published a credible
>> paper, we would believe his result with some measure of confidence.  There
>> must be a reason he hasn't established his credibility this way.
>>
>> Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the same class of
>> pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated science.  He shows pretty
>> stuff, but the data is never published, and then he moves on to something
>> else.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Brian,
>>>
>>> He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences.  Mills says he
>>> will demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon after the required
>>> photovoltaics are developed and in pace - later this year.  Obviously he
>>> can't do that before.
>>>
>>> You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without proof.  I
>>> have trouble understanding the vocal critics here who seem to be of a class
>>> "NO! What was the question?"  Strikes me as very unscientific.
>>>
>>> Slightly  related see.  http://www.scotsman.com/news/o
>>> pinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-
>>> cold-fusion-system-1-4400376
>>>
>>> AA
>>>
>>> On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:
>>>
>>> It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.
>>>
>>>
>>> If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.
>>>
>>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[Brian Ahern]

Sometimes it is best to shave with Occam's razor.


Bill Gates says he will invest $1B in any real new source of energy. Why hasn't 
Mills addressed this source.


Mills will not allow any discussion of this opportunity, because he would have 
to submit to due diligence.


But the mindless followers will argue about IP strategies to avoid this 
technological collision.


The people who want to give Mills, Rossi and Godes a free pass have succumbed 
to the infinite upside potential in contrast to modest investment.   They 
cannot fathom the magnitude of a successful experiment, so the risk/rewards 
calculations are obtained by division by zero.



From: Brian Ahern 
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 5:38 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?


It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.


If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.



From: a.ashfield 
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

Supposedly the plasma is  >3500C.  As it runs without any input power why do 
you not think it generates any (excess) heat?

AA

On 3/26/2017 7:35 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:

They needn't be lying. Measuring energy flow with a plasma is challenging.



From: a.ashfield 
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

Brian,
Apart from some calorimetry on the SunCell in the early days, would you not 
think a self perpetuating plasma would produce some heat?  Several (hired) 
independent investigators also back Mill's claims, or do you think they are all 
lying?

AA


On 3/26/2017 12:00 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:

A...". there is good evidence that the SunCell produces a large amount of 
excess heat..."


Amazingly, even RM offers no data or measurements on this issue. He could show 
water flow calorimetry to an accuracy of 50% within two days of set up and 
calibration. I would offer to pay for it and conduct it for him.

Alas, there is no calorimetry offered to the suggestible investors.

The mantra for Mills, Rossi and Godes is:  No data =   no failure =  ambiguity 
coupled with  enticing potential profits = large investments while showing 
nothing.

If they conducted tests and failed the investment stream would cease.


From: a.ashfield 
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 11:23 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

Eric,
I don't feel expert enough to pass judgement.  I think that is the point.  
Physicists more expert than me can't make up their minds whether Mills is a 
genius or delusional.  That he can come up with values for particles that are 
more accurate than from QM and that his program can show the position nuclei 
and electrons for complicated molecules (proven) suggests to me that it is 
premature to be so dogmatic that he is wrong.  Likewise there is good evidence 
that the SunCell produces a large amount of excess heat, though one might 
quibble about the actual value.

AA

On 3/25/2017 5:52 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:49 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:

To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the skeptics.  I have yet 
to see a specific item that is wrong in Mills theories highlighted by them.

Did you take a look at the link I sent?  Can you help us to make sense of those 
equations?  What would be ideal would be an explicit derivation of the 
electron-neutron mass ratio, which is purportedly based on those equations.  If 
you can do this, it would be a very helpful thing.  My strong hunch:  it is not 
possible, because the Mills neutron-electron mass ratio is ad hoc and was not 
derived from them.  But your knowledge here can help to dispel this impression.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Niobium - Iridium thermocouples

[Bob Higgins]

Presently I am using k-type thermocouples outside of their comfortable
range to 1200C.  Bob Cook was suggesting the Nb-Ir thermocouples in place
of k-type.  MFMP has used before a b-type thermocouple, but it was quite
expensive.  I would love to find an inexpensive (but controlled) s-type or
b-type thermocouple because they would be easy to integrate into my
system.  If the Nb-Ir thermocouple were readily available at low cost and
had a reasonable S/N I would welcome that too.  When you buy from Omega,
they have controls to insure the alloys are in spec. so as to control the
voltage vs. temp to a standard.  I would like the same assurance for
alternative thermocouple types too.  I also need lead wires to the junction
of about 40".

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:09 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Bob,
> What do you want the thermocouples for?  ie what temperature?
> I have never used Niobium - Iridium thermocouples in the glass industry.
> We always used type S, and type B for more stable results over years
> duration, for things like furnace crowns at 1550C, but this had the
> disadvantage of smaller output.  The platinum migrates to the Rh leg over
> time, but we found a minimum wire diameter was also necessary for long life
> due to crystallization of Pl.
> AA
>
> On 3/27/2017 2:30 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>
> Regarding the Nb-Ir thermocouples ... Bob, can you suggest a source for
> these thermocouples and their voltage calibration data?  For my
> experiments, the cost of the hardware is coming out of my own pocket - not
> someone else's deep pocket.  For k-type thermocouples, the
> voltage-temperature profile is built into my DAQ.  For the Nb-Ir, I
> suspect, I will have to read the voltage and convert it to temperature with
> a custom LUT in Labview.  All doable if the voltage is not too low to be
> noisy and if the couples are not too expensive.
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:43 AM,  wrote:
>
>> Jones—
>>
>>
>>
>> You note regarding the Lugano test and Higgins assessment the following:
>>
>>
>>
>> “The systemic optical false assumptions have rendered any further
>> conclusion unscientific. Levi was reportedly paid an enormous amount of
>> money by Elforsk and yet made stupid errors, notably failing to use high
>> temp thermocouples for verification - plus he also failed to calibrate near
>> the running temperature - unforgivable, since his errors have poisoned the
>> positive aspects.”
>>
>>
>>
>> I recently made the same comment about using good high temperature T/C’s
>> to Higgins with respect to his own Ni-H automated test at MFMP.  I
>> suggested he use a Nb-Ir couple for high temperature measurements of the
>> outside of his glow stick-like experiment.  The couple is good for more
>> than 2000 C I believe.
>>
>>
>>
>> With a high temperature LENR heat source the Niobium/Iridium combo is a
>> reasonable thermo-electric source of power as well, and it could well
>> replace Pu-238 as a reliable, long-term power supply for remote locations
>> or space applications without the hazard associated with Pu-238.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob Cook
>>
>
>

[Vo]:two postings today,my one about scandsl and info

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/03/mar-27-2017-lenr-scandal-some-info.html

but please see too, for my blog-associate. Georgina's posting, this:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/managers-mirror-pilot-
episode-where-am-i-georgina-popescu

good lecture!

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

Re: [Vo]:Niobium - Iridium thermocouples

[a.ashfield]

Bob,
What do you want the thermocouples for?  ie what temperature?
I have never used Niobium - Iridium thermocouples in the glass 
industry.  We always used type S, and type B for more stable results 
over years duration, for things like furnace crowns at 1550C, but this 
had the disadvantage of smaller output.  The platinum migrates to the Rh 
leg over time, but we found a minimum wire diameter was also necessary 
for long life due to crystallization of Pl.

AA

On 3/27/2017 2:30 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
Regarding the Nb-Ir thermocouples ... Bob, can you suggest a source 
for these thermocouples and their voltage calibration data?  For my 
experiments, the cost of the hardware is coming out of my own pocket - 
not someone else's deep pocket.  For k-type thermocouples, the 
voltage-temperature profile is built into my DAQ.  For the Nb-Ir, I 
suspect, I will have to read the voltage and convert it to temperature 
with a custom LUT in Labview.  All doable if the voltage is not too 
low to be noisy and if the couples are not too expensive.


On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:43 AM, > wrote:


Jones—

You note regarding the Lugano test and Higgins assessment the
following:

“The systemic optical false assumptions have rendered any further
conclusion unscientific. Levi was reportedly paid an enormous
amount of money by Elforsk and yet made stupid errors, notably
failing to use high temp thermocouples for verification - plus he
also failed to calibrate near the running temperature -
unforgivable, since his errors have poisoned the positive aspects.”

I recently made the same comment about using good high temperature
T/C’s to Higgins with respect to his own Ni-H automated test at
MFMP.  I suggested he use a Nb-Ir couple for high temperature
measurements of the outside of his glow stick-like experiment. 
The couple is good for more than 2000 C I believe.


With a high temperature LENR heat source the Niobium/Iridium combo
is a reasonable thermo-electric source of power as well, and it
could well replace Pu-238 as a reliable, long-term power supply
for remote locations or space applications without the hazard
associated with Pu-238.

Bob Cook

[Vo]:Niobium - Iridium thermocouples

[Bob Higgins]

Regarding the Nb-Ir thermocouples ... Bob, can you suggest a source for
these thermocouples and their voltage calibration data?  For my
experiments, the cost of the hardware is coming out of my own pocket - not
someone else's deep pocket.  For k-type thermocouples, the
voltage-temperature profile is built into my DAQ.  For the Nb-Ir, I
suspect, I will have to read the voltage and convert it to temperature with
a custom LUT in Labview.  All doable if the voltage is not too low to be
noisy and if the couples are not too expensive.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:43 AM,  wrote:

> Jones—
>
>
>
> You note regarding the Lugano test and Higgins assessment the following:
>
>
>
> “The systemic optical false assumptions have rendered any further
> conclusion unscientific. Levi was reportedly paid an enormous amount of
> money by Elforsk and yet made stupid errors, notably failing to use high
> temp thermocouples for verification - plus he also failed to calibrate near
> the running temperature - unforgivable, since his errors have poisoned the
> positive aspects.”
>
>
>
> I recently made the same comment about using good high temperature T/C’s
> to Higgins with respect to his own Ni-H automated test at MFMP.  I
> suggested he use a Nb-Ir couple for high temperature measurements of the
> outside of his glow stick-like experiment.  The couple is good for more
> than 2000 C I believe.
>
>
>
> With a high temperature LENR heat source the Niobium/Iridium combo is a
> reasonable thermo-electric source of power as well, and it could well
> replace Pu-238 as a reliable, long-term power supply for remote locations
> or space applications without the hazard associated with Pu-238.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>

RE: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[Russ George]

Here here… the comment about the bogus candles of the Hot Fusion cabals for 
decades utterly outshines even ‘brilliant light’ illumination.

 

What transpires here in this whirling vortex is mostly ever dimming 
‘gaslighting’ by the usual suspects.

 

From: bobcook39...@gmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 10:50 AM
To: Bob Higgins; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

 

Bob—

 

Mills and Rossi do not hold a candle to the hype made by the hot fusion 
community over the years and the golden eggs they have accumulated.

 

Bob Cook

 

Sent from Mail   for Windows 10

 

From: Bob Higgins  
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 9:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

 

I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has made even 1W of 
excess heat from any of his devices.  The one quick bomb calorimetry demo done 
was very crude calorimetry, was not believable, and a paper was not published 
on it.  If Mills wants to convince his critics, he should publish credible 
calorimetry of one of his devices over the course of a reasonable time period 
(at least twelve hours).  He should describe the experiment in detail, and 
provide data and analysis.  He wouldn't have to publish anything about what is 
inside his black box.  He doesn't need to wait on mythical photovoltaics to 
make this measurement.  He could establish credibility with one such paper.  If 
he published a credible paper, we would believe his result with some measure of 
confidence.  There must be a reason he hasn't established his credibility this 
way.

Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the same class of 
pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated science.  He shows pretty stuff, 
but the data is never published, and then he moves on to something else.

 

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield  > wrote:

Brian,

He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences.  Mills says he will 
demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon after the required photovoltaics 
are developed and in pace - later this year.  Obviously he can't do that before.

You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without proof.  I have 
trouble understanding the vocal critics here who seem to be of a class "NO! 
What was the question?"  Strikes me as very unscientific.

Slightly  related see.  
http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376

AA

On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:

It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.

 

If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.

 

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[a.ashfield]

Stefan,
"I got the impression that these validatoins will be done when they 
close the system reliably and not when they manage to get the 
photovoltaics functioning which is logical."


That does not sound logical to me.  They are close enough to having 
photovoltaics that it seems pointless to mess around with water calorimetry.


AA

On 3/27/2017 1:54 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
As I understand the crucial thing to achieve good evidences is to 
close the reactor and run it for long enough time with plain old water 
bath calormetry. Previously he had to shut down the experiment after 
just a short time. Closing the system can reveal new caveats and 
difficulties so this step can take considerable more time than what we 
heard so far. I got the impression that these validatoins will be done 
when they close the system reliably and not when they manage to get 
the photovoltaics functioning which is logical. But sure they should 
know by know the ball park of the release of energy if they are 
honest, and there have been several attempts to characterize this 
ballpark and all tell the same story. Also a system that releases 10MW 
from 10KW for say 15s should be obvious from pure inspection and rules 
of thumb estimates - but that conclusion is hard from just the videos 
so the careful need to wait for better evidences as always. As I tell 
all people I discuss this with, let's wait and see, what comes will 
come but sure it is a fun and entertaining ride - making energy from 
constructing dark matter, thats a great lol, and even greater so if it 
turns out to be real.


On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Bob Higgins > wrote:


I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has
made even 1W of excess heat from any of his devices.  The one
quick bomb calorimetry demo done was very crude calorimetry, was
not believable, and a paper was not published on it.  If Mills
wants to convince his critics, he should publish credible
calorimetry of one of his devices over the course of a reasonable
time period (at least twelve hours).  He should describe the
experiment in detail, and provide data and analysis.  He wouldn't
have to publish anything about what is inside his black box.  He
doesn't need to wait on mythical photovoltaics to make this
measurement.  He could establish credibility with one such paper. 
If he published a credible paper, we would believe his result with

some measure of confidence.  There must be a reason he hasn't
established his credibility this way.

Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the same
class of pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated science. 
He shows pretty stuff, but the data is never published, and then

he moves on to something else.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield
> wrote:

Brian,

He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences.  Mills
says he will demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon
after the required photovoltaics are developed and in pace -
later this year.  Obviously he can't do that before.

You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without
proof.  I have trouble understanding the vocal critics here
who seem to be of a class "NO! What was the question?" 
Strikes me as very unscientific.


Slightly  related see.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376



AA

On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:


It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.


If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

As I understand the crucial thing to achieve good evidences is to close the
reactor and run it for long enough time with plain old water bath
calormetry. Previously he had to shut down the experiment after just a
short time. Closing the system can reveal new caveats and difficulties so
this step can take considerable more time than what we heard so far. I got
the impression that these validatoins will be done when they close the
system reliably and not when they manage to get the photovoltaics
functioning which is logical. But sure they should know by know the ball
park of the release of energy if they are honest, and there have been
several attempts to characterize this ballpark and all tell the same story.
Also a system that releases 10MW from 10KW for say 15s should be obvious
from pure inspection and rules of thumb estimates - but that conclusion is
hard from just the videos so the careful need to wait for better evidences
as always. As I tell all people I discuss this with, let's wait and see,
what comes will come but sure it is a fun and entertaining ride - making
energy from constructing dark matter, thats a great lol, and even greater
so if it turns out to be real.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has made even
> 1W of excess heat from any of his devices.  The one quick bomb calorimetry
> demo done was very crude calorimetry, was not believable, and a paper was
> not published on it.  If Mills wants to convince his critics, he should
> publish credible calorimetry of one of his devices over the course of a
> reasonable time period (at least twelve hours).  He should describe the
> experiment in detail, and provide data and analysis.  He wouldn't have to
> publish anything about what is inside his black box.  He doesn't need to
> wait on mythical photovoltaics to make this measurement.  He could
> establish credibility with one such paper.  If he published a credible
> paper, we would believe his result with some measure of confidence.  There
> must be a reason he hasn't established his credibility this way.
>
> Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the same class of
> pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated science.  He shows pretty
> stuff, but the data is never published, and then he moves on to something
> else.
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> Brian,
>>
>> He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences.  Mills says he will
>> demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon after the required
>> photovoltaics are developed and in pace - later this year.  Obviously he
>> can't do that before.
>>
>> You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without proof.  I
>> have trouble understanding the vocal critics here who seem to be of a class
>> "NO! What was the question?"  Strikes me as very unscientific.
>>
>> Slightly  related see.  http://www.scotsman.com/news/o
>> pinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-
>> cold-fusion-system-1-4400376
>>
>> AA
>>
>> On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:
>>
>> It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.
>>
>>
>> If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.
>>
>>

RE: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[bobcook39923]

Bob—

Mills and Rossi do not hold a candle to the hype made by the hot fusion 
community over the years and the golden eggs they have accumulated.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Bob Higgins
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 9:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has made even 1W of 
excess heat from any of his devices.  The one quick bomb calorimetry demo done 
was very crude calorimetry, was not believable, and a paper was not published 
on it.  If Mills wants to convince his critics, he should publish credible 
calorimetry of one of his devices over the course of a reasonable time period 
(at least twelve hours).  He should describe the experiment in detail, and 
provide data and analysis.  He wouldn't have to publish anything about what is 
inside his black box.  He doesn't need to wait on mythical photovoltaics to 
make this measurement.  He could establish credibility with one such paper.  If 
he published a credible paper, we would believe his result with some measure of 
confidence.  There must be a reason he hasn't established his credibility this 
way.
Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the same class of 
pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated science.  He shows pretty stuff, 
but the data is never published, and then he moves on to something else.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:
Brian,

He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences.  Mills says he will 
demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon after the required photovoltaics 
are developed and in pace - later this year.  Obviously he can't do that before.

You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without proof.  I have 
trouble understanding the vocal critics here who seem to be of a class "NO! 
What was the question?"  Strikes me as very unscientific.

Slightly  related see.  
http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376

AA
On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:
It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.

If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.

RE: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[bobcook39923]

Jones—

You note regarding the Lugano test and Higgins assessment the following:

“The systemic optical false assumptions have rendered any further conclusion 
unscientific. Levi was reportedly paid an enormous amount of money by Elforsk 
and yet made stupid errors, notably failing to use high temp thermocouples for 
verification - plus he also failed to calibrate near the running temperature - 
unforgivable, since his errors have poisoned the positive aspects.”

I recently made the same comment about using good high temperature T/C’s to 
Higgins with respect to his own Ni-H automated test at MFMP.  I suggested he 
use a Nb-Ir couple for high temperature measurements of the outside of his glow 
stick-like experiment.  The couple is good for more than 2000 C I believe. 

 With a high temperature LENR heat source the Niobium/Iridium combo is a 
reasonable thermo-electric source of power as well, and it could well replace 
Pu-238 as a reliable, long-term power supply for remote locations or space 
applications without the hazard associated with Pu-238.

Bob Cook






Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Jones Beene
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 7:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

bobcook39...@gmail.com wrote:
Jones— I assume you lump Rossi’s one-month Lugano test in with your definition 
of  scam-built  “half-truths” tests. We will see.
 
Bob Cook.
Funny you should mention "half-truth" Bob, since it is not quite half... 47% 
actually. 

I support the conclusion of Bob Higgins who did a far better job analyzing the 
Lugano data than the Levi crew. Anyone interested in this topic should study 
his paper:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Zl9FWDFWSUpXc0U/view

Bob's conclusion is this : the radiant power of Rossi's device is estimated to 
be approximately 47% lower than the value calculated by the Lugano crew ...

The systemic optical false assumptions have rendered any further conclusion 
unscientific. Levi was reportedly paid an enormous amount of money by Elforsk 
and yet made stupid errors, notably failing to use high temp thermocouples for 
verification - plus he also failed to calibrate near the running temperature - 
unforgivable, since his errors have poisoned the positive aspects. 

The only good news is that there "could have been" thermal gain after the 
optical correction was made - but because the original results were tainted 
with incompetence, we will never know for sure. The Swedes vowed to repeat the 
experiment with proper instrumentation, but failed to do so. In science one 
cannot quote a failed and corrected result as being indicative of success, even 
if it was "almost half right." 

Yet, like many here, I suspect that there could have been thermal gain. IH has 
an expert who presumably will say under oath there was none, but the best thing 
other interested parties can hope for is that the experiment is repeated by the 
Swedes some time in the future.

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[a.ashfield]

Bob,
" If Mills wants to convince his critics, he should publish credible 
calorimetry of one of his devices over the course of a reasonable time 
period (at least twelve hours).  He should describe the experiment in 
detail, and provide data and analysis."


I doubt he has any incentive to convert the skeptics.  His schedule is 
for a fully working SunCell this summer.  From the comments here I doubt 
even that will convince them


AA

On 3/27/2017 12:16 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has made 
even 1W of excess heat from any of his devices.  The one quick bomb 
calorimetry demo done was very crude calorimetry, was not believable, 
and a paper was not published on it.  If Mills wants to convince his 
critics, he should publish credible calorimetry of one of his devices 
over the course of a reasonable time period (at least twelve hours). 
He should describe the experiment in detail, and provide data and 
analysis.  He wouldn't have to publish anything about what is inside 
his black box.  He doesn't need to wait on mythical photovoltaics to 
make this measurement.  He could establish credibility with one such 
paper.  If he published a credible paper, we would believe his result 
with some measure of confidence.  There must be a reason he hasn't 
established his credibility this way.


Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the same class 
of pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated science.  He shows 
pretty stuff, but the data is never published, and then he moves on to 
something else.


On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Brian,

He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences.  Mills says
he will demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon after the
required photovoltaics are developed and in pace - later this
year.  Obviously he can't do that before.

You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without
proof.  I have trouble understanding the vocal critics here who
seem to be of a class "NO! What was the question?"  Strikes me as
very unscientific.

Slightly  related see.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376



AA

On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:


It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.


If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[Ron Wormus]

Bib,
Wow! you guys are harsh! I think Mills should be given the benefit of the 
doubt. He has raised plenty of money & a lot of due diligence has been 
done over the years. Why should he invite competition by proving anything? 
Especially with the US Patent office problems.


At my age I don't have the inclination to try to follow the math of his 
theory but it doesn't seem any crazier than assuming that the electron has 
no dimension or the the universe originated from a singularity. In fact 
within reasonable limits it does much easier than does QM.


He has published plenty of experimental material some of which I have 
tried to verify through RF plasma experiments.


Some years ago I had some quartz gas tubes made up with Ar, H2, He, Ar+He, 
H2+Ar H2+He and H2 with Strontium compound getter. These were all in the 
2-8 Torr pressure range. I fired these with a 12V 127 MHz source with a 
linear amp and tuner using copper collars around the tubes. I monitored 
the power required to fire the tubes & maintain a plasma, light output & 
temperature.


My results were interesting and indicated to me that Mills had discovered 
a true anomaly. I could not fire the pure H2 (2 Torr the lowest pressure 
tube) tube without a direct connection to internal electrodes. Pure Ar & 
He were fired normally with copper collars taking 50 watts or so as did 
the Ar+He mix. The 50/50 mix of Ar+H2 fired easily at ~ 1/2 the power 
required for the pure Ar and the H2 with the Strontium tube (also at 2 
torr) would easily make a plasma even without the linear amp with just a 
few watts.


So my amateur home experiments were enough to convince myself that Mills 
had a discovery and that he was worth following. I doubted that he could 
come up with a system that had meaningful power density but it looks to me 
as if he may have done it and good luck to him.


I gave up on Rossi some time ago.
Ron




--On Monday, March 27, 2017 10:16 AM -0600 Bob Higgins 
 wrote:





I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has made
even 1W of excess heat from any of his devices.  The one quick bomb
calorimetry demo done was very crude calorimetry, was not believable,
and a paper was not published on it.  If Mills wants to convince his
critics, he should publish credible calorimetry of one of his devices
over the course of a reasonable time period (at least twelve hours). 
He should describe the experiment in detail, and provide data and
analysis.  He wouldn't have to publish anything about what is inside
his black box.  He doesn't need to wait on mythical photovoltaics to
make this measurement.  He could establish credibility with one such
paper.  If he published a credible paper, we would believe his result
with some measure of confidence.  There must be a reason he hasn't
established his credibility this way.

Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the same class
of pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated science.  He shows
pretty stuff, but the data is never published, and then he moves on to
something else.





On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield 
wrote:


Brian,

He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences.  Mills says he
will demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon after the required
photovoltaics are developed and in pace - later this year.  Obviously
he can't do that before.

You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without proof.  I
have trouble understanding the vocal critics here who seem to be of a
class "NO! What was the question?"  Strikes me as very unscientific.

Slightly  related see. 
http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-in
to-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376

AA


On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:




It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.



If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.

[Vo]:Whats wrong with this picture?

[Jones Beene]

The smallest known star that astronomers have found is named 
OGLE-TR-122b. Its radius is accurately measured at 167,000 km. That 
makes it 20% larger than planet Jupiter but like most stars, it is 
radiating energy in a way which indicates that nuclear fusion has been 
underway for billions of years, presumably converting hydrogen into 
helium like our sun, only less of it, and at longer wavelength, due to 
the small size.


Yet today, without reference to the presence of any small star, the 
science news is reporting a much larger dim object has been found, not a 
star and more like a planet, which is 90 times more massive than 
Jupiter. This object is not undergoing nuclear fusion. It is called SDSS 
J0104+1535 and consists of more than 99.99% hydrogen and helium but 
without nuclear ignition, despite the enormous gravity.


It is not clear that "high purity" is an actual parameter which 
prohibits it from going nuclear, since it makes little sense that so 
much hydrogen would not ignite, as happens in the much smaller star, due 
to the Lawson criteria if nothing else. There is such a massive 
disparity in the energy released from the smaller and hotter object, 
compared to the much larger colder object- that great doubt is cast on 
many assumptions relative to nuclear fusion at the cosmological scale.


Does LENR have a place in this picture?

The smaller, dirtier and much hotter object may be undergoing energetic 
reactions which are not the same as fusion in our sun, for instance. If 
it is less pure, then much of that impurity would be iron and nickel - 
just like many meteorites. Notably these two metals are catalysts for LENR.


I would be willing to bet that not a single reputable astronomer will 
bring up this possibility - that the smallest stars could be powered by 
LENR instead of hot fusion, but can we rule out the possibility ? Is 
there a better explanation for the strange picture which has been 
presented above?


.

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[Bob Higgins]

I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has made even
1W of excess heat from any of his devices.  The one quick bomb calorimetry
demo done was very crude calorimetry, was not believable, and a paper was
not published on it.  If Mills wants to convince his critics, he should
publish credible calorimetry of one of his devices over the course of a
reasonable time period (at least twelve hours).  He should describe the
experiment in detail, and provide data and analysis.  He wouldn't have to
publish anything about what is inside his black box.  He doesn't need to
wait on mythical photovoltaics to make this measurement.  He could
establish credibility with one such paper.  If he published a credible
paper, we would believe his result with some measure of confidence.  There
must be a reason he hasn't established his credibility this way.

Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the same class of
pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated science.  He shows pretty
stuff, but the data is never published, and then he moves on to something
else.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Brian,
>
> He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences.  Mills says he will
> demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon after the required
> photovoltaics are developed and in pace - later this year.  Obviously he
> can't do that before.
>
> You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without proof.  I
> have trouble understanding the vocal critics here who seem to be of a class
> "NO! What was the question?"  Strikes me as very unscientific.
>
> Slightly  related see.  http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-
> generating-research-into-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376
>
> AA
>
> On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:
>
> It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.
>
>
> If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[a.ashfield]

Brian,

He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences.  Mills says he 
will demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon after the required 
photovoltaics are developed and in pace - later this year. Obviously he 
can't do that before.


You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without proof. I 
have trouble understanding the vocal critics here who seem to be of a 
class "NO! What was the question?"  Strikes me as very unscientific.


Slightly  related see. 
http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376


AA

On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:


It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.


If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.




*From:* a.ashfield 
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Supposedly the plasma is  >3500C.  As it runs without any input power 
why do you not think it generates any (excess) heat?


AA

On 3/26/2017 7:35 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


They needn't be lying. Measuring energy flow with a plasma is 
challenging.





*From:* a.ashfield 
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Brian,
Apart from some calorimetry on the SunCell in the early days, would 
you not think a self perpetuating plasma would produce some heat?  
Several (hired) independent investigators also back Mill's claims, or 
do you think they are all lying?


AA


On 3/26/2017 12:00 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


A...". there is good evidence that the SunCell produces a large 
amount of excess heat..."



Amazingly, even RM offers no data or measurements on this issue. He 
could show water flow calorimetry to an accuracy of 50% within two 
days of set up and calibration. I would offer to pay for it and 
conduct it for him.


Alas, there is no calorimetry offered to the suggestible investors.

The mantra for Mills, Rossi and Godes is:  No data =   no failure = 
 ambiguity coupled with  enticing potential profits = large 
investments while showing nothing.


If they conducted tests and failed the investment stream would cease.


*From:* a.ashfield 
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 11:23 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Eric,
I don't feel expert enough to pass judgement.  I think that is the 
point. Physicists more expert than me can't make up their minds 
whether Mills is a genius or delusional.  That he can come up with 
values for particles that are more accurate than from QM and that 
his program can show the position nuclei and electrons for 
complicated molecules (proven) suggests to me that it is premature 
to be so dogmatic that he is wrong.  Likewise there is good evidence 
that the SunCell produces a large amount of excess heat, though one 
might quibble about the actual value.


AA

On 3/25/2017 5:52 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:49 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the
skeptics.  I have yet to see a specific item that is wrong in
Mills theories highlighted by them.


Did you take a look at the link I sent?  Can you help us to make 
sense of those equations? What would be ideal would be an explicit 
derivation of the electron-neutron mass ratio, which is purportedly 
based on those equations.  If you can do this, it would be a very 
helpful thing.  My strong hunch:  it is not possible, because the 
Mills neutron-electron mass ratio is ad hoc and was not derived 
from them.  But your knowledge here can help to dispel this impression.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[a.ashfield]

Jones,
I wonder if you are confused by the rating of a CFL being 5000C. The 
argon in a CFL is not nearly completely ionized, it is a gas discharge, 
but not a full plasma. Being fully ionized is not necessary for the CLF 
gas, which is merely there to hold the mercury that emits the UV 
radiation that excites the visible light emitting phosphors on the 
inside of the tube. The mercury efficiently emits much of the power that 
is deposited by the electric current, which keeps the gas cool.


Considerable  heat from the SunCell is likely judging from the need of 
dark glass to view it, particularly as the bulk of the power is above 
the visible limit.  Whether it is excess heat depends on whether Mills, 
the independent verifiers, and the various audiences are telling the 
truth  You assume they are liars or incompetent or the whole thing is a 
fraud, without any proof.


I prefer to wait and see without making dogmatic libelous charges. Rossi 
was right, people like you will never believe any experiment only the 
sale of working commercial units.


AA

On 3/26/2017 9:49 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

a.ashfield wrote:

...Supposedly the plasma is  >3500C. 
A plasma at 3500C is commonplace and found in every house - but almost 
meaningless in terms of energy content... yet typical of Mills' genius 
at deception. The plasma in a common 5 watt CFL can be >6000C. 
Electrons in a plasma can be very hot since there is almost no mass to 
heat. Yet it sounds impressive!
As it runs without any input power why do you not think it generates 
any (excess) heat?
No excess heat is likely but low range excess is possible. Do you 
understand capacitance? A few ultracaps will power a small CFL for 15 
minutes with internal temps of 6,000C and thermal output in the few 
watt-hr range. There need be no input power to the circuit since the 
caps are charged at the outset.


Mills is the world expert at confusing gullible investors with 
meaningless combinations of inappropriate numbers. Rossi is less 
subtle. Mills favorite deception is conflating watts of power with 
watt-hrs of energy. And lest we forget, there was a picture of a 
prototype SunCell on the net a while back with distinctive blue 
Maxwell supercaps in the circuit, but that was before Mills restricted 
almost all relevant disclosure - so do not imagine that he is above 
the easy way to deceive.


Note: Mills could and probably does have excess energy, as this has 
been known/shown for a long time at low COP - but not enough to close 
the loop for an extended period. If he could close the loop, that 
would be the first thing he demonstrates. Same with Rossi. And 
everyone who matters would take notice!


Let's be clear -- Mills has not shown a system which will self-run for 
a week or even a day. A plasma running for an hour on ultracaps is 
YouTube teenage "gee-whiz" fodder.


Use your mind, man. You cannot assume total honesty when Mills/Rossi 
have built careers on misleading investors. The legal system is too 
slow to catch up with promoters who build scams on half-truths, usually.

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[Jones Beene]

bobcook39...@gmail.com wrote:

Jones—I assume you lump Rossi’s one-month Lugano test in with your 
definition of  scam-built  “half-truths” tests.We will see.


Bob Cook.

Funny you should mention "half-truth" Bob, since it is not quite half... 
47% actually.


I support the conclusion of Bob Higgins who did a far better job 
analyzing the Lugano data than the Levi crew. Anyone interested in this 
topic should study his paper:


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Zl9FWDFWSUpXc0U/view

Bob's conclusion is this : the radiant power of Rossi's device is 
estimated to be approximately 47% lower than the value calculated by the 
Lugano crew ...


The systemic optical false assumptions have rendered any further 
conclusion unscientific. Levi was reportedly paid an enormous amount of 
money by Elforsk and yet made stupid errors, notably failing to use high 
temp thermocouples for verification - plus he also failed to calibrate 
near the running temperature - unforgivable, since his errors have 
poisoned the positive aspects.


The only good news is that there "could have been" thermal gain after 
the optical correction was made - but because the original results were 
tainted with incompetence, we will never know for sure. The Swedes vowed 
to repeat the experiment with proper instrumentation, but failed to do 
so. In science one cannot quote a failed and corrected result as being 
indicative of success, even if it was "almost half right."


Yet, like many here, I suspect that there could have been thermal gain. 
IH has an expert who presumably will say under oath there was none, but 
the best thing other interested parties can hope for is that the 
experiment is repeated by the Swedes some time in the future.

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[Brian Ahern]

It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.


If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.



From: a.ashfield 
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

Supposedly the plasma is  >3500C.  As it runs without any input power why do 
you not think it generates any (excess) heat?

AA

On 3/26/2017 7:35 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:

They needn't be lying. Measuring energy flow with a plasma is challenging.



From: a.ashfield 
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

Brian,
Apart from some calorimetry on the SunCell in the early days, would you not 
think a self perpetuating plasma would produce some heat?  Several (hired) 
independent investigators also back Mill's claims, or do you think they are all 
lying?

AA


On 3/26/2017 12:00 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:

A...". there is good evidence that the SunCell produces a large amount of 
excess heat..."


Amazingly, even RM offers no data or measurements on this issue. He could show 
water flow calorimetry to an accuracy of 50% within two days of set up and 
calibration. I would offer to pay for it and conduct it for him.

Alas, there is no calorimetry offered to the suggestible investors.

The mantra for Mills, Rossi and Godes is:  No data =   no failure =  ambiguity 
coupled with  enticing potential profits = large investments while showing 
nothing.

If they conducted tests and failed the investment stream would cease.


From: a.ashfield 
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 11:23 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

Eric,
I don't feel expert enough to pass judgement.  I think that is the point.  
Physicists more expert than me can't make up their minds whether Mills is a 
genius or delusional.  That he can come up with values for particles that are 
more accurate than from QM and that his program can show the position nuclei 
and electrons for complicated molecules (proven) suggests to me that it is 
premature to be so dogmatic that he is wrong.  Likewise there is good evidence 
that the SunCell produces a large amount of excess heat, though one might 
quibble about the actual value.

AA

On 3/25/2017 5:52 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:49 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:

To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the skeptics.  I have yet 
to see a specific item that is wrong in Mills theories highlighted by them.

Did you take a look at the link I sent?  Can you help us to make sense of those 
equations?  What would be ideal would be an explicit derivation of the 
electron-neutron mass ratio, which is purportedly based on those equations.  If 
you can do this, it would be a very helpful thing.  My strong hunch:  it is not 
possible, because the Mills neutron-electron mass ratio is ad hoc and was not 
derived from them.  But your knowledge here can help to dispel this impression.

Eric