Re: [Vo]:2nd Law proved not valid, ignored by West

[David Roberson]

Looks like this experiment demonstrates a process which converts heat energy 
into electrical energy.  This has already been observed when thermal radiation 
is emitted by a warm body.  Also, electrical energy can be captured from a 
resistor surrounded by a heat sink.

I am not sure why the report you refer to claims to be a first.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: Vortex List 
Sent: Tue, Jul 11, 2017 12:08 am
Subject: [Vo]:2nd Law proved not valid, ignored by West

In the disclosed Maxwell's demon type of experiment from 2012, heat from 
ambient air was converted completely into electric energy, using a 
static magnetic field without producing any other effect.

The phenomenon proves clearly that the second law of thermodynamics is 
not universally valid, even though the output was tiny.

"Realization of Maxwell’s Hypothesis" A heat-electric conversion in 
contradiction to Kelvin’s statement  by  Xinyong Fu, Zitao Fu Shanghai 
Jiao Tong University

https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0311104

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[David Roberson]

This entire episode leaves me with a sour taste within my mouth.  Perhaps it is 
time to take a rest from researching LENR until matters improve.  So much hope 
dashed!

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: Vortex 
Sent: Wed, Jul 5, 2017 6:20 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled




Kevin O'Malley  wrote:



If Rossi has managed to be the great magician that his detractors claim, his 
next set of investors might think about bringing a thermometer to the test.



No can do. He invited me to a test. I said I would bring a thermometer. * He 
told me I would not be allowed to do that. So I never went.

It does not take a master magician to fool people when you do not allow them to 
do elementary confirmations of your claims. However, Rossi did not fool people 
as much as you might think. He did not begin to fool the people from NASA. The 
people at I.H. were on to him long before the 1-year test began, as you see in 
the case file depositions. Rossi and his supporters claim that I.H. suddenly 
refused to pay after the test ended, and they were supportive before that. I 
know for a fact that is not true. They complained about him long before that.

- Jed


* I was also planning to bring a liter graduated cylinder and some other tools 
to confirm the calorimetry. Rossi refused to allow independent measures of any 
parameter, so that was that. The late Jim Patterson also tried to stop me from 
measuring the flow rate and temperature. I never trusted him again. He changed 
his mind and agreed to let me do it. Then he distributed my report without 
permission in his PR package! A class act.

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

[David Roberson]

I agree with you Brian.  This is quite disappointing.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Brian Ahern 
To: Vortex 
Sent: Sat, May 27, 2017 12:03 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today



Jed is being too generous. His failure to test today is unforgivable!


I was fervently hoping for a positive outcome, but that was wishful thinking in 
extremus.




From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2017 10:51 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today
 

At lenr-forum, me356 is quoted from somewhere:


"I can only tell, that the test was conducted in the condition that was very 
far from ready from my side. This mean that I was not prepared for testing with 
the current reactor at all. But this is the only one with a cover - thus 
nothing else can't be tested in this way. I didn't knew that the test will 
occur at this time as I was informed just few days before, but I dont want to 
waste money and time that was spent for already bought tickets and 
accommodation. So I have nothing to loose whatever it will work or not."


This is outrageous. me356 and everyone else knew weeks ago that the test was 
scheduled. He was not informed "just days before." This is a lie. And he does 
have something to "loose" (lose): he credibility. Apparently, he does not care 
about that.

This, along with the excuse that he has family responsibilities and cannot work 
today, makes me suspicious. If he refuses to allow one or two members of the 
MFMP to stay past Monday, I will conclude that he is a fake.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:quantum thermodynamics and the Second Law--

[David Roberson]

Bob,

I do not see any problem with the operation of the magnetic resonance machine 
you mention with regard to angular momentum being orthogonal to linear 
momentum.  You can identify a source of angular momentum that arrives 
externally to the system, such as via the RF incident field to supply any 
change in total angular momentum measured.  Sometimes the final source can be 
subtle like a change to the Earth's angular momentum due to application of a 
torque.

In my viewpoint linear momentum is associated with mass moving along a straight 
line relative to the observer.  Angular momentum is likewise associated with 
rotation of mass about a point.  You can select a new location and a velocity 
where the linear momentum of a closed system of masses cancels out to zero.  Of 
course each moving mass can posses its own linear momentum, but the vector sum 
is zero.

If, on the other hand a closed system of masses has angular momentum according 
to your measurements, then there is no point and/or linear velocity that you 
can choose which zero's out the system angular momentum.  The two momentums are 
defined in a manner that allows them to be orthogonal.  I do not recall any 
proven experiment that demonstrates the conversion between these two quantities.

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: bobcook39923 <bobcook39...@hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, May 20, 2017 5:25 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:quantum thermodynamics and the Second Law--



Dave and Bob--
 
In common nuclear magnetic resonance machines the angular momentum of nuclei 
are  changed by a resonant radio frequency energy source in a strong ambient 
magnetic field.  That field aligns  the  nuclear magnetic dipoles and creates 
new  discrete potential energy levels for the nuclei.When excited to a new 
level by the radio frequency input, the nuclei are said to be in an elevated 
isomeric energy state.  When the ambient magnetic field is shut off, the nuclei 
relax giving off EM energy.  This energy from the relaxing nuclei is monitored 
to determine the location and concentration of nuclei which return to a ground 
state. 
 
I believe the energy associated with the various nuclear spin states is 
considered nuclear binding potential energy, but not associated with mass 
energy binding protons and neutrons within a nucleus.  However, this potential 
energy  of an isomer DOES add mass to nuclei.  
 
Thus, I would guess that transitions of nuclear species during LENR from one 
ground state to another ground state (with  a different combination of neutrons 
and protons and lower net angular momentum) would involve coupling via a 
magnetic field to the orbital electrons of a metal lattice.  You can call that 
energy mass energy,  binding energy or whatever.  It is a parameter of the 
nucleus in question in units of joules.  Energy is energy no matter what force  
field is involved IMHO.   
 
Dave, 
 
( I  believe linear momentum can be co-linear (not necessarily orthogonal) with 
angular momentum for properties ascribed to a particle or system of particles.  
  Even thought they have the same units mass-length/time, one must change in 
units of h/2pie and the other is associated with free particles in space and 
subject to uncertainty in its actual value reflecting Planck’s constant, h.
 
  ( I am not sure I understand your comment regarding classical physics.)
 
Bob Cook
 
 
 

From: David Roberson
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 11:29 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum thermodynamics and the Second Law--

 
Of course, in classical physics linear momentum and angular momentum are 
orthogonal to each other and can not be exchanged within a closed system.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, May 20, 2017 11:16 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum thermodynamics and the Second Law--



This is interesting thinking.  The idea that angular momentum, linear momentum, 
and energy are "conserved" is a hypothesis created and supported (as I 
understand it) by observation, not by derivation based upon a fundamental 
principle.  While it would be a violation of the hypothesis, trading between 
these conserved quantities would not invalidate a fundamental premise (am I 
correct?).

So, Bob, when you say, "Trading nuclear potential energy for metal lattice 
electron orbital (thermal) angular momentum is LENR", what is the nuclear 
potential energy that you are saying is being traded (exchanged) into the 
electron orbital angular momentum?  What in the nucleus do you envision being 
traded?

Clearly the nucleus is not as well understood as we imagine.  If you read 
Norman Cook's book, "Models of the Atomic Nucleus", you will see the sorry 
state of things.  Present models for the nucleus predict fission as occurring 
in equal portions, but experiment shows that is far from 

Re: [Vo]:quantum thermodynamics and the Second Law--

[David Roberson]

Of course, in classical physics linear momentum and angular momentum are 
orthogonal to each other and can not be exchanged within a closed system.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, May 20, 2017 11:16 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum thermodynamics and the Second Law--




This is interesting thinking.  The idea that angular momentum, linear momentum, 
and energy are "conserved" is a hypothesis created and supported (as I 
understand it) by observation, not by derivation based upon a fundamental 
principle.  While it would be a violation of the hypothesis, trading between 
these conserved quantities would not invalidate a fundamental premise (am I 
correct?).


So, Bob, when you say, "Trading nuclear potential energy for metal lattice 
electron orbital (thermal) angular momentum is LENR", what is the nuclear 
potential energy that you are saying is being traded (exchanged) into the 
electron orbital angular momentum?  What in the nucleus do you envision being 
traded?


Clearly the nucleus is not as well understood as we imagine.  If you read 
Norman Cook's book, "Models of the Atomic Nucleus", you will see the sorry 
state of things.  Present models for the nucleus predict fission as occurring 
in equal portions, but experiment shows that is far from the case.  Even though 
we rely heavily on engineering of nuclear fission, the models don't predict the 
characteristics of the reaction.  Could the "smallness" of the constituents in 
the nucleus allow interaction with a zero-point field, where at such small 
scales physics is different than we know?  Could the trading of "conserved" 
quantities be commonplace at such small scales?




On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 7:30 AM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
 wrote:


The following link contains interesting views on the subject of this thread.
 
IMHO these are key LENR concepts.   Trading nuclear potential energy for metal 
lattice electron orbital (thermal) angular momentum is LENR.
 
http://www.quantamagazine.org/the-quantum-thermodynamics-revolution-20170502/
 
The following is excerpted from the article on thermodynamics:
 
“Imagine a vast container, or reservoir, of particles that possess both
energy and angular momentum (they’re both moving around and spinning).
This reservoir is connected to both a weight, which takes energy to
lift, and a turning turntable, which takes angular momentum to speed up
or slow down. Normally, a single reservoir can’t do any work — this goes
back to Carnot’s discovery about the need for hot and cold reservoirs.
But the researchers found that a reservoir containing multiple conserved
quantities follows different rules. “If you have two different physical
quantities that are conserved, like energy and angular momentum,”
Popescu said, “as long as you have a bath that contains both of them,
then you can trade one for another.”
 
In the hypothetical weight-reservoir-turntable system, the weight can be
lifted as the turntable slows down, or, conversely, lowering the weight
causes the turntable to spin faster. The researchers found that the
quantum information describing the particles’ energy and spin states can
act as a kind of currency that enables trading between the reservoir’s
energy and angular momentum supplies. The notion that conserved
quantities can be traded for one another in quantum systems is brand
new. It may suggest the need for a more complete thermodynamic theory
that would describe not only the flow of energy, but also the interplay
between all the conserved quantities in the universe.
 
The fact that energy has dominated the thermodynamics story up to now
might be circumstantial rather than profound, Oppenheim said. Carnot and
his successors might have developed a thermodynamic theory governing the
flow of, say, angular momentum to go with their engine theory, if only
there had been a need. “We have energy sources all around us that we
want to extract and use,” Oppenheim said. “It happens to be the case
that we don’t have big angular momentum heat baths around us. We don’t
come across huge gyroscopes.”
 
_”Popescu, who won a Dirac Medal last year for his insights in quantum
information theory and quantum foundations, said he and his
collaborators work by “pushing quantum mechanics into a corner,”
gathering at a blackboard and reasoning their way to a new insight after
which it’s easy to derive the associated equations. Some realizations
are in the process of crystalizing. In one of several phone
conversations in March, Popescu discussed a new thought experiment that
illustrates a distinction between information and other conserved
quantities — and indicates how symmetries in nature might set them apart.”
 
 











Virus-free. www.avg.com 

Re: [Vo]:flying cars on the horizon

[David Roberson]

I would love to have a flying car, especially when within the DC area.  My 
major concern is that we have far too many lawyers ready to sue any new 
technology offering.  Don't you think that some form of immunity to 
unreasonable lawsuits might be required for any small to mid sized companies 
that hope to enter the field?  Otherwise they will go the way of diving boards.

Dave 

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Adrian Ashfield 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Apr 24, 2017 11:12 am
Subject: [Vo]:flying cars on the horizon


It seems that a flying car is getting close to being commercial.
Companies trying to make one include:.
Terrafugia
Kitty Hawk
Airbus Group
Moller International
Xplorair
PAL-V
Joby Aviation
EHang
Volocopter
Uber
Haynes Aero
Samson Motorworks
AeroMobil
Parajet
Lilium

Inherently inefficient , I doubt they will be very practical without either an 
improvement in battery technology or a small LENR power source.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/technology/flying-car-technology.html

AA

Re: [Vo]:Cap Warp - McCandlish

[David Roberson]

John,
I honestly do not understand how an electrical charge is associated with 
gravity, but apparently some have observed a link.  The fact that gravitational 
forces are so weak with respect to electromagnetic forces tend to suggest that 
a very tiny coupling between the two would be all that is required in order to 
see some effects.

My current position is one of a skeptical nature since I have not had 
sufficient opportunity to pursue the subject.  Do you know of any good links to 
research papers, etc. that I could follow when time permits?  If these types of 
interactions are possible then the payoff to society could be enormous.

I also find circular like systems such as toroidal fields to possess a form of 
'magic'.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Apr 22, 2017 9:24 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cap Warp - McCandlish



Thanks David,
Do you also think it is interesting that it coincides with the Cap warp which 
several replicated and a few other similar claims...


I can actually take the correlation further, but right there, does that not 
show that anti-gravity is very likely possible with a circular capacitor?


There is a lot of evidence that circular things and circular arrays of things 
can do things that are extraordinary and unexpected by a single element.


This is not out of reach, it can be explained.






John Berry



On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 1:10 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

John, I found the documentary most interesting.  Thanks for including the link.

Dave


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Apr 22, 2017 6:36 am
Subject: [Vo]:Cap Warp - McCandlish



I think this group has lost all the open minded interest in the extraordinary 
side of science for the most part.


But there was something that occured on this list a long time ago,where a 
circle of HV Capacitors developed a Thrust, it was apparentltly replicated by I 
think 3 people in total.
http://amasci.com/caps/capwarp.html


I also have heard of 2 independant acconts of similar capacitors losing weight, 
more that T.T Brown's work and not in the direction of the positive only.  One 
had a glass dielectric and yet achieved full weight loss.


Anyway, there is a Documentary that makes a rather good case for a US Airforce 
sauser craft based on precisely this technology, and they aren't even aware of 
the  "Cap warp" experiments.


http://www.theeventchronicle.com/editors-pick/zero-point-the-story-of-mark-mccandlish-and-the-the-fluxliner-ssp/#



Does that not make a very strong case?


Anyone here that cares?  Or if the breaches to conventional physics aren't wet 
and Nuclear this group isn't interested?





John Berry

Re: [Vo]:Cap Warp - McCandlish

[David Roberson]

John, I found the documentary most interesting.  Thanks for including the link.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: John Berry 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Apr 22, 2017 6:36 am
Subject: [Vo]:Cap Warp - McCandlish



I think this group has lost all the open minded interest in the extraordinary 
side of science for the most part.


But there was something that occured on this list a long time ago,where a 
circle of HV Capacitors developed a Thrust, it was apparentltly replicated by I 
think 3 people in total.
http://amasci.com/caps/capwarp.html


I also have heard of 2 independant acconts of similar capacitors losing weight, 
more that T.T Brown's work and not in the direction of the positive only.  One 
had a glass dielectric and yet achieved full weight loss.


Anyway, there is a Documentary that makes a rather good case for a US Airforce 
sauser craft based on precisely this technology, and they aren't even aware of 
the  "Cap warp" experiments.


http://www.theeventchronicle.com/editors-pick/zero-point-the-story-of-mark-mccandlish-and-the-the-fluxliner-ssp/#



Does that not make a very strong case?


Anyone here that cares?  Or if the breaches to conventional physics aren't wet 
and Nuclear this group isn't interested?





John Berry

Re: [Vo]:DESCRIBING THE MANELAS Phenomenon

[David Roberson]

Could this process be similar to the situation where positive feedback and a 
small input can be used to control a large amount of heat?  It may be plausible 
that magnetism of a bulk object can be fine tuned so that a small external 
field addition coaxes it into a negative resistance region that is controllable.

My work on positive feedback of heat within an LENR device might yield some 
interesting parallels.  I have long thought that a square loop device such as 
core memory must behave in the manner that it does due to positive feedback 
effectively causing the net magnetization to snap into saturation once a 
threshold is exceeded.  The key question is whether or not the degree of snap 
present within these systems can be modulated to exhibit the right 
characteristic.

Could we be witnessing the careful adjustment of the positive feedback effect 
by 'conditioning the magnet' like Sweet or Manelas?  I would expect the 
behavior to be critical as the amount of positive feedback is increased to just 
the right magnitude.  This is an interesting question that begs for exploration.

If we were quite lucky then another coupling mechanism exists where thermal 
energy of the bulk material is exchanged with magnetic energy during a trip 
throughout the positive feedback region.  Sounds like too many miracles, but 
worth exploration.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Mar 1, 2017 1:43 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:DESCRIBING THE MANELAS Phenomenon



I have tried to understand the wiki article on Superparamagnetism...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superparamagnetism

It seems to me that the level of Superparamagnetism can be adjusted in such a 
way that a weak magnetic field can be applied to a ceramic magnet which is 
highly superparamagnetic to reduce that superparamagnetism and therefore the 
associated magnetic field of the magnet.

This technique is used to write and erase bits onto the surface of  a magnetic 
disk with a ceramic magnetic coating. The way this is done is to adjust the 
number of magnetic domains that are impressed into each and every  nano 
particle that make up the structure of the ceramic magnet surface through a 
specialized demagnetization process.

The way that the number of these magnetic domains are adjusted is done by 
demagnetizing the magnet using a magnetic field that includes a specific 
frequency. The magnetic domains within the nanoparticles become forever 
sensitive to that frequency.

When this weak magnetic field is applied, the magnet becomes demagnetized 
through random thermal vibration. When this alternating magnetic field  is 
removed, the magnetic field of the ceramic magnet returns.

This process is just what happens in the magnetic conditioning of the billet, 
and the subsequent application of the weak activation magnetic field.
 
This case is summarized by this snippet from the article



>From this frequency-dependent susceptibility, the time-dependence of the 
>magnetization for low-fields can be derived:






There is no time-dependence of the magnetization when the nanoparticles are 
either completely blocked () or completely superparamagnetic ().



The condition we want to get to is when T = TB, that is when the nanoparticles 
are right on the cutting edge between magnetism and diamagnetism, so that a 
tiny magnetic field can turn them off or on.

I will add more detailed explanation if it looks like to you'll that there is 
something to this adjustment in the superpara-magnification of the ceramic 
billet to be sensitive to weak frequency-dependent magnetic fields. Opinions 
are welcome.



On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Brian Ahern  wrote:


Excess energy and magnetic cooling seem to poke up every now and then. It is 
difficult for even the most dedicated technologists to connect phonons with 
magnons.


I have had some unique experience with this interaction during my tenure as a 
Staff Sientist at USAF Rome Lab in Lexington MA.  I 1988 I was tasked to 
understand the new cuprate superconductors. By shear luck I discovered that MIT 
Professor Keith Johnson had solved the problem five years earlier. In fact, his 
1983 paper presented in Zurich directed Bednors and Meuller to work on the 
cuprates. Bedorz was the leader of the conference in 1983.


He found that the superconduction arises when the Born-Oppenheimer conditions 
are not met. That is, when the valence electron motion is coupled to 
vibrational modes. The electrons are in molecular orbitals and magnetism exists 
under very specific orbital topologies.


So magnetism (Specific electron orbitals conditions) and phonons can be coupled 
under specific orbital conditions and one combination is shallow well 
ferromagnetism.  Like the superconductor coupling, specific coupling can lead 
to coherent behavior as well in  a ferromagnetic system.


More needs tobe said but there is some new 

Re: [Vo]:On this date ... in 2017?

[David Roberson]

Good luck and be careful!

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Brian Ahern 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Feb 25, 2017 10:14 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:On this date ... in 2017?



It is 1;12 aM
wE ARE LOADED, EVACUATED AND READY FOR 30PSI OF h2.
wE WILL SET THE POWER AT 400 WATTS TO BEGIN.


We hope to begin running by 11:30 AM




From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 10:10 AM
To: Vortex List
Subject: [Vo]:On this date ... in 2017?
 

On this date in 1999, the great physicist Glen Seaborg died. Seaborg was
the discoverer of ten elements, including plutonium, and more than 100 
isotopes - winning the Nobel prize in 1951. Element 106 is named after him.

And there is new action on this date which could make it a red letter 
day, so to speak... kinda like the Scarlett letter??

It would be a fitting tribute if the "Thermacore runaway experiment" 
being run today by Brian Ahern was to succeed (by self-destructing as 
planned). It would open up a new era in Physics ...

...but don't let the heat (so to speak) get to you Brian ...

Re: [Vo]:DESCRIBING THE MANELAS Phenomenon

[David Roberson]

Brian,

That is the most interesting characteristic to me as well.  It seems logical 
that if the outside surface is cooler than the ambient that heat energy must be 
entering the Billet.  Where this energy goes is the main question I would like 
to see answered.  Of course we realize that energy is also entering the Billet 
and surrounding components from the external battery via the drive pulses.

Apparently, you are an eye witness to the observation that an electric light is 
illuminated and the battery is receiving charge for an extended period of time. 
 This observation implies that energy is coming from some source while the 
device is in operation.  The obvious first guess is that heat energy is 
extracted from the ambient region and converted into electrical energy.

We should not be willing to give up on the thermodynamic laws too readily 
however.  Keeping that thought, one might believe that a magnetic form of heat 
pump is taking place, except it is not clear where the pumped heat is being 
exhausted, while there appears to be electrical energy generated.  Magnetic 
refrigeration has been around for a while and it is actually a form of heat 
pumping.  And, magnetic refrigeration obeys the thermodynamic laws.

So Brian, did you notice any portion of the Billet and surrounding materials 
becoming warmer than the ambient?  If not, you have a really interesting 
phenomena to pursue.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Brian Ahern 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Feb 22, 2017 3:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:DESCRIBING THE MANELAS Phenomenon



The magnetocaloric cooling keeps my interest high.



From: Chris Zell 
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 10:39 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:DESCRIBING THE MANELAS Phenomenon
 






I swear to God if I ever stumble into anything overunity, I’m gonna rectify the 
bejeezus out of it.  Pure DC in and pure DC out, none of this apparent power 
crap.
Magnetic amps bring up Bearden’s MEG – which I don’t think ever worked. I 
suspect its output was apparent and not real, as above.

Re: [Vo]:Penon described the position of flow meter

[David Roberson]

Jed,

Does your diagram show how the floating device in the system tank controls the 
intake water flowing into it?  Also, does it show that the customer feed tank 
is located above the system feed tank so that water flowing into the second or 
system tank literally falls into it?  There are a multitude of possible 
connections.  I am attempting to visualize exactly how this occurs.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: Vortex 
Sent: Tue, Feb 21, 2017 10:07 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Penon described the position of flow meter




Peter Gluck  wrote:

 

Question: do yu have information from Rossi or you have the piping
diagram of the plant showing clearly and exactly (as position) where
in the gravity return pipe was placed the flowmeter?



This information is from Rossi! He uploaded these statements by Penon. I have 
this, and I also have a diagram showing the same thing, with the flow meter in 
the gravity return pipe.


Are you saying you don't believe Rossi and Penon when they tell you where they 
put the flow meter?


 

Can you ke a look and tell where was placed the main pump (for 1500
kg/hour- floating in the air or firmly placed on the ground?



There were many pumps, but they could not produce this much flow.
 

 

In any case NOT measuring the flow of water which enters directly 
to the generators and using a 25 times undersized pipe for steam are fatal 
flaws and if your favorite author Murray got it right than he is the diamond 
witness for IH.



This statement is from Rossi and Penon, not Murray. THEY TOLD YOU where they 
put the flow meter. It says:


The steam is then passed through the customer’s facility, where it cools up to 
its condensation – flowmeter for measuring the flow rate of cooling water inlet 
into the shelter. 



 

 On the contrary if he errs than he is just a plant illiterate
trying to find imaginary things- doing harm fo those who have paid him.



It is not imaginary. This is a document from Rossi filed in the lawsuit.
 
 

If you have such a ardent desire to contradict my assertions, show the diagram 
and..finita la commedia! 



Why do you need a diagram when you have text from Rossi describing this? Why 
don't you believe Rossi?


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Regarding what BOB COOK THINKS ABOUT THE NAE

[David Roberson]

When a hot object radiates IR into space the temperature also drops.  Perhaps 
there is a low frequency form of magnetic coupling that can be encouraged to do 
a similar thing.  According to my observations there seems to be a method 
available to convert energy among the different forms under most conditions.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Chris Zell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 3:02 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Regarding what BOB COOK THINKS ABOUT THE NAE



If a specially shaped magnetic field can drop the temperature of an apparatus, 
shouldn’t we conclude that random motion (heat) is somehow being converted into 
directed, useful motion?  That Maxwell’s Demon has been found?

Re: [Vo]:Regarding what BOB COOK THINKS ABOUT THE NAE

[David Roberson]

Brian,

I also find it quite interesting that the outside of the device cools down as 
electrical energy is extracted via coupling to its magnetic activity.  The very 
good news that I detect is that thermal energy actually appears to be absorbed 
and then converted into electrical energy.  This is, in a manner of speaking, 
similar to when a hot body cools off by emitting heat radiation, only the 
energy transfer in this case is via a magnetic coupling path.

I have a couple of questions.  Has a complete Mandela device been placed into a 
heat chamber in order to see whether or not it can handle a large temperature 
operating extreme?  If it only works over a tiny ambient range then the 
applications are rapidly limited.  Could this be why the automobile industry is 
not interested at this point?

Second, in the picture showing a pin levitated above the rectangle of ferrite 
is it safe to assume that the pin is magnetized?  I suspect that your 
indication that the center of the Billet has a south pole suggests this state.

Also, have you calculated the amount of heat energy being absorbed into the 
Billet during operation and found it to match the amount extracted as 
electrical energy?  Does 5C below ambient appearing upon the surface of the 
Billed result in 60 watts of heat flowomg into it?  I would consider this to be 
a key characteristic and strong evidence that the effect is real.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Brian Ahern 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Feb 13, 2017 6:28 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Regarding what BOB COOK THINKS ABOUT THE NAE



The Billet is 1" x 4" x 6" and has four North poles at the corner and a South 
pole in the center. The most important physics is the 5C cooling when the deice 
was otputting 60 watts into the 300 pound battery pack. I do not understand how 
this MAGNETOCLORIC event happens.



From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2017 8:20 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Regarding what BOB COOK THINKS ABOUT THE NAE
 

More...


The Mandela bullot is flat and square with a large surface area. This flat 
topology with a large surface area might permit a maximum of magnetic dipoles 
to form on the surface of the Mandela bullot. I would like to know what type of 
gas filled the black box...is it protium or deuterium or air?




On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:


The Manelas Device functional diagram









On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:


It might be that the pulsed current of the 137 kilohertz square wave input 
current produces a magnetic dipole with a large instantaneous power factor 
because the current is produced by a square wave like the Brillouin method. The 
24 volt constant current also produces heat and the strontium ferrite magnet is 
heat resistant. The maximum operating temperature of the magnet is 250C and the 
Curie temperature is 450C, With that high temperature operating capacity, 
coherent magnetically based Surface plasmon polaritons may form under the 
influence of the magnetic dipole motion that localize around the magnetic field 
lines as heat photons become entangled with electrons dipoles.

If these magnetic polaritons become coherent, these polaritons may produce 
enough magnetic power to destabilize the nuclei of the gas above the surface of 
the magnet inside the Mandela's Device black box.  




On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Brian Ahern  wrote:


The Manelas billet is strontium ferrite and is very high electrical 
resistivity. This eliminates eddy currents as a loss mechanism



From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2017 6:18 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:Regarding what BOB COOK THINKS ABOUT THE NAE
 

Regarding what BOB COOK THINKS ABOUT THE NAE


"Note my recent comment regarding the Manelas Device reflecting your notice 
about the discovery of time crystals. There may be a connection with the 
magnetic materials used in the device.

Separately, I would note that the design of NAE’s may require a structure which 
allows high magnetic fields (10^12 –10^16 Tesla.) Structures that are 1 or 2 
dimensional may be the key, with the 1-D NAE supporting LENR+, because it 
causes the reaction in a confined space and maintains the 1-D characteristic 
for repeated reactions upon arrival of reactants—H or D or Li or whatever."

There is a branch of physics called "QCD in strong magnetic fields" that has 
conducted workshops on what a strong magnetic fields can do to a nucleus.

http://homepages.uni-regensburg.de/~eng14891/qcdB_workshop/program.shtml




QCD in strong magnetic fields - uni-regensburg.de
homepages.uni-regensburg.de
Monday 12 November; 09:00 - 09:40: Berndt Müller: When QCD meets QED: 09:40 - 
10:20: Vladimir Skokov: Magnetic field in HIC and anisotropy of photon 
production





and also by another name "Workshop on Magnetic Fields in Hadron 

Re: [Vo]:Defining the active particle of an LENR runaway

[David Roberson]

Bob,
The velocity of sound within metals is quite high at 4900 meters per second in 
a thin rod of nickel.  Travel time to pass, for instance 10 nanometers, would 
be approximately 2 picoseconds.  That would suggest that the period of a half 
resonator structure could be around 4 picoseconds which is 250 gigahertz.  This 
frequency would be in the very far infrared region.  Mechanical resonances can 
occur at harmonics of the fundamental, so I suppose the far infrared frequency 
range would be supported.

Of course mechanical resonances typically have large 'Q' values, easily several 
hundred.  So, the peak stored energy in a cycle can be very high relative to 
the drive energy due to potential LENR activity if it can be captured within 
the resonator.  Would there be sufficient energy translating back and forth 
through the active material to cause additional LENR actions to occur, I don't 
know.  But, at least a mechanism of this sort would not generate radiation of 
dangerous electromagnetic form unless some coupling into the infrared 
electromagnetic zone becomes dangerous.

If the application of a 'Q pulse' does in fact lead to measurable LENR response 
as has been reported, then a mechanism that relies upon phonic resonances 
should remain upon the table.  A process of this type would be expected to be 
highly critical due to the sharp characteristics of mechanical resonances.  
Also, I have personally worked with systems that rely upon mechanical coupling 
to magnetic fields such that energy can be transferred between them.  A great 
example of the application of this coupling means can be found at the exit 
gates located at many grocery and drug stores.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: bobcook39923 <bobcook39...@gmail.com>
To: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>; vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 10, 2017 1:11 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Defining the active particle of an LENR runaway



Dave—
 
I think the reaction time for the mechanism you suggest if too long to explain 
the results  of the “run-away” phenomena.  It seems to me that an entire 
coherent system must change in a very short instant with the appearance of 
phonic energy (high orbital valence electron spin)  evenly spread through 
the entire coherent  system.
 
I would like to believe that angular momentum of the system is conserved.  It 
may be that a strong magnetic is the coupling force that assures that the 
angular momentum is conserved in the production of appropriate EM radiation 
carrying angular momentum away from the remaining coherent system before 
disintegration occurs.
 
Bob Cook
 
 

From: David Roberson
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 6:01 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defining the active particle of an LENR runaway

 
Brian,

The Manelas device is an interesting subject that I would like to explore 
further.  Do you know whether or not the project is actively being pursued at 
this time?  Of course I am skeptical of any free lunches, but open to 
possibilities.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, Feb 9, 2017 6:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defining the active particle of an LENR runaway


David, I like your admission that we are brainstorming.  I had several mentors 
in the last 20 years. One of them was Henry Kolm, Wayland MA. He was a 
co-founder of the National Magnet Lab at MIT. He is deceased, but in 2009 he 
believed that at one time he was as knowledgerog

ross

noable on magnetism as any person in the world.

 

He confided to me in 2010 that Magnetism was largely not understood. There was 
so very much unknown. He was in awe of the subject.

 

I had the good fortune to learn about the source of ferromagnetism in materials 
and how they are related to specific electron orbital topologies. This is not 
known or discussed anywhere.

 

I have found that these topologies are affected by phonons as well as photons.  
That is why I am fascinated by LENR. The Manelas energy output with 
ferromagnetic ferrite cores is also fascinating and not understood by anyone 
yet.

 


From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 6:12 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defining the active particle of an LENR runaway 

 


Bob,

When you mention the attenuation coefficient for waves I think it should be 
pointed out that the original energy of the phonon is preserved.  By this I 
mean that the sonic energy is converted into some other form such as heat which 
I think of as just uncoordinated sound waves that are randomly distributed.  I 
also assume that the original sonic waveform translating throughout the 
material undergoes reflections at the edges, etc. until it becomes 
unrecognizable as anything other than overall random heating.

It seems logical that an individual sonic disturbance originating at some point 
withi

Re: [Vo]:Defining the active particle of an LENR runaway

[David Roberson]

Brian,

The Manelas device is an interesting subject that I would like to explore 
further.  Do you know whether or not the project is actively being pursued at 
this time?  Of course I am skeptical of any free lunches, but open to 
possibilities.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, Feb 9, 2017 6:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defining the active particle of an LENR runaway



David, I like your admission that we are brainstorming.  I had several mentors 
in the last 20 years. One of them was Henry Kolm, Wayland MA. He was a 
co-founder of the National Magnet Lab at MIT. He is deceased, but in 2009 he 
believed that at one time he was as knowledgerog
ross
noable on magnetism as any person in the world.


He confided to me in 2010 that Magnetism was largely not understood. There was 
so very much unknown. He was in awe of the subject.


I had the good fortune to learn about the source of ferromagnetism in materials 
and how they are related to specific electron orbital topologies. This is not 
known or discussed anywhere.


I have found that these topologies are affected by phonons as well as photons.  
That is why I am fascinated by LENR. The Manelas energy output with 
ferromagnetic ferrite cores is also fascinating and not understood by anyone 
yet.



From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 6:12 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defining the active particle of an LENR runaway
 

Bob,

When you mention the attenuation coefficient for waves I think it should be 
pointed out that the original energy of the phonon is preserved.  By this I 
mean that the sonic energy is converted into some other form such as heat which 
I think of as just uncoordinated sound waves that are randomly distributed.  I 
also assume that the original sonic waveform translating throughout the 
material undergoes reflections at the edges, etc. until it becomes 
unrecognizable as anything other than overall random heating.

It seems logical that an individual sonic disturbance originating at some point 
within the NAE would propagate into three dimensions and its initial energy 
would spread out into an ever wider wave until reflections hide its identity.  
Of course some might argue that each phonon contains a fixed amount to energy 
that propagates away from its point of origin like a particle. If the particle 
model is used I believe that the attenuation coefficient would not fit. 
Otherwise a fractional phonon would exist instead of a fixed energy particle.

If we consider a coherent pulse of phonons propagating as a coordinated group 
along one axis like a plane wave then some interesting characteristics 
originate.  Perhaps the instantaneous peak pressure causes new LENR reactions 
to occur which then generate additional coherent phonons that add to the 
original traveling wave.  Think of how a laser pulse builds up in magnitude as 
it travels through the lasing material.

After enough LENR reactions add together we might have enough sonic energy to 
crater the edge of the reactive metal matrix.  I am thinking of how a shaped 
charge can penetrate a thick metal shield causing it to splinter on the far 
side.

If behavior of the type I am suggesting actually happens then the bulk of the 
material as well as its physical shape and internal structure would be 
important considerations.  The bulk is important because the sonic wave gains 
energy as it passes through, similar to lasing.  The physical structure comes 
into play as the waves undergo multiple reflections at the edges.  This is 
related to the gross mechanical resonances of the material.  The internal 
structure such as dislocations would likely cause the traveling waveform to 
disperse to some degree leading to disruption of the pressure wave.

There is some support for a sonic related LENR effect as seen in one reportedly 
successful device that uses a large magnetic shock generated by a carefully 
shaped waveform.  Please realize that what I am discussing is more of a brain 
storming exercise intended to generate additional thoughts and comments from 
other vortex-l contributors.

Dave







-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, Feb 9, 2017 3:37 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defining the active particle of an LENR runaway



The problem with the phonon is that its wavelength is extremely short.  The 
attenuation coefficient for waves, in general, is typically quoted in 
dB/wavelength; and nature abhors a too small value for such a number.  Hence 
you only have to propagate a limited number of wavelengths and the energy in 
the wave dissipates.  Also, the greatest amount of energy is deposited closest 
to where the wave originated.  If phonons were being generated as the LENR 
energy output, the energy would dissipate close to where t

Re: [Vo]:Defining the active particle of an LENR runaway

[David Roberson]

Bob,

When you mention the attenuation coefficient for waves I think it should be 
pointed out that the original energy of the phonon is preserved.  By this I 
mean that the sonic energy is converted into some other form such as heat which 
I think of as just uncoordinated sound waves that are randomly distributed.  I 
also assume that the original sonic waveform translating throughout the 
material undergoes reflections at the edges, etc. until it becomes 
unrecognizable as anything other than overall random heating.

It seems logical that an individual sonic disturbance originating at some point 
within the NAE would propagate into three dimensions and its initial energy 
would spread out into an ever wider wave until reflections hide its identity.  
Of course some might argue that each phonon contains a fixed amount to energy 
that propagates away from its point of origin like a particle. If the particle 
model is used I believe that the attenuation coefficient would not fit. 
Otherwise a fractional phonon would exist instead of a fixed energy particle.

If we consider a coherent pulse of phonons propagating as a coordinated group 
along one axis like a plane wave then some interesting characteristics 
originate.  Perhaps the instantaneous peak pressure causes new LENR reactions 
to occur which then generate additional coherent phonons that add to the 
original traveling wave.  Think of how a laser pulse builds up in magnitude as 
it travels through the lasing material.

After enough LENR reactions add together we might have enough sonic energy to 
crater the edge of the reactive metal matrix.  I am thinking of how a shaped 
charge can penetrate a thick metal shield causing it to splinter on the far 
side.

If behavior of the type I am suggesting actually happens then the bulk of the 
material as well as its physical shape and internal structure would be 
important considerations.  The bulk is important because the sonic wave gains 
energy as it passes through, similar to lasing.  The physical structure comes 
into play as the waves undergo multiple reflections at the edges.  This is 
related to the gross mechanical resonances of the material.  The internal 
structure such as dislocations would likely cause the traveling waveform to 
disperse to some degree leading to disruption of the pressure wave.

There is some support for a sonic related LENR effect as seen in one reportedly 
successful device that uses a large magnetic shock generated by a carefully 
shaped waveform.  Please realize that what I am discussing is more of a brain 
storming exercise intended to generate additional thoughts and comments from 
other vortex-l contributors.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Feb 9, 2017 3:37 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defining the active particle of an LENR runaway



The problem with the phonon is that its wavelength is extremely short.  The 
attenuation coefficient for waves, in general, is typically quoted in 
dB/wavelength; and nature abhors a too small value for such a number.  Hence 
you only have to propagate a limited number of wavelengths and the energy in 
the wave dissipates.  Also, the greatest amount of energy is deposited closest 
to where the wave originated.  If phonons were being generated as the LENR 
energy output, the energy would dissipate close to where the phonons were being 
created.  If the NAE was of limited size, how could the phonons provide any 
significant heat to the whole reactor without the NAE being so hot it would 
long before evaporate?  Peter Hagelstein's answer to this is that there is no 
NAE - the reaction is completely distributed to start with.  Because the 
hypothetical LENR phonons would be generated in a distributed fashion, the heat 
becomes distributed.  Thus, if you are presuming the heat carrier is phonon, 
then you are simultaneously rejecting the notion of the pointillistic NAEs.


Sometimes the tiny volcano eruption is seen in the surface of a LENR producing 
host metal, where it appears that evaporation has occurred.  Yet, the heat 
energy contribution from one such micro-eruption is small, and for the LENR 
energies being observed, the surface would have to be truly covered with these 
features afterwards - they would appear to be an obvious smoking gun (a pun).  
With the rarity of these observed micro-eruptions, one would have to believe 
that if LENR occurs in small point-like NAEs, the heat produced must be 
deferred to regions somewhat remote from the source.  The micro-eruptions tend 
to support the idea of a small NAE, but the fact that the surface doesn't 
become completely covered with micro-eruptions suggests a heat carrier capable 
of delivering the heat to the greater apparatus.




On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

In nuclear fission, the active particle which propagates the reaction is of 
course the 

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy press release

[David Roberson]

Any time you employ a short pulse based ignition source you are going to have a 
tough time proving the input power is accurately measured.  As you guys 
discuss, this might be the source of serious errors and must be carefully 
discounted.  If the pulse rate is sufficiently fast they might be able to 
filter the DC input lines leading to the pulse drive system to the point that 
the fluctuations are tiny enough to neglect.  After proper filtering, the input 
supply current would be essentially constant while the DC supply voltage also 
remains constant.  This would allow a very accurate accounting of the supply 
input power contribution.

I hope that this report holds up under careful skeptical analysis.

 

 Dave

 

-Original Message-
From: Jack Cole 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Jan 7, 2017 8:22 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy press release



Yes, they would be wise to assume the results are false, and make every effort 
to disprove the results.  Start with the thought process of, "Assuming this is 
an artifact, what can explain it?"  The input power being mis-measured is one 
possibility that has not been discussed in sufficient detail to know if they 
have ruled this out.  Since Godes is an EE, it might be presumed (falsely), 
that the electrical power measurement is bullet-proof.




On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:22 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

  Jed Rothwell wrote:

> I think Brian wants them to measure power going into the power
> supplies. That sounds like a good idea to me. Probably a lot is lost
> between the power supply input and the reactor core, but you could
> still compare a null run to an excess heat run. You could confirm that
> the apparent excess is not coming through the power supply that
> produces the fancy waveform.

Yes. That is the heart of the problem.

If you need a complex waveform to show gain and it entails losses to
produce that waveform, then that those losses are  part of the input
requirement and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

Thus a gain of say 150% is reduced to almost no gain... if the waveform
is lossy... and the result is what Brillouin does not want to admit:
almost no net gain.

Re: [Vo]:The dark side of dense hydrogen

[David Roberson]

I have a question about a recent experiment that you might be able to shed 
light upon.  It was reported that gravity waves originating from a pair of 
black holes joining together were measured with a certain expected wavelength.  
If gravity traveled much faster than light, how could this experiment have 
worked as anticipated?  Also, it seems that the estimated distance to the 
source would be greatly in error.  What would you have expected to have 
occurred?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Russ George 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Jan 6, 2017 1:12 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:The dark side of dense hydrogen



Gravity waves are indeed the means for SETI communication as they travel at e8 
times the speed of light as Tom van Flandern showed the speed was at least 
2xe10 c or more! While the usual suspects heaped dogmatic howls on Tom, his 
friend and mine J P Vigier was a staunch supporter of his conclusion as am I. 
Alas both Tom and Jean Pierre are passed but their ideas and wisdom have not.
 
From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 8:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The dark side of dense hydrogen
 


On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Bob Higgins  wrote:

 


There is a more far fetched possibility - that of communications via 
gravitational waves.  There have been a number of papers talking about the 
conversion of EM waves into gravitational waves in certain types of 
superconductors.  If that ever proves to be possible, it would open a whole new 
spectrum - one that could harbor SETI communications.


 

Because gravity appears to have infinite range, assuming there are gravitons, 
they are expected to be massless.  This means they will travel at the speed of 
light.  From this PhysicsForums post [1], I infer that for masses under human 
control which would serve as the source of the gravitons, they will have very 
large wavelengths.  Is there a way to send lots of information over a signal 
with a very low frequency?

 

Gravitons aside, if the alien signal is spread across a spectrum, as you 
mention, I suppose it might be very difficult to detect.  If the transmitted 
signal further involves intentionally taking the background noise and making 
small adjustments to it, you would probably have to be looking for this kind of 
pattern specifically to determine that there was a signal at all.

 

Eric

 

 

[1] 
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/graviton-energy-and-frequency-wavelength.242145/#post-1780881

 

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[David Roberson]

The conversion that you speak of is not as simple as it seems.  If linear 
momentum is all that you have in the beginning then any generated angular 
momentum will always have an opposite brother that exactly negates the total 
when vector summed.  Of course this is only true for a closed system.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Vibrator ! 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Dec 29, 2016 2:31 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft




LOL simply converting angular to linear momentums is trivial - think of a 
piston and crank, ball billiards or whatever..


What you're on about is varying net system momentum - ie. an N3 violation, 
linear or angular.  Sure, if the motor's off then CoM / CoAM applies, and 
momentum's constant.  I'm not sure anyone's suggested otherwise.. 

But a tethered EM drive is not producing counter-torque, so net angular 
momentum would not be constant...


...and if it were switched off mid-flight, and whatever it was tethered to 
suddenly released to move freely, the whole rotating system would fly off in a 
straight line, the two masses orbiting eachother as they fly thru space 
forever, their center of mass following a straight line.



Which is not to suggest that reactionless torque can necessarilly be converted 
to reactionless linear force - although i've seen at least one suggestion that 
a pair of opposing-signed 'angons' nailed to the same base would generate a net 
linear force, forming a 'linon' - an intruiging thought nonetheless LOL..



The suggestion that linear can be converted to angular was yours, remember...  
you were saying that an EM drive tethered this way demonstrates a further 
conservation violation.


I'm simply pointing out that inertia doesn't care what the direction of 
acceleration is, it's purely a function of how much mass has been accelerated / 
through how much space & time.  Linear inertia is invariant due to mass 
constancy, while angular MoI is a variable function of mass times radius.  But 
either way, the energy disunity is between the savings made on inputting 
momentum from within the accelerating frame, versus its usual KE value as 
measured from the external static frame, where N3 still applies - it's an 
excess of output work by the Higgs field, in relation to a deficit of input 
work on the part of our accelerating net system momentum.


My point's simply that there's no logical paradox or supernatural invocations 
etc. - the resolutions are already implicit within the terms of the 
proposition.   Any symmetry break implies an open thermodynamic system, and the 
source or sink is whatever's responsible for the passive force/time variation.  
This applies to all of them - overunity or underunity - all we're talking about 
is work performed by forces, or else its absence.


The argument that a claimed non-classical thruster can't work because it would 
violate classical laws just seems kinda redundant.   


  




On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:



On 12/29/2016 12:46 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:

What's wrong with the centripetal tether example?


With the engine turned off (no thrust) putting the tether in place doesn't 
change the angular momentum at all.  The cross product of the linear momentum 
of the object with its radius vector remains unchanged.  Since it's exerting no 
torque on the pivot, that must be true, classically.

Meanwhile, the linear momentum of the tethered object is changing constantly, 
as its velocity vector rotates.  But it's also exerting a force on the pivot 
point, as a result of which the linear momentum of whatever the pivot is 
anchored to is also changing constantly, in such a way that the sum of the two 
remains constant.  (Energy, not so much, as it goes as the square of the 
velocity and hence has zero derivative WRT velocity at zero velocity.)

There's no interconversion between linear and angular momentum.   As I already 
said, they're conserved separately.

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[David Roberson]

Linear momentum and angular momentum are orthagonal to each other within a 
closed system.  Each is conserved separately and one can not convert into the 
other.  I have seen where linear momentum can be induced to generate two or 
more angular momentum components, but the vector sum of the system angular 
momentum remains zero.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Vibrator ! 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Dec 29, 2016 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft



What's wrong with the centripetal tether example?


Are you supposing that there's a fundamentally different interaction 
manifesting inertia in angular vs linear accelerations?  "Angons" vs "linons" 
or something? 



On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:



On 12/29/2016 12:31 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:

Offering the implied presence of classical symmetry breaks as evidence of their 
impossibility - ie. "it can't be right because it'd break the laws of physics" 
- is surely redundant; the claim is explicitly a classical symmetry break, 
that's its whole prospective value, and reason for our interest.

It is of course trivial that linear momentum can be converted to angular 
momentum,


Do tell.

Got an example of that?

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[David Roberson]

I share your reservations Stephen.  Of course, if the Chinese actually state 
that they have a working device I wanted to know the details.  Strange things 
do happen on occasion.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 28, 2016 1:43 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft


Just to point something out -- the EM drive obviouslydoesn't need to be 
outside the craft to work, since it doesn't ejectmass.

Furthermore (and consequently), it violates conservation ofmomentum, 
conservation of angular momentum, conservation of energy,and conservation 
of mass.  While data trumps theory, this doesn'tseem like the most likely 
explanation of the effect to me.

Gedanken:  Put an EM drive in a box.  Attach it to a wire.  Attachthe 
other end of the wire to a pivot (like one of those old gaspowered toy 
planes people used to have before the days of radiocontrol).  Let the box 
with the EM drive go.  It will accelerate ina circle, around the pivot 
point.

Power consumption inside the box is presumably constant.  Power
generated varies in proportion to the speed of the box (power =force * 
velocity).  So, at some point it'll be generating more powerthan it's 
consuming.  And there's the violation of CoE.  (With a bitof cleverness you 
can turn it into a Type I perpetual motionmachine.)

Meanwhile it's going lickety split around the pivot, with increasing
angular momentum; with no mass ejection there's no compensatingdecrease 
anywhere else.  There's the violation of conservation ofangular momentum.

And as its velocity increases, its mass increases as gamma*m. There's 
the violation of conservation of mass.

And violation of linear momentum is obvious.

On the other hand if it doesn't work, then all that's being violatedis 
the assumption that the handful of extremely delicate highprecision 
experiments that have been done to show the effect werenot somehow botched.

I'm not holding my breath on this one.


On 12/28/2016 02:02 AM, David Roberson  wrote:


Russ,
  
  Can you verify that the Chinese actually have a functioning EM
  drive on their space station.  Also, how much thrust are they  
claiming?  Finally, is that device or group of devices capable  of 
maintaining all of the orientation required for the  station?
  
  Dave

 


 


 


-Original  Message-
  From: Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
  To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
  Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:45 pm
  Subject: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft
  
  

  

  

Acurious facet of the EM drive, such as the one 
   now operating on the Chinese space station is
that it need not be on the outside of the
spacecraft, it’s thrust is independent of theposition 
and surrounding matter. This enablesall manner of 
interesting spacecraft geometries.
  

  

  

  

  

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[David Roberson]

Russ,

Can you verify that the Chinese actually have a functioning EM drive on their 
space station.  Also, how much thrust are they claiming?  Finally, is that 
device or group of devices capable of maintaining all of the orientation 
required for the station?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Russ George 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:45 pm
Subject: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft




A curious facet of the EM drive, such as the one now operating on the Chinese 
space station is that it need not be on the outside of the spacecraft, it’s 
thrust is independent of the position and surrounding matter. This enables all 
manner of interesting spacecraft geometries.

Re: [Vo]:Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity inside a spherical shell.

[David Roberson]

I was thinking more of a thought experiment than an actual lab test. As you are 
pointing out, to realize an actual valid experiment would be very difficult. 
But, scientists have actually performed experiments that one might think 
impossible due to noise, temperature, etc. such as detecting gravitational 
waves.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Dec 10, 2016 8:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity inside a spherical 
shell.

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Sat, 10 Dec 2016 01:54:41 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>I agree that a phase shift would occur due to normal path length differences. 
>What I am wondering about is whether or not that basic shift would have an 
>additional component that depends upon the magnitude of the gravitational mass 
>contained within the sphere's shell assuming that the path lengths do not vary.
>
>For example, have a very small mass sphere and use the phase detector to 
>obtain a reference. Then, greatly increase the mass as you maintain the same 
>inner volume and hence total reflection path.  Compare the phase difference in 
>case 2 versus case1 when using the unaffected external photon.
>
>Dave

...now that might be an interesting experiment. You could use two concentric
spheres, and fill the space between with water. Unfortunately, I suspect that
temperature variations would have a larger effect than that which you are trying
to measure, since temperature variations would change the size of the sphere(s),
and hence the path length.
Try doing the math, and see if you can get a figure for the minimum temperature
variation that would be needed to drown out your signal. That should give you an
idea of how hard the experiment would be to do.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity inside a spherical shell.

[David Roberson]

I agree that a phase shift would occur due to normal path length differences. 
What I am wondering about is whether or not that basic shift would have an 
additional component that depends upon the magnitude of the gravitational mass 
contained within the sphere's shell assuming that the path lengths do not vary.

For example, have a very small mass sphere and use the phase detector to obtain 
a reference. Then, greatly increase the mass as you maintain the same inner 
volume and hence total reflection path.  Compare the phase difference in case 2 
versus case1 when using the unaffected external photon.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Dec 9, 2016 5:21 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity inside a spherical 
shell.

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 9 Dec 2016 17:10:45 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Interesting question. Since the frequency of a photon increases as it gains 
>energy on the way into the hollow gravitational sphere one might expect time 
>to speed up for it.  If it is allowed to pass through another hole on the 
>other side the time rate would return to the original value once it reaches 
>the same distance away from the sphere in that direction.
>
>This appears to be a paradox of some type. It is common to speak of time 
>slowing down, but a bit strange to think of it as speeding up under some 
>conditions. Wonder where I went wrong with this arguement?
>
>Perhaps the photon could bounce around inside the hollow reflective sphere for 
>a long time before exiting an offset hole. Since its frequency is higher while 
>trapped inside it appears that many more cycles of oscillation would take 
>place for this photon than for a brother photon reflecting between two mirrors 
>outside the sphere for the same elapsed time.  Would a phase detector 
>comparing the two show anything?
>
>Dave

Since the lengths of the respective paths would be different, there should be a
phase difference, even if no time shift had taken place.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity inside a spherical shell.

[David Roberson]

Interesting question. Since the frequency of a photon increases as it gains 
energy on the way into the hollow gravitational sphere one might expect time to 
speed up for it.  If it is allowed to pass through another hole on the other 
side the time rate would return to the original value once it reaches the same 
distance away from the sphere in that direction.

This appears to be a paradox of some type. It is common to speak of time 
slowing down, but a bit strange to think of it as speeding up under some 
conditions. Wonder where I went wrong with this arguement?

Perhaps the photon could bounce around inside the hollow reflective sphere for 
a long time before exiting an offset hole. Since its frequency is higher while 
trapped inside it appears that many more cycles of oscillation would take place 
for this photon than for a brother photon reflecting between two mirrors 
outside the sphere for the same elapsed time.  Would a phase detector comparing 
the two show anything?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H LV 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Dec 9, 2016 1:42 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity inside a spherical 
shell.







On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

  
Well known result -- gravitational time dilation has to do with the
gravitational potential, not the strength of the field.





 

Simple gedanken:  Drop a rock through a slender shaft into aspherical 
hollow cut out of the center of a spherical planet.  Therock has more 
kinetic energy when it gets to the center of theplanet.

Turn the rock (along with its kinetic energy) into photons, and beam
them back up the shaft.  At the top of the shaft, catch the beam andturn it 
back into a rock.

The rock must have the same mass at the end as it had to start with(or 
something's very wrong), which is smaller than the mass it hadat the bottom 
of the shaft (due its additional kinetic energy whichshows up as a mass 
excess).  This can only be true if the beam oflight was redder at the top 
of the shaft than the bottom. So, there must have been a gravitational 
red-shift as the lightclimbed the shaft.

So, the frequency of the light at the top of the shaft mustbe lower 
than the frequency at the bottom of the shaft.

But the total number of wave crests in the beam of lightcan't change.  
(You can count them, using appropriate equipment; inthat sense they behave 
like marbles.)  A certain number of wavecrests in the beam entered the 
shaft at the bottom; the same numberof wave crests must have come out the 
top.

So, if the frequency measured by an observer at the top ofthe shaft is 
lower than the frequency measured at the bottomof the shaft, the wave 
crests must have taken more time to exit thetop of the shaft than they took 
to enter the bottom of the shaft,and so, time must be passing faster for 
the observer at the top  of the shaft.
  


On 12/07/2016 12:53 AM, H LV wrote:


  

According to the shell theorem  the  gravitational force on a test mass 
inside a hollow sphere is  every where zero. This paper argues that 
this situation is not  equivalent from the standpoint of General 
Relativity to the  situation where gravity falls to zero far outside 
the sphere.  They conclude that General Relativity predicts that a 
clock  located inside a hollow sphere should run slower than a clock
  located outside the hollow sphere. (By contrast most people  are 
familiar with the fact that General relativity predicts a  clock should 
run faster as the force of gravity approaches  zero far from a 
gravitational body) This could provide a  laboratory test of Newtonian 
gravity which predicts that both  clocks should run at the same rate. 
  
  
  https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.4428.pdf








Harry
  


  

Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Possible generation of heat from nuclear fusion in Earth’s inner core

[David Roberson]

It is refreshing to see this crowd finally beginning to see the light. This 
recent conversion experience does not however relieve them of their previous 
guilt.  I understand why you harbor your feelings towards them, but at least 
now LENR might begin to get the attention that it deserves.

Thanks Russ for your continuing efforts in this area and one day I hope and 
expect to see them pay off.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Russ George 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Dec 3, 2016 11:58 am
Subject: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Possible generation of heat from nuclear fusion 
in Earth’s inner core



What a delight to see this new paper. So the Journal Nature has now come around 
from its flagrant condemnation and ridicule of all things cold fusion to 
publishing about it being the source of heat in the inner Earth (and other 
planets of course). I can testify that I engaged in a discussion of this very 
mechanism with Martin Fleischmann at the very first meeting on cold fusion 
while he and Giuliani Preparata and I shared a bottle of wine to cool our 
tempers if not our passion. Here’s a link to my blog post about my late 
friends, 
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2015/09/04/guilliano-martin-john-now-richard/
 . The dastardly pundits at Nature deserve a special place in hell for their 
avaricious dogmatic approach to discovery of the mysteries of Nature. I am 
quite sure Maddox is occupying a well-deserved spit there now. The great 
tragedy of science is that most of the community behave like gentlemen but of 
course being the real substance of the stew of knowledge they are not what 
floats to the top, what floats is the scum and there is no greater repository 
of the scum and shysters of Science than the editors and publishers and owners 
of the Journal Nature. 
 
Within the microcosm of the ecology of atoms the Earthly core conditions 
described in this paper are not at all uncommon. That is why cold fusion is and 
always has and will be a principal part of behavior of hydrogen in nature.
 
From: H LV [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2016 8:21 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Possible generation of heat from nuclear fusion in 
Earth’s inner core
 


Q: why don't lighter elements find there way to the centre of the Earth if 
gravity is lowest at the centre?

 

Harry​



New study indicates Earth's inner core was formed 1 - 1.5 billion years ago
October 7, 2015
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-earth-core-billion-years.html

 

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 10:47 AM, H LV  wrote:


Possible generation of heat from nuclear fusion in Earth’s inner core

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep37740

<>

 

Harry


 

Re: [Vo]:Article: Diamonds turn nuclear waste into nuclear batteries

[David Roberson]

OK, so it behaves more like a photoelectric cell. I was under the impression 
that it was supposed to be highly efficient in converting the beta energy into 
electricity. If it is very inefficient then a lot of heat is going to have to 
be exhausted. That is a significant disadvantage when compared to a battery if 
I recall correctly.

I suppose that the fact that the energy is virtually free and long lasting is 
its main thrust. This makes me wonder what could be done with concentrated 
highly radioactive waste being allowed to just generate useful heat. The heat 
concentration would be far, far lower than that produced by a reactor, but 
perhaps some new applications could be found. 

Of course the best solution is for all of the hazardous nuclear reactors to be 
replaced by LENR devices. And, hide that nasty waste forever in someone else's 
back yard!

I hate to say it, but it really looks like highly radioactive nuclear reactors 
need to go away along with all of the waste that is accumulating. It is not 
clear that a really good use for the spent fuel is going to justify its cost, 
etc. especially when LENR comes into wide usage.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Nov 29, 2016 3:17 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Article: Diamonds turn nuclear waste into nuclear batteries



Actually, the output voltage is the voltage of the semiconductor junction.  The 
beta particle stimulates multiple hole-electron pairs across this junction.  
This type of beta voltaic battery is extremely inefficient in converting the 
energy in the beta particles into output electrical energy.



On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 12:13 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

Much depends upon the terminal voltage that you must convert into a useful 
value. My suspicion is that the open circuited voltage is very high, making it 
difficult to use in simple applications.
Dave

 

 
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Nov 29, 2016 10:37 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Article: Diamonds turn nuclear waste into nuclear batteries




<mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:



The maximum power output of such a battery would be about 4 mW / gm of C14.
(That's milli-watt, not Megawatt, which means you would be looking at a very low
acceleration rate.



A hearing aid battery produces less than 1 mW. A pacemaker produces about 10 
mW. So ~4 mW power levels would be useful. You could use 3 g of diamonds in a 
pacemaker.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Article: Diamonds turn nuclear waste into nuclear batteries

[David Roberson]

Much depends upon the terminal voltage that you must convert into a useful 
value. My suspicion is that the open circuited voltage is very high, making it 
difficult to use in simple applications.
Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Nov 29, 2016 10:37 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Article: Diamonds turn nuclear waste into nuclear batteries




 wrote:



The maximum power output of such a battery would be about 4 mW / gm of C14.
(That's milli-watt, not Megawatt, which means you would be looking at a very low
acceleration rate.



A hearing aid battery produces less than 1 mW. A pacemaker produces about 10 
mW. So ~4 mW power levels would be useful. You could use 3 g of diamonds in a 
pacemaker.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Article: Diamonds turn nuclear waste into nuclear batteries

[David Roberson]

If Brown were able to get large currents at a modest voltage, he would be onto 
a very valuable produce. Of course, if it costs a fortune to manufacture that 
would not be true.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Chris Zell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Nov 28, 2016 3:09 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Article: Diamonds turn nuclear waste into nuclear batteries



And what was the story on Paul Brown?  He claimed huge currents, not just 
microamps from his devices.
 
Do we call him a fraud and move on? Or was he onto something big?
 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 2:44 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Article: Diamonds turn nuclear waste into nuclear batteries

 

This is really just the natural progression of betavoltaics, incorporating 
"nano".

 

The niche has been around for many years as it is almost obvious... remember 
Paul Brown and before?... Several of those betavoltaic proponents used to post 
here (Brown passed away in 2001). The tech was always just out of reach in 
terms of cost and energy density.

 

Nano-diamond changes everything. Its low work function means high efficiency 
and cold cathodes. The problem will always be cost but mass production of the 
material for micro-electronics could change that. Intel needs a new 
breakthrough.

 

Where are you Intel? We need you.

 



On Monday, November 28, 2016 11:17 AM, Jed Rothwell  
wrote:

 


That's fantastic. If it works, it will be as good as cold fusion for small 
scale devices such as hearing aids. I wonder if it can be powerful enough for a 
cell phone?

- Jed

 



 

Re: [Vo]:Article: Diamonds turn nuclear waste into nuclear batteries

[David Roberson]

I did not see a reference to the open circuit voltage or short circuit current 
obtained during these tests. Has anyone found a reference? Also, where are the 
electrical terminals?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jack Cole 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Nov 28, 2016 11:11 am
Subject: [Vo]:Article: Diamonds turn nuclear waste into nuclear batteries



Diamonds turn nuclear waste into nuclear batteries
http://flip.it/dKKukF

Re: [Vo]:Article: Is dark energy a real thing?

[David Roberson]

Does this mean that a few Nobel prizes were awarded a bit premature?  Are they 
ever recalled once proven in error?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Oct 26, 2016 12:21 am
Subject: [Vo]:Article: Is dark energy a real thing?



The following article describes a study calling into question one experiment 
upon which the notion of dark energy is based:


http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/1023/Is-dark-energy-a-real-thing-Maybe-not-new-study-suggests



Also of interest, two articles discussing a study that says that the rotation 
of spiral galaxies does not seem to require dark matter (not sure whether these 
have been mentioned before):



http://phys.org/news/2016-09-spiral-irregular-galaxies-current-dark.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160921085052.htm



Eric

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

I am referring to the famous HotCat test where the three scientists wrote a 
nice long report.  I believe it was the last demonstration before the year long 
test.  Perhaps someone can find the exact reference, but it has been a while 
now.  Jed, give me a hand here.

It was well publicized and included a several day period during which the 
output was set to a fixed power.  During the test the input power being 
supplied to the device was slowly dropping as presumably more excess power was 
being generated.  A temperature sensor was attached to one end of the device 
which fed back that information into his control box.  Does this ring any bells?

I suppose we can search further if you really doubt that the test took place.   
I feel a bit lazy at the moment.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2016 5:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation





On 08/26/2016 05:40 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


I recall Rossi discussing power control on numerous  occasions.  Why would 
he hire control experts if that were not the  reason?


I don't know why he does anything.  I was asking for a specific
assertion.  AFAIK he never made such an assertion.



  Do you think that anyone would have taken him seriously for any  
significant period of time had he not discussed that issue?


People who looked seriously at his output power curves stoppedtaking 
him seriously years ago.  So, this objection is not relevant.


  It seems a bit unfair for anyone to state that Rossi runs his  
systems open loop especially when you should recall the HotCat  test 
performed by respected scientists.  They took notes which  clearly showed 
the input power being throttled back in time as the  output power was 
maintained at a constant level.  This is the  obvious finger print of 
negative feedback.


No, I recall no such thing.  In fact Rossi did indeed supposedly runhis 
demos open loop four or five years ago.  He set the input powerto a fixed 
value and then showed the output power ramping up to avalue several times 
the input.

And this appears to be the same, exact system, just replicated many
times.  So, the assumption that there's feedback in it now seems
unsupported, just like the assertion that there's a recirc pumpwhich is 
pulling the pressure below 1 atm at the other end of thesteam pipe.

And no, I don't recall any clear report by independent parties thatthe 
input power was definitely throttled back while the output powerremained 
fixed.  Please give a specific example -- I really recallno such thing.

There were a handful of more or less independent tests; presumablyyou 
have one in mind.  Which?



  
  Dave

 


 


 


-Original  Message-
  From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
  To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
  Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2016 4:17 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation
  
  
  
  On 08/23/2016 12:27 AM, David Roberson wrote:
  > Rossi is using a feedback system to control the heating  of 
his modules
  
  Is this known to be a fact? Has Rossi actually described in  
some 
  reasonably clear way, rather than just giving a handwave to a 
 leading 
  question about feedback?
  
  Where does this information come from? What was the feedback  
parameter 
  (i.e., what temperature probes were used) and what, exactly,  
did it 
  control, and how?
  
  I know a lot of people have assumed this, but I have never  
seen it 
  stated as a fact, and I have never seen it claimed by Rossi.
  

  

  

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

Jed,

I worry that you are placing too much emphasis upon that rust stain.  It would 
be wise to speak with an expert from the company that makes the device to 
determine if they agree.  Also, you should be able to get additional 
information about that stain from the witness.  He should be able to tell you 
where the flow meter was located relative to pumps, tanks, and etc.  Was it in 
the lowest point in the return system for instance?

Are you holding back information from us due to it being proprietary?  Why 
should I.H. not reveal everything they know about the system design?  The 
reason I ask is that we should be capable of figuring out whether or not the 
flow meter was starved of coolant water by that relatively minor bit of 
information.  Rust stain is one clue, but surely the other information would 
support that conclusion if it is valid.

I agree that the stain appears to be strong evidence if proven true.  But, the 
actual layout of the system should add additional support.  Who benefits by 
hiding this data from us?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2016 5:28 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation




a.ashfield  wrote:


  
I was expecting you couldn't because it's secret.
A little bird is about as solid as the rest of the speculations.




You have a peculiar definition of the word "speculation." If I said, "I suppose 
Rossi did not send the flow meter back for calibration," that would be 
speculation. What I said was a positive assertion, not speculation. You seem to 
think you can recast sentences and their meanings without regard to syntax.


If you do not believe me, you should say so, rather than putting words in my 
mouth.


 

Why no piping drawing, that is key to most of it?  Easier to argue
without the facts?



No, the rust is the key. A drawing might be wrong, but physical evidence is 
proof. But how do you know these are not facts? For that matter, how do you 
know I have not seen a piping drawing? As I have pointed out before, you have 
(another!) peculiar notion which is that information you personally have not 
seen does not exist.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

You wont get an arguement from me suggesting that I.H. should pay without 
knowing the truth.   The truth is what I seek; did the Rossi system deliver 1 
MW for the year or did it not?  We owe it to Rossi and I.H. to determine the 
actual truth of the matter.

I realize that many on the list have drawn a final, absolute conclusion already 
while operating upon many of the possible facts.   But I do not know what is 
true or not, or who is telling the truth or not.  For example, how do we know 
for a certainty that someone actually climbed up on the roof and attempted to 
capture the outward heat flow rate?  At that time, why did they not look down 
through the fan cover to see what type of equipment was visible?  Did they say 
the vent was opaque?  Would you not take a sneak look?

Perhaps we need to water board both parties and get to the truth?  Or, it might 
be easier to wait until all the facts are on the table.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2016 5:17 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation




On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:01 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:


I am not sure that I understand the point Eric.  Why would any reasonable 
person not want to know the real truth and not accept a possible fabrication by 
the judicial system?  Even though we are subject to the court orders that does 
not prove that they are honest and accurate.




My point is that if you were the trustee of a lot of other people's money, and 
someone did the equivalent of saying, "trust me, what just happened was a 
1-year 1MW test that just completed successfully," and you were not able to 
verify that proposition yourself to your own satisfaction, hopefully you would 
not give them any money. You would say, "wait a minute, that doesn't make 
sense. You want me to give you all that money without really believing or 
having a basis for believing that what you're saying is true. Sorry, no dice."


This is all apart from any legal questions.  It's a matter of what financially 
responsible behavior would look like on the part of IH.  I'm arguing they 
shouldn't give 89 million dollars to someone unless they really believe that 
money is owed.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

I recall Rossi discussing power control on numerous occasions.  Why would he 
hire control experts if that were not the reason?

Do you think that anyone would have taken him seriously for any significant 
period of time had he not discussed that issue?  Of course he has never given 
us a wiring diagram to review and it would have been a major surprise otherwise.

It seems a bit unfair for anyone to state that Rossi runs his systems open loop 
especially when you should recall the HotCat test performed by respected 
scientists.  They took notes which clearly showed the input power being 
throttled back in time as the output power was maintained at a constant level.  
This is the obvious finger print of negative feedback.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2016 4:17 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation



On 08/23/2016 12:27 AM, David Roberson wrote:
>  Rossi is using a feedback system to control the heating of his modules

Is this known to be a fact?  Has Rossi actually described in some 
reasonably clear way, rather than just giving a handwave to a leading 
question about feedback?

Where does this information come from?  What was the feedback parameter 
(i.e., what temperature probes were used) and what, exactly, did it 
control, and how?

I know a lot of people have assumed this, but I have never seen it 
stated as a fact, and I have never seen it claimed by Rossi.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

I am trying to figure out how Rossi could have faked it just as you mention.   
We should be able to achieve that goal by using scientific logic, at least that 
is my assumption.

Perhaps the fact that I leave open the possibility that he may be telling the 
truth is where we differ.  I am much closer to believing that he performed some 
type of magic trick than that his system is delivering 1 MW  but, until all the 
evidence is presented I refrain from passing final judgement.

It is obvious that you and Jed are totally convinced of malice, but I would 
hope that you and the others of that persuasion understand folks like me that 
want an ironclad case.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2016 3:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation


David, you are doing the equivalent of using a physics model topredict 
whether airplanes should have knocked down the WTC.

Back in the day, a lot of people slammed FEMA for not doing exactly
that, and for, instead, using a parametrized model to figure out howthe WTC 
collapsed.

In the case of 9/11 they used the parametrized approach because itwas 
already screamingly in-your-face obvious that airplanes hit thebuildings 
and then they fell down and they were trying to figure outhow, not whether, 
they collapsed.

The same goes here.  From the lack of gigantic heat sinks stickingout 
of the roof of the "customer site", we know beyond a reasonabledoubt that 
there was no 1 MW of heat.  So a detailedanalysis of the data should be 
directed toward determining howthe heat was faked, not whether the heat was 
faked.

Your approach is to analyse the details in an attempt at determining
whether the heat was faked.  But we already know that.

It's like you've watched a magician make a woman turn into a tiger,and 
you're trying to analyze everything you saw him do while he wason stage in 
an effort to determine whether she really turned  into a tiger.  Seriously, 
that's not going to lead to anythingof much value.  Trying to figure out 
how he faked it wouldbe a lot more useful.




On 08/26/2016 03:24 PM, Stephen A.  Lawrence wrote:



  
  
On 08/26/2016 02:04 PM, DavidRoberson wrote:
  
  
I have been pursuing my model as to how Rossi mightbe able to show 
gauge readings that imply that 1 MW of steam isbeing delivered while 
not being an accurate assessment of thereal power.

I assumed that the information published by Engineer48 in
E-CATWORLD.com is accurate.
  
  Why?
  
  The readings which were recorded are extremely  implausible, to the 
point of being impossible.  So why would you  assume they're correct?
  
  It's a very reasonable guess is that the readings, as recorded,  were 
entirely bogus -- the actual values were not what was written  down.  And 
once you've admitted that detail, the rest of it falls  immediately -- a 
tiny inaccuracy in recording the pressure, plus  another inaccuracy in 
recording the flow rate, and you're done.
  
  Who are the hoard of witnesses that attested that the data as  
recorded was exactly as the gauges read?
  
  
  
 
At this point all I can say is that we need more data before we
can prove that Rossi is not being truthfully.  
  
  Bosh.  Go back to the discussion of where the 1 megawatt ofheat 
was dumped.  There was no megawatt of heat  dumped on the "customer site".  
Rossi claimed there was.  What  more proof do you need?  The rest is just 
details.  The details  may be interesting, but they follow the proof in 
this  case, they don't provide the proof.
  
  


  

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

I am not sure that I understand the point Eric.  Why would any reasonable 
person not want to know the real truth and not accept a possible fabrication by 
the judicial system?  Even though we are subject to the court orders that does 
not prove that they are honest and accurate.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2016 3:44 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation




On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:07 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:


The court will decide what it believes to be true.  I personally want to know 
what the real truth is and not what lawyers are able to convince the judge or 
jury of.  If Rossi is actually delivering the 1 MW then he should prevail in an 
ideal world.




Suppose I have a frobnicator that I claim can flibbertygibbet.  I'm willing to 
sell it to you not for 1000 dollars, or 100,000 dollars, but 100,000,000 
dollars.  You agree and give me a handsome initial sum, which covers my showing 
you how to work the thing and any future improvements.  Now I hold it behind my 
back, and have one of my friends stand behind me, and I operate the device 
where you can't see it.  The friend says the frobnicator did indeed 
flibbertygibbet.  It's now time for you to pay up.  Suppose for the sake of 
argument that the thing did in fact flibbertygibbet.  If you're being 
realistic, would you hand over the money, given that you've had good reason in 
other contexts to think that the thing doesn't work as advertised?  I sincerely 
hope not.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

The court will decide what it believes to be true.  I personally want to know 
what the real truth is and not what lawyers are able to convince the judge or 
jury of.  If Rossi is actually delivering the 1 MW then he should prevail in an 
ideal world.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2016 1:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation




a.ashfield  wrote:


  
The court will decide who is right, not you.



Technically the jury will decide. Rossi asked for a trial by jury. But if the 
jury disagrees with Santostasi, the jurors will be mistaken.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

I have been pursuing my model as to how Rossi might be able to show gauge 
readings that imply that 1 MW of steam is being delivered while not being an 
accurate assessment of the real power.

I assumed that the information published by Engineer48 in E-CATWORLD.com is 
accurate.  Here he reads the pump front panel values for 24 total devices which 
indicate green condition.  The green suggests that the devices are operating 
exactly as programmed and delivering .115 kg/second of coolant to the ECAT 
series.

In my model I assume that the interior of each of the individual ECATs is 
heated to 130 C by the heating mechanism.  This liquid water then exits each 
ECAT through a restrictive opening that allows a portion of the liquid to flash 
into vapor after exiting.  I chose this scheme because there does not appear to 
be any form of active water level control for each device.  This also allows 
some form of active feedback to regulate the temperature since liquid is the 
only phase contained within the heating region.

Under those conditions, the power being delivered is approximately 30.1 kW if 
the temperature of the returned coolant is 68 C.  The temperature of the 
flashed liquid vapor combination is approximately at 102 C according to 
reports, but this actual temperature can vary depending upon the actual 
pressure present at its measurement point.  Also, a pump can be placed after 
the condenser system which allows the pressure at Rossi's device to be at or 
even below atmospheric pressure if desired.  This appears to hang up some 
vorts, but it should not be claimed that the pressure must be above atmospheric 
when that is not necessary.

Then I decided to see if Bernoulli's principle could be applied to this 
situation in a manner that might help explain why gauges might show confusing, 
conflicting readings.  This seems to be possible provided the pipe inside 
diameter used to carry the steam away from Rossi's system is 2 cm or less.  If 
that pipe is 4 cm, then Bernoulli can not offer much help in this particular 
scenario.  For example, I calculated that a temperature difference of 1.75 C 
would exist between the stationary steam mixture and the steam moving through 
that 2 cm diameter pipe at a velocity of 34.9 m/s.  The temperature estimate is 
based upon the pressure drop using Bernoulli's equation.

This series of calculations are interesting but not definitive.  For instance, 
where is the pressure gauge located relative to the temperature gauge?  If they 
are co located then the Bernoulli effect would not be significant.  Even though 
1.75 C degrees is a significant amount of temperature increase, it still would 
not be enough to fill the entire gap between the litigating parties.  And, of 
course how large is the inner diameter of the actual connecting pipe?  My bet 
is that they use at least a 4 cm diameter product which would drop the 
calculated value very significantly.

At this point all I can say is that we need more data before we can prove that 
Rossi is not being truthfully.  It is not easy to come up with a scientific 
explanation as to how people could be observing the demonstration, while 
reading the important metering and not throwing up their hands in great protest 
if a scam is being conducted.  There is plenty of reason to suspect fraud, but 
to prove how it is taking place is not easy.

Every magic trick that I have seen has a clear scientific explanation as to how 
it is conducted.

Dave

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

You could have a pressure reading of below atmospheric at the output of Rossi's 
system if you were to place a pump in the return line carrying the hot liquid 
back to his device.  Some claim that this is the actual configuration.  I am 
assuming that that is true for my calculations since otherwise what you state 
must be correct and the output would have to reside at a pressure higher than 0 
bar.

I do not think that Rossi would be that careless in reporting his results.  Of 
course it is extremely unlikely that the pressure would be exactly 0.0 bar.  
That must be a case of his rounding of the numbers to emphasize the dryness of 
the steam.  When this case goes to trial his actual numbers might still suggest 
dry steam without a Bernoulli trick or two.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 8:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation





On 08/24/2016 08:14 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


  
Just consider what you would believe if shown that  the steam 
readings 102.8 C, and 0 bar were accurate?


But, as pointed out in one of the exhibits, that can't beaccurate.  The 
volume of steam was quite large; consequently, theflow rate in the steam 
pipe must have been very fast, andto drive that flow requires a pressure 
differential.  Unless thepressure on the "customer site" was below 
atmospheric, the pressureat the point where the steam entered the line 
musthave beenabove atmospheric pressure.  So, the 0 bar number must be 
wrong.

How far wrong it must be, I can't say (I'm totally out of my fieldwhen 
it comes to friction in a pipe carrying steam) but it doesn'ttake a huge 
overpressure to raise the boiling point by a coupledegrees.  Throughout 
I've been tacitly assuming that the pressure isslightly over atmospheric, 
matter what was claimed.  As I saidearlier, this has been the issue since 
the beginning, four or fiveyears ago:  The steam temperature is always kept 
low enough so that,with very slightly elevated pressure in the line, the 
claim thatit's "totally dry" may be false.

Of course, if the pressure reading is wrong (as it apparently musthave 
been, else the system would not have worked at all, as thesteam would not 
flow without a differential), then there must be anexplanation for the 
error.  Your Bernoulli effect idea sounds good.



 


 


 


-Original  Message-
  From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
  To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
  Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 7:45 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation
  
  

 I'm having trouble understanding  the problem you're having seeing 
how he could fake it.
  
  The power calculations depend on the steam being dry, and 
 there's no evidence it was.
  
  They also depend on the flow meter reading accurately, and
  there's no evidence that it did.
  
  If the flow was lower than claimed, and the steam was wet,
  the power could have been just about anything.  No matter  
how many people looked at how many gauges, the conclusion  is going 
to be the same.  Run some numbers assuming wet  steam -- it doesn't 
have to be very wet to be carrying  most of the mass as liquid 
rather than gas, since the  liquid phase is so compact, and that 
makes an enormous  difference to the output power.
  
  What more do you need?
  
  BTW note that there was no flow meter in the steam
line.  That would have been diagnostic (had it been  chosen to work 
correctly with either steam or water, of  course).
  
  
On 08/24/2016 06:45 PM, DavidRoberson wrote:
  
  
You have put together agood arguement.  His refusal to 
allow access to thecustomer site being one that bothers me 
the most. Why not go to that little effort in order to 
receive$89 million?  I can not understand that type of  
  logic.

Another issue that keeps me awake is the fact that  
  so many people were viewing the gauges during the
period and not finding a problem.  That is what I am
attempting to understand and to find an explanationas to 
how this can happen right under their noses

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

It is not simple to figure out how to explain the temperature reading 102.8 C 
while the pressure shows atmospheric and at the same time find the steam wet.  
That is the only way to explain how the observers were faked out so readily. 

I suspect that there is a way to make this happen and I have been revealing the 
trick within my postings.  Please realize that when anyone claims that the data 
is just flat out faked that they might find that this thought is incorrect.  
Rossi states that the ERV had the instruments calibrated before and after the 
demonstration.  It is not too far of a stretch for him to actually present data 
to the court which actually shows the above conditions being met.

Most experts would come to the conclusion that the steam must be dry in that 
case.  My concept is to find a way for these instruments to be reading the 
correct numbers while the steam is actually very wet.  If my understand of 
Bernoulli's principle is correct then it might well be possible to read 102.8 C 
at a convenient location on the system piping while reading pressure that is 
approximately 0 bar at the output port.

All Rossi would need to do is to convince the ERV that his temperature probe 
location was reasonable when it is not located at exactly the same point as the 
pressure gauge.  That will get them to accept 275 kWatts of power.  The other 
missing link might well be due to the fluid flow meter being starved of water 
by a second problem.  This flow issue has less support at the moment.

Just consider what you would believe if shown that the steam readings 102.8 C, 
and 0 bar were accurate?  How could you conclude the steam was wet under that 
condition?   That is a trap I do not want to fall into.

Dave


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 7:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation


I'm having trouble understanding the problem you're having seeinghow he 
could fake it.

The power calculations depend on the steam being dry, and there's no
evidence it was.

They also depend on the flow meter reading accurately, and there'sno 
evidence that it did.

If the flow was lower than claimed, and the steam was wet, the power
could have been just about anything.  No matter how many peoplelooked at 
how many gauges, the conclusion is going to be the same. Run some numbers 
assuming wet steam -- it doesn't have to be verywet to be carrying most of 
the mass as liquid rather than gas, sincethe liquid phase is so compact, 
and that makes an enormousdifference to the output power.

What more do you need?

BTW note that there was no flow meter in the steam line. That would 
have been diagnostic (had it been chosen to workcorrectly with either steam 
or water, of course).


On 08/24/2016 06:45 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


You have put together a good arguement.  His refusal to allow  access 
to the customer site being one that bothers me the  most.  Why not go 
to that little effort in order to receive  $89 million?  I can not 
understand that type of logic.
  
  Another issue that keeps me awake is the fact that so many  
people were viewing the gauges during the period and not  finding a 
problem.  That is what I am attempting to understand  and to find an 
explanation as to how this can happen right  under their noses.
  
  I think I am close to finding a way.  Maybe I can pull off a  
similar scam and get $100 million!!   Naw, that is not  something that 
I would ever consider seriously.
  
  Dave

 


 


 


-Original  Message-
  From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
  To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
  Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 6:18 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation
  
  

  

  
David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>wrote:
  
 
  
  


If half the reactors aretaken out the power would 
definitely fall inhalf without the external loop.  
Even withit, there is only a certain amount of  
  correction that is possible which would be
seen with all of the individual devices
running at full drive input power.  It isnot likely 
that there is enough reserve to  

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

You have put together a good arguement.  His refusal to allow access to the 
customer site being one that bothers me the most.  Why not go to that little 
effort in order to receive $89 million?  I can not understand that type of 
logic.

Another issue that keeps me awake is the fact that so many people were viewing 
the gauges during the period and not finding a problem.  That is what I am 
attempting to understand and to find an explanation as to how this can happen 
right under their noses.

I think I am close to finding a way.  Maybe I can pull off a similar scam and 
get $100 million!!   Naw, that is not something that I would ever consider 
seriously.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 6:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation




David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
 


If half the reactors are taken out the power would definitely fall in half 
without the external loop.  Even with it, there is only a certain amount of 
correction that is possible which would be seen with all of the individual 
devices running at full drive input power.  It is not likely that there is 
enough reserve to fill in that large of a gap.




Ah, but Rossi claims the gap is filled. He claims that on some days, half the 
reactors produced more power than all of them did on other days. See Exhibit 5. 
I agree this seems impossible. I suppose you are saying we should ignore that 
part of his data. We should assume he was lying about that, but the rest might 
be true.


I think it is more likely the entire data set is fiction. As I said, there is 
not much point to you or I spending a lot of time trying to make sense of 
fiction. It is like trying to parse the logic in a Harry Potter book.


Many other aspects of the data, the warehouse ventilation, the customer, 
Rossi's refusal to let anyone into the customer site, and so on, all seem 
fictional to me. The totality of the evidence strongly indicates that none of 
it is true.



- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

I have gone to reasonable lengths in earlier posts to explain why having drive 
power available could actually be a positive factor in a thermal feedback 
design.  It is not obvious by any means, but one can achieve relatively high 
gains of output to input power when output power is partially fed back to the 
input.  I will spare you the explanation at this time, but you really do need 
some form of input power control in order to prevent thermal runaway.

And yes, I have gone to lengths discussing how active coolant control could 
achieve about the same and some additionally useful goals.  You will not get an 
arguement from me about how valuable that technique can be.

I understand your frustration with Rossi and what he states.  If he is found to 
be lying to us and have no significant excess power I for one will be quite 
pissed!

My current plan is to attempt to come up with a scientifically valid scenario 
that explains how this particular demonstration could be faked while under the 
observation of several experts.  This type of trick should require the meters 
to read in a manner that does not draw excessive attention.   I believe I am 
close to finding a way to do it. 

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 4:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation





On 08/24/2016 03:31 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


Actually that is not a problem when you use feedback.   The feedback will 
even compensate for natural variation in heat  generation quite well.  If 
some internal heat is being generated  by Rossi's device that varies with 
time, the feedback can be  designed to keep the net thermal output constant.
  
  I do not understand why you guys are concerned about the use of  
feedback.  A well designed system is generally more stable than an  
uncontrolled one.


For the last five years Rossi has been doing similar demos, and hehas 
never, ever mentioned the use of feedback to control the powerin order to 
match the water flow rate.

He also never, ever explained exactly how the heater power issupposed 
to control the reaction.

He also never, ever explained how it can be "dangerous" to run anecat 
with the heater shut off.  He just said it was, and that thatis why he must 
always have an electric heater going inside thethings when they're running. 
  The only way it could be "dangerous"to operate them without a heater is 
if cranking up the heat would  somehow shut down the reaction -- otherwise, 
just exactly whatdo you do if it starts to run away?  Turning off the 
heater isn'tgoing to help at that point -- among other things, the thermal  
  energy produced by the reaction is supposedly far, far larger thanthe 
electrical energy of the heater!  The electric heater just makesit hot, 
which the reaction itself is already doing; to kill thereaction you need a 
way to make it cold.  Turning up thecooling water flow rate would make a 
whole lot more sense as a wayto SCRAM the reaction, if it's ever needed -- 
but that, of course,wouldn't provide an excuse to keep the electric heater 
goingthroughout the entire test.

"Feedback" is something his supporters have frequently assumed,in order 
to explain the unexplainable.  Rossi doesn't even hand-waveit away, AFAIK.  
He just ignores the fact that he's claimingsomething ridiculous when he 
produces "dry steam" at the boilingpoint with a fixed input flow rate and 
no feedback mechanism.

This year-long test was apparently roughly the same as his earliest
tests, which were done entirely without any automatic feedbackmechanism, 
and a fixed (manually set) power level applied to theheaters.  (Except that 
he was caught apparently cranking up thepower to the electric heater at one 
point during one test, but thatwas something he denied, not something he 
said was necessary tomatch flow rate to output power.)

And that is why I, at least, am concerned about "feedback".



And BTW who the heck wants 1 atmosphere of steam at boiling? 
Superheating it at least a few tens of degrees would make it a wholelot 
more useful for just about any application you care to name.  Itseems like 
he must have gone to an awful lot of trouble to tune thepower level of the 
system to match the water flow rate in order toguarantee the steam is "low 
grade", which seems entirely pointless... except that it makes it possible 
to pass off hot water as steam.




  
  For example, if the AC line voltage varies, the feedback can  
compensate for it.  Do not let the use of negative fee

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

 J.R. Why wouldn't this cause significant variation in output from day to day? 
Are you saying one reactor always gets hotter when another cools, so overall 
they balance?

If you attempt to enclose the complete structure of 24? devices with a single 
feedback loop then it will be pretty difficult to handle.  That is not the way 
I would approach this problem.

I would construct a system around each of the reactors separately.  In the 
scenario I am outlining I would have a temperature sensor that measures the 
temperature within a single reactor shell.  This measurement would then be 
compared to a fixed and predetermined level.  For instance 130 C.  Since the 
water flow rate is assumed constant into the device, its internal temperature 
will reach the comparison temperature and then the feedback loop will reduce 
the drive in a linear or other manner.  When properly designed, the system will 
settle at the desired temperature at which point the power fed into the heating 
mechanism will exactly balance the power being lost as the hot water leaves the 
enclosure into the piping.  When the liquid water exits the enclosure it 
partially flashes into vapor, but mostly remains water.

If this technique is applied to all of the devices(24?) then the total sum of 
them all is a constant power being delivered to the customer.   Now, if the 
customer needs the overall power to be controlled and constant an exterior loop 
could be applied.  A temperature or pressure sensor would be required to feed 
information back to the controller where it is compared to a desired power 
setting.  The error should be properly filtered and used to input the changing 
requirement to all of the 24? units in parallel.  Delays would be very 
difficult to handle in this case, but I suspect it can be achieved with proper 
design.

I also suspect that the data seen thus far is not accurate.  Attempting to 
answer your other questions is going to be difficult without taking that issue 
into account.  I will give it my best.

If half the reactors are taken out the power would definitely fall in half 
without the external loop.  Even with it, there is only a certain amount of 
correction that is possible which would be seen with all of the individual 
devices running at full drive input power.  It is not likely that there is 
enough reserve to fill in that large of a gap.

I agree with all of your numbered points except it is unclear that there is no 
feedback of any type.  For this exercise I am assuming that hot water is the 
actual phase that exits each ECAT.  A small fraction of that water will flash 
into vapor provided the internal temperature is significantly above the stream 
supplied to the customer.  My calculations are that the volume of vapor to hot 
water is about 87 to one when the internal ECAT temperature is around 130 C.  
Can this amount of vapor hide that much water?  I really do not know the answer 
to that question.

Dave 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 3:47 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation




David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:


Actually that is not a problem when you use feedback.  The feedback will even 
compensate for natural variation in heat generation quite well.


Why wouldn't this cause significant variation in output from day to day? Are 
you saying one reactor always gets hotter when another cools, so overall they 
balance?


Especially, why wouldn't this cause the power to fall by half when half the 
reactors are turned off? It does not, according to Rossi. The power remains 
almost the same. It is actually higher on some days, as Murray pointed out.


Actually, I assume that is because the data is fake. Penon just stuffed some 
numbers into the table. But if we take it seriously, that seems to indicate:


1. There is no control mechanism.


2. There is a peculiar mechanism that allows reactors to double their output 
when half the reactors are turned off.


3. It is hot water under pressure, not steam. Then again, even hot water should 
be cooler when half the power is off.


Honestly, I do not think this data is real, and it is probably not worth 
spending a lot of time analyzing.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

Actually that is not a problem when you use feedback.  The feedback will even 
compensate for natural variation in heat generation quite well.  If some 
internal heat is being generated by Rossi's device that varies with time, the 
feedback can be designed to keep the net thermal output constant.

I do not understand why you guys are concerned about the use of feedback.  A 
well designed system is generally more stable than an uncontrolled one.

For example, if the AC line voltage varies, the feedback can compensate for it. 
 Do not let the use of negative feedback concern you.  That is a non issue.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 3:16 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation




David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

 

It appears that Rossi could have regulated the output power by sensing the un 
boiled water temperature within each ECAT component and adjusting the 
individual heating drive elements.



As Stephen Lawrence pointed out, the output power is stable and unvarying. That 
seems to rule out adjusting the heating drive elements.


The power is not perfectly stable.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

 Your first point supports the idea that the control would need to exist within 
each of the sources at an elevated temperature.  I assume 130 C.  Water leaving 
all of the units at such a controlled temperature would deliver a constant 
power if the water flow rate were constant.  This is not to say a power 
delivery rate is 1 MW is required.

I don't understand what you refer to as no feedback control by terms.  It would 
not be required by my scenario, but why not allowed?

I also assume that the liquid level within each unit is not actively regulated. 
 The coolant just needs to have a sufficient flow rate to fill up the ECATs at 
a modest pressure.

It appears that Rossi could have regulated the output power by sensing the un 
boiled water temperature within each ECAT component and adjusting the 
individual heating drive elements.  This is not required in my scenario but not 
disallowed.

My scenario is that the steam supplied to the customer is very wet indeed.  If 
dry, then much more power would be delivered to the customer than many believe.

Your last statement is pretty much what I have been attempting to simulate in 
support of the idea that 1 MW is not being supplied.  You should read over my 
previous posts and I suspect you will find much in common with my thoughts.

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 1:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation


And BTW if the beast put out a continuous 1 MW, then it was  impossible 
to control the power level via feedback from the output  temperature.  Any 
such feedback control would have caused thepower output to vary down from 
the nominal 1 MW.

So, there was no feedback control of the power level, bydefinition 
of the terms of the test.

  And there was no feedback control of the flow rate, bytestimony 
of Rossi's figures, which show constant flow rate.
  
In short, there was no possible active matching of power  level to flow 
rate.
  
The fact that the power produced was exactly sufficient toexactly 
vaporize 100% of the input water was, therefore,coincidence.  (Either that, 
or the steam was not dry.)

Am I missing something?  When stated this way, this sounds like a
no-brainer, even without reference to any of the details of thesetup.  If 
this thing was supposed to produce dry steam, and itsoutput temp was always 
within a few degrees of boiling, then it hadto be a fake.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

 I think we are basically on the same page in this discussion.  The main 
difference is that I suspect that the amount of heat being generated within 
each Rossi device is not sufficient to boil all of the water that is entering 
into it.  Under that assumption I can not determine how it would be possible 
for the water to remain below total fill after days or months of operation.  
That liquid water would not pour out in liquid form if heated to for example to 
130 C by the internal heating mechanism provided a pressure restriction device 
is in place.  This type of device was quite in evidence during a couple of 
Rossi's last demonstrations.

No matter what form the water leaves the package in, it takes heat energy away 
from the reactor somewhat proportional to the exiting temperature.  In other 
words, he can increase the rate of water flowing through his devices which will 
lead to a lower temperature appearing inside assuming constant heat addition.  
Likewise, if that liquid in not boiling, a thermal control loop can easily 
maintain a desired set point.  If allowed to boil, the temperature is much more 
difficult to control accurately.

To operate a control loop one needs to have a temperature that resides above 
the system output temperature by at least a small amount.  If this is not done 
then the internal heater would never need to be engaged if sufficient 
temperature is available backwards through that outer port which arises from 
some of the other devices.  We saw evidence that Rossi's earlier ECATs 
contained temperatures of up to 135 C which would certainly be sufficient to 
control.  And, of course the device would need to contain the pressure 
associated with that temperature.

Now, my present hypothesis is that the liquid residing within each reactor 
component is not boiling at all, or at least to a significant degree.  The 
vapor only appears in the output as a result of the flashing of the hot liquid 
water into wet steam at that output pipe.  This scenario appears to be entirely 
possible as long as the water temperature is controlled at for example 130 C.

I showed calculations in an earlier series of posts that the vapor under that 
condition would have a volume of almost 100 times the associated liquid.  That 
ratio tends to suggest that the water would be carried along for the ride 
toward the customer device.  Is this what is happening?  I do not know but it 
has a ring of truth to it if the customer is not getting the 1 MW as reported.

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 1:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation





On 08/24/2016 12:29 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


Stephen you are assuming a design that is far  different than Rossi's 
previous devices.  For most of the recent  demonstrations Rossi had his 
thermal generation components  contained within a large thinned mass.  The 
incoming water  essentially fell into a big boxy outer structure and came 
into  contact with the inner section at a multitude of locations where  
it extracted heat through the fins.


But the shape really doesn't matter.  It's just thermodynamics.  Aslong 
as it's a flow-through boiler the same conclusions must apply-- the water 
comes in , flows along , turns to steam at , flowsalong  as steam, and exits the reactor.  
Whetherit's a big box, a tea-kettle shaped vessel, or a collection of pipes 
   or a thin, wide sheet, there still must be a continuous flow fromthe 
input to the output.

And there will be a line of demarcation between water and steam,with, 
one may expect, higher temperatures on the steam side.

If (flow_rate * heat-of-vaporization  +  flow_rate *
heat-to-raise-to-boiling) is not exactly matched to thepower generated, 
either the effluent will be water (or water mixedwith steam), or it will be 
superheated steam, but in either case, aslong as the power level and flow 
rate are constant, the outputtemperature would be expected to be fixed, and 
the "boiler" willcontain at least some liquid water.


  
  You misunderstood my point about immediate boiling. 


Sorry!  I see that now, I think.


 I just wanted to express the thought that only a  small volume of water 
would remain in liquid form within the  unit.  Since it is assumed that 
more heat is generated than needed  to boil all of the water entering, it 
becomes apparent that the  temperature of the ECAT must rise and not remain 
at the boiling  point.  This increase in temperature can be detected and 
therefore  a thermal loop can control it.


Yes.  But no such loop has ever been described.  From the beginning
there has been talk of how that could be done  but it didn't

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

Stephen you are assuming a design that is far different than Rossi's previous 
devices.  For most of the recent demonstrations Rossi had his thermal 
generation components contained within a large thinned mass.  The incoming 
water essentially fell into a big boxy outer structure and came into contact 
with the inner section at a multitude of locations where it extracted heat 
through the fins.

You misunderstood my point about immediate boiling.  I just wanted to express 
the thought that only a small volume of water would remain in liquid form 
within the unit.  Since it is assumed that more heat is generated than needed 
to boil all of the water entering, it becomes apparent that the temperature of 
the ECAT must rise and not remain at the boiling point.  This increase in 
temperature can be detected and therefore a thermal loop can control it.

Also, the vapor can be super heated by the additional hot surface on its way to 
the outside port.  And, indeed this is exactly the scenario that could be used 
to generate dry steam if properly employed.

So, in my attempt to understand how the gauges might be reading in error I must 
assume that the liquid is not being boiled off within each of the 24 or ? 
devices, but instead leaves in the liquid form which flashes into a liquid, 
vapor combination.  If the complete filling of the ECAT portions by water does 
not take place then Jed's position is undermined pretty much as you are 
describing.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 11:58 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation





On 08/24/2016 11:19 AM, David Roberson  wrote:


That is not entirely true because it requires a  perfect balance of heat 
generation and water input flow.  For  example, if 1% extra liquid water is 
continually added to the ECAT  heating chamber it will  eventually overflow 
and begin to flow out  of the port as a combination of vapor and liquid 
water leading to  wet steam.  This would take place at a constant 
temperature which  would make thermal control difficult.
  
  On the other hand, if 1% less liquid water flows into the chamber  
then eventually all of the coolant will become vaporized  immediately upon 
entry.

No, it will not vaporize "immediately upon entry".  Assuming thedesign 
is anything like what I believe earlier ecats were set upwith, you've got a 
reactor chamber and a water jacket, not unlikethe arrangement on an 
internal combustion engine.  (Or it could beset up as an old fashioned 
steam locomotive boiler, with multiplepipes running through the reactor 
chamber, but it's the sameidea either way -- the water flows through a 
heated aqueductof some sort, from one end to the other, growing hotter as 
ittravels; it does not just sit in a "chamber" until it boilsaway.)

It will flow in as water, be heated to boiling as it traverses thewater 
jacket (or pipe, if you prefer), vaporize at some point (andsome particular 
location in the duct work) so that itinitially becomes a mixture of steam 
and water droplets, and thencontinue to be heated, as steam, as it 
traverses the remainder ofthe jacket.  The parts of the chamber being 
cooled by steam may behotter than the parts where there's liquid water in 
the jacket butsince the reactor chamber itself is above boiling anyway, the 
   difference may not be all that significant.

In fact, this is exactly the scenario which  must be taking place if 
the effluent is dry steam, asclaimed.  After the water hits boiling, in 
order to betotally dry, the steam must be superheated to some extent as it  
  continues to traverse the heated conduit.

There's a fixed amount of power coming from the reactor chamber, sothe 
effluent temperature should also be fixed -- it won't just risearbitrarily. 
  It just shouldn't be exactly at boiling,which implies an exact match 
between power provided and powerconsumed by vaporizing the water, despite 
the lack of either activepower level control or flow rate control.


  It  might be possible to adjust the power generation downwards under  
this condition since the chamber would likely begin to rise in  temperature 
without adequate coolant.  Here, the temperature  feedback would be asked 
to take over control of the process.
  
  Earlier you made a big point that feedback level control was  obvious 
due to having so many fine, controllable, accurate pumps  in the system.  
Do you now believe that level control is not being  used in the system?  I 
am not totally convinced that feedback  water level control is not part of 
the main plan once everything  settles down in production.  That control 
te

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

AA, even an ERV can be mistaken which everyone needs to realize.  If Rossi is 
indeed supplying 1 MW to his customer then he needs to be compensated.  On the 
other hand, a significant amount of evidence is being presented that this may 
not be true.

I have been developing a possible scenario which hopefully might explain how 
the measurements are incorrect.  Recently I referred to Bernoulli's principle 
as perhaps getting into the act to muck up the meter readings.  I now believe I 
may have found out how to apply that principle in order to achieve that goal.

My present understanding of Bernoulli's principle would suggest the following 
connection if I wanted to cheat the measurement results.  It is necessary to 
place the temperature gauge at a location that is at the most extreme position 
located away from the main single pipe heading toward the customer.  For 
example, if 6 ECATS are feeding into one of the parallel collection pipes I 
would put the thermometer at the output of the first in the series.  Steam from 
that location would have to travel furthest before it reaches the main feed 
pipe and thus vapor leaving that nearby ECAT would be moving at the slowest 
velocity relative to the main final pipe stream.

This location is ideal because the steam(wet or dry) is moving at the slowest 
velocity there.  As the flow moves down the collection pipe it encounters more 
ECAT sources which force it to speed up.  The pressure and temperature of the 
fluid drops as it gains velocity by flowing through a restriction.  In this 
case the restriction is generated by the additional sources adding to the total 
flow through a fixed pipe diameter.

Bernoulli's principle is a conservation of energy relationship.  In this case 
as the fluid moves faster it gain kinetic energy which must be extracted from 
the internal energy of the fluid.  That is why the pressure and temperature 
falls as more equal sources are added to the stream.

The bottom line is that it is necessary for both the pressure and the 
temperature gauges to be located at the same point if an accurate state reading 
is to be obtained.  When we eventually recieve a diagram showing the spatial 
arrangement of the gauges it is important that both temperature and pressure 
gauges are co located if we are to believe that the steam is dry.   If we 
notice that the temperature gauge is removed from the pressure gauge then it is 
time to focus on the Bernoulli effect.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 11:08 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation


Possibly the answers were too "secret" like the piping layout.



On 8/24/2016 9:52 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:


  

  
a.ashfield wrote:
  


  
 The ERV is wellenough qualified that he is less likely to be 
confusedthan say Murray.
  





That cannot be true. Murray asked critical questions in  Exhibit 5. 
The ERV could not even answer them. He did not  even try. Murray 
showed that the test is bunk, and the ERV  said nothing because 
cannot think of any more excuses or  evasions.




 

  
 He is the onlyindependent judge there.





He is not independent. He is Rossi's puppet. His data  is a crude 
fraud, and his claims are absurd and  impossible. That is why I.H. 
is suing him -- as they  should.




- Jed



  

  


  

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

That is not entirely true because it requires a perfect balance of heat 
generation and water input flow.  For example, if 1% extra liquid water is 
continually added to the ECAT heating chamber it will  eventually overflow and 
begin to flow out of the port as a combination of vapor and liquid water 
leading to wet steam.  This would take place at a constant temperature which 
would make thermal control difficult.

On the other hand, if 1% less liquid water flows into the chamber then 
eventually all of the coolant will become vaporized immediately upon entry.  It 
might be possible to adjust the power generation downwards under this condition 
since the chamber would likely begin to rise in temperature without adequate 
coolant.  Here, the temperature feedback would be asked to take over control of 
the process.

Earlier you made a big point that feedback level control was obvious due to 
having so many fine, controllable, accurate pumps in the system.  Do you now 
believe that level control is not being used in the system?  I am not totally 
convinced that feedback water level control is not part of the main plan once 
everything settles down in production.  That control technique would go a long 
way toward ensuring dry steam is always generated.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 8:04 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation


You don't need "active feedback."   The steam escapes the reactor
shortly after being formed



On 8/24/2016 12:33 AM, Stephen A.  Lawrence wrote:



  
  
On 08/24/2016 12:03 AM, DavidRoberson wrote:
  
  
As I have stated, if the steam is truly dry thenplenty of power is 
being supplied to the customer.  If the ERVis mistaken that the steam 
is dry then I.H. is likely correct.

If everyone accepts that the true pressure of the steam is
atmospheric while the temperature is 102.8 C then it is dry. 
  
  
  Unless there's some active feedback mechanism keeping the  
temperature of the effluent between 100 and 103 C, it's hard to  believe 
the effluent is dry steam.  The heat capacity of steam is  so small 
compared with the latent heat of vaporization one would  expect the 
temperature of (dry) steam in the closed system to be  driven well above 
boiling -- not just barely over it.
  
  This has been the problem with Rossi's steam demos since the  
beginning:  There is no feedback mechanism to keep the temperature  barely 
above boiling, yet it never goes more than a couple degrees  above.  Either 
there's feedback nailing the power output to the  level needed to just 
exactly vaporize the water (with  essentially no heat left over to 
superheat the steam), or there is  feedback nailing the water flow rate to 
the be just fast enough to  consume all the heat from the system in 
vaporizing the water, or  there is a miraculous coincidence between the 
heat produced and  the water flow rate.
  
  We know there's no feedback controlling the flow rate,  because that 
was rock steady.
  
  No mention has ever been made of any feedback mechanism fixing the  
reaction rate to the steam temperature, so short of fantasizing  about 
something Rossi never said he did, we have no reason to  believe such a 
thing exists.  In fact we don't even know that the  reaction (if there is a 
reaction) can be controlled with the  precision needed to keep the output 
temperature so close to  boiling -- and we also have no reason to believe 
anyone would even  want to do that.
  
  So, the only conclusion that makes sense in this situation is that  
the "feedback" keeping the temperature almost exactly at boiling  is 
provided by water mixed with the steam, and that consequently  the steam 
must be very wet.
  
  
  
  
 Butthat is the root of the problem; both parties do not agree that 
   this is true.  Only one can be right in this case.  Also, thereis no 
law of nature that ensures that what the ERV states istrue.  He may be 
confused by the location of gauges, etc.

AA, Engineer48 claims that the pumps are all manually set and
not under automatic control according to his picture.  If true,that 
would eliminate the feedback level control that wasdiscussed earlier.  
It is my opinion that some form of automaticlevel control is required 
in order to produce a stable systemthat prevents liquid filling or 
dying out of the CATS.  This isan important factor that both of the 
parties should address.

Dave
  
 
  
  
-OriginalMessage-
 

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

As I have stated, if the steam is truly dry then plenty of power is being 
supplied to the customer.  If the ERV is mistaken that the steam is dry then 
I.H. is likely correct.

If everyone accepts that the true pressure of the steam is atmospheric while 
the temperature is 102.8 C then it is dry.  But that is the root of the 
problem; both parties do not agree that this is true.  Only one can be right in 
this case.  Also, there is no law of nature that ensures that what the ERV 
states is true.  He may be confused by the location of gauges, etc.

AA, Engineer48 claims that the pumps are all manually set and not under 
automatic control according to his picture.  If true, that would eliminate the 
feedback level control that was discussed earlier.  It is my opinion that some 
form of automatic level control is required in order to produce a stable system 
that prevents liquid filling or dying out of the CATS.  This is an important 
factor that both of the parties should address.

Dave

 

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2016 10:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation


Apparently the ERV measured 102.8 C @ atmospheric pressure.  That isdry 
steam.
That implies the customer used steam at a negative pressure.


On 8/23/2016 8:50 PM, Bob Cook wrote:


  




  
Dave--
  

  
  
The steam table indicates a condition of equilibriumbetween the 
liquid phase and the gaseous phase of water.  Ifthe conditions are  
1 bar at a temperature above the 99.9743there is no liquid phase in 
equilibrium with the steam (gas)phase.  The gas is phase is at 102 
degrees and is said to besuper heated.   
  
  

  
  
The steam tables tell you nothing about liquid phasecarry-over in a 
dynamic flowing system.  Normally therewould be a moisture 
separator in the system to assure nocarry-over.  
  
  

  
  
Bob
  


From:    David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 9:27:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation  
 


Dave--
  

  




Where did the pressure of 15.75 psi abs come  from?  I  
thought the pressure of the 102C dry  steam (assumed) was 1 
atmos.--not 15.75 abs.




I  think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos.  were never 
measured.




Bob Cook
  
  Bob, I used a steam table  
calculator located at  
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html   
   to obtain my data points.
  
  According to that source, 14.6954 psi abs is 0
  bar at a temperature of 99.9743 C degrees.
  At 102 C degrees the pressure is shown as 
 15.7902 psi absolute.
  Also, at 15.75 psi abs you should be at   
   101.928 C.  I must have accidentally written 
 the last digit in error for some reason.
  
  Does this answer your first question?
  
  You are correct about the assumed pressures   
   above 1 atmosphere not being measured  
directly.  I admit that I rounded off the  readings a 
bit, but the amount of error  resulting from the values 
I chose did not  appear to impact the answers to a 
significant  degree.  In one of Rossi's earlier 
experiments  the temperature within his ECAT was 
measured  to reach a high of about 135 C just as the
  calculated power being measured at the output 
 of his heat exchanger reached the maximum.  At 
 the time I concluded that this must have  occurred 
as a result of the filling of his  device by liquid 
water.
  
  I chose 130 C for my latest calculations  
mainly as an estimate 

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

Bob,

I would agree with your assessment that the steam is dry if we can be ensured 
that there is a moisture separator in the proper location.  Have you seen any 
evidence that this is true?  If the steam is totally dry then Rossi's system is 
probably working much as he states.

My approach is to determine whether or not there is sound scientific evidence 
to support Jed's claims.  If the steam being supplied by the ECAT system is 
dry, then plenty of power is being delivered.  It is not clear that the fluid 
flow rate is low enough to null that opinion without further proof.

I understand the relationship between temperature, pressure and the quality of 
steam.   Unfortunately, what Rossi states is in direct conflict to what I.H. 
states with respect to the temperature and pressure values.  I am hoping there 
is a method which connects their different beliefs in a scientific and 
reasonable manner.  Let's hope that neither is directly falsifying the data.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2016 8:50 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation






Dave--


The steam table indicates a condition of equilibrium between the liquid phase 
and the gaseous phase of water.  If the conditions are  1 bar at a temperature 
above the 99.9743 there is no liquid phase in equilibrium with the steam (gas) 
phase.  The gas is phase is at 102 degrees and is said to be super heated.   



The steam tables tell you nothing about liquid phase carry-over in a dynamic 
flowing system.  Normally there would be a moisture separator in the system to 
assure no carry-over.  



Bob


From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 9:27:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation
 

Dave--




Where did the pressure of 15.75 psi abs come from?  I  thought the pressure of 
the 102C dry steam (assumed) was 1 atmos.--not 15.75 abs.


I  think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos. were never measured.


Bob Cook

Bob, I used a steam table calculator located at 
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html to obtain my 
data points.

According to that source, 14.6954 psi abs is 0 bar at a temperature of 99.9743 
C degrees.
At 102 C degrees the pressure is shown as 15.7902 psi absolute.
Also, at 15.75 psi abs you should be at 101.928 C.  I must have accidentally 
written the last digit in error for some reason.

Does this answer your first question?

You are correct about the assumed pressures above 1 atmosphere not being 
measured directly.  I admit that I rounded off the readings a bit, but the 
amount of error resulting from the values I chose did not appear to impact the 
answers to a significant degree.  In one of Rossi's earlier experiments the 
temperature within his ECAT was measured to reach a high of about 135 C just as 
the calculated power being measured at the output of his heat exchanger reached 
the maximum.  At the time I concluded that this must have occurred as a result 
of the filling of his device by liquid water.

I chose 130 C for my latest calculations mainly as an estimate of the 
temperature within the ECAT modules.  The higher pressure (39.2 psi absolute) 
was the value required to keep the liquid water in saturation with the vapor.  
Rossi is using a feedback system to control the heating of his modules and that 
requires him to operate each at a few degrees above the output temperature(102 
C?) as a minimum.  There is no guarantee that he regulates them at 130 C as I 
assumed, but that temperature was consistent with having a ratio of vapor 
volume to liquid volume of nearly 100 to 1.

Of course I could have raised the ECAT temperature to get a larger ratio of 
flash vapor to liquid water at the output stream.  Likewise, the ratio would 
drop if a lower temperature is assumed.   The 130 C appeared to be near to his 
earlier design, and I had to choose something.  Do you have a suggestion for a 
better temperature or pressure to assume?

Dave

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

Jed,

According to the reference I have found water vapor and liquid water remain in 
combination at a pressure of 15.7902 psi absolute when subject to 102 C.  Since 
you and others appear to believe that most of the mass of water going to the 
customer equipment is liquid then that would likely be the situation.  The 
temperature reading of the combination should be accurate, but the pressure 
reading could well indicate 1 atm according to a gauge even though it remains 
actually higher.   I suspect that the Bernoulli principle is getting into the 
act in this case due to the rapid motion of the fluid.

This situation might explain why the steam is not dry as many would expect.  
According to my hypothesis it is extremely wet even at 102 C and subject to a 
false gauge pressure reading of 1 atm.

So, Rossi might be right about the gauge reading 0.0 bar while at the same time 
I.H. is correct about the true pressure within the stream being at a higher 
level.  The proof of this statement requires that we figure out how to properly 
apply the Bernoulli principle.  This idea may lead to a blind alley, but it 
does seem appropriate.

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2016 10:06 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation




David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:


Where did the pressure of 15.75 psi abs come from?  I  thought the pressure of 
the 102C dry steam (assumed) was 1 atmos.--not 15.75 abs.





I  think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos. were never measured.





Rossi reported the pressure was 0.0 bar, which Murray took to mean mean barG; 
i.e. 1 atm. Murray and others from I.H. disputed this, saying it had to be more 
than 1 atm, as described in Exhibit 5.


If it was substantially more than 1 atm, the fluid would be liquid, not vapor. 
See:


https://durathermfluids.com/pdf/techpapers/pressure-boiling-point.pdf



- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

Bob,

Your question concerning the measured atmospheric pressure when the fluid 
output was reading 102 C remained on my mind last night.  That did seem curious 
when it appeared that the vapor and liquid combination should be in equilibrium.

My first thought was that perhaps a measurement error due to meter accuracy 
might explain the problem, but then a second thought arose.  It is obvious that 
the water carrying vapor would be moving at a high velocity once they flashed 
through the restriction into the output steam line.  If you recall a moving 
mass of gas like material is subject to a reduction in pressure due to the 
Bernoulli effect.  This is the same principle that draws gasoline into the air 
stream of an internal combustion carburetor.

Thus far I have not performed the actual calculation which would determine the 
expected pressure drop, but hope to complete that task if my line of inquiry 
gains momentum.  It certainly does not appear impossible for the magnitude of 
the effect to drop the pressure from an initial value of 15.7902 psi absolute 
to atmospheric which is 14.6954 psi absolute.  That is only a 6.9% reduction.  
The moving fluid would not effect the temperature gauge reading in a similar 
manner.

Everyone should understand that my hypothesis is an attempt to locate a 
scientific explanation for the apparent lack of real power being delivered to 
the customer from the Rossi system if one assumes that there is a problem with 
the actual results.  The Rossi 1 MW system might operate as supposedly reported 
by the ERV, but many on vortex are convinced that this is not true.  We need to 
determine what the real facts are.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2016 12:27 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation


Dave--




Where did the pressure of 15.75 psi abs come from?  I  thought the pressure of 
the 102C dry steam (assumed) was 1 atmos.--not 15.75 abs.


I  think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos. were never measured.


Bob Cook

Bob, I used a steam table calculator located at 
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html to obtain my 
data points.

According to that source, 14.6954 psi abs is 0 bar at a temperature of 99.9743 
C degrees.
At 102 C degrees the pressure is shown as 15.7902 psi absolute.
Also, at 15.75 psi abs you should be at 101.928 C.  I must have accidentally 
written the last digit in error for some reason.

Does this answer your first question?

You are correct about the assumed pressures above 1 atmosphere not being 
measured directly.  I admit that I rounded off the readings a bit, but the 
amount of error resulting from the values I chose did not appear to impact the 
answers to a significant degree.  In one of Rossi's earlier experiments the 
temperature within his ECAT was measured to reach a high of about 135 C just as 
the calculated power being measured at the output of his heat exchanger reached 
the maximum.  At the time I concluded that this must have occurred as a result 
of the filling of his device by liquid water.

I chose 130 C for my latest calculations mainly as an estimate of the 
temperature within the ECAT modules.  The higher pressure (39.2 psi absolute) 
was the value required to keep the liquid water in saturation with the vapor.  
Rossi is using a feedback system to control the heating of his modules and that 
requires him to operate each at a few degrees above the output temperature(102 
C?) as a minimum.  There is no guarantee that he regulates them at 130 C as I 
assumed, but that temperature was consistent with having a ratio of vapor 
volume to liquid volume of nearly 100 to 1.

Of course I could have raised the ECAT temperature to get a larger ratio of 
flash vapor to liquid water at the output stream.  Likewise, the ratio would 
drop if a lower temperature is assumed.   The 130 C appeared to be near to his 
earlier design, and I had to choose something.  Do you have a suggestion for a 
better temperature or pressure to assume?

Dave

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

Dave--




Where did the pressure of 15.75 psi abs come from?  I  thought the pressure of 
the 102C dry steam (assumed) was 1 atmos.--not 15.75 abs.


I  think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos. were never measured.


Bob Cook

Bob, I used a steam table calculator located at 
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html to obtain my 
data points.

According to that source, 14.6954 psi abs is 0 bar at a temperature of 99.9743 
C degrees.
At 102 C degrees the pressure is shown as 15.7902 psi absolute.
Also, at 15.75 psi abs you should be at 101.928 C.  I must have accidentally 
written the last digit in error for some reason.

Does this answer your first question?

You are correct about the assumed pressures above 1 atmosphere not being 
measured directly.  I admit that I rounded off the readings a bit, but the 
amount of error resulting from the values I chose did not appear to impact the 
answers to a significant degree.  In one of Rossi's earlier experiments the 
temperature within his ECAT was measured to reach a high of about 135 C just as 
the calculated power being measured at the output of his heat exchanger reached 
the maximum.  At the time I concluded that this must have occurred as a result 
of the filling of his device by liquid water.

I chose 130 C for my latest calculations mainly as an estimate of the 
temperature within the ECAT modules.  The higher pressure (39.2 psi absolute) 
was the value required to keep the liquid water in saturation with the vapor.  
Rossi is using a feedback system to control the heating of his modules and that 
requires him to operate each at a few degrees above the output temperature(102 
C?) as a minimum.  There is no guarantee that he regulates them at 130 C as I 
assumed, but that temperature was consistent with having a ratio of vapor 
volume to liquid volume of nearly 100 to 1.

Of course I could have raised the ECAT temperature to get a larger ratio of 
flash vapor to liquid water at the output stream.  Likewise, the ratio would 
drop if a lower temperature is assumed.   The 130 C appeared to be near to his 
earlier design, and I had to choose something.  Do you have a suggestion for a 
better temperature or pressure to assume?

Dave

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

I followed the calculation below with an additional one to further my research. 
 For the second calculation I used the flow rate information supplied by 
Engineer48 for the 24 pumps that were manually set from the front panel.  With 
this data I determined that the power delivered to the customer would be 30.1 
kW under the following assumptions:

Twenty two of the pumps were delivering full flow of 18 kg per hour while two 
were operating at 1/2 full rate of 9 kg per hour.  The total was therefore 414 
kg per hour which translates to .115 kg/second.

The temperature of the water inside all of the ECAT sections was controlled at 
130 C, which is in line with what was seen during several of Rossi's single 
unit demonstrations.

All of this water then escaped through a restrictive, pressure dropping orifice 
such that some of the liquid flashed into steam according to the below analysis.

The resulting water filled vapor flow was sent to the customer with a pressure 
reading of approximately atmospheric and a temperature of 102 C as below.  In 
this case the gauges would read correctly.

Water finally returned from the customer at 68 C, in liquid form, back to the 
Rossi system.

A further calculation of the power delivered to the customer if it is assumed 
that all of the water is in the form of vapor with zero water at 102 C and 
atmospheric pressure would be  275 kW.  Within this scenario the water returns 
at 68 C as before.

The purpose of these calculations is to seek a possible hypothesis as to how 
the power being sent to the customer could be dramatically less than one might 
calculate if he depended upon the gauge readings and did not have a method to 
verify that the mass supplied to the customer was dry steam.   If it can be 
shown that a steam quality measuring device was located between the Rossi 
system and the customer that indicated dry steam then the power delivered would 
be much closer to the 275 kW level.  If not, then 30.1 kW could well be 
possible.

Detailed calculation are available upon request.

Dave

 
  

On 8/20/2016 1:51PM, David Roberson wrote:





Today I made an interestingcalculation that 
some may find relevantto the ongoing 
discussions.

According to steam tables, the following
could be possible, assuming that I did  
  not make a mistake in my calculations.

Assume you have 1kg of water inside a   
 solid container at 130 C and 39.2 psi  
  absolute.  Then you place a restriction   
 device that allows all of the liquid to
eventually escape.  Some of the liquidwill 
immediatly flash into vapor whilemost of the 1 
kg remains in the liquidform as it exits the 
restriction.  Ifyou assume that the resulting 
mixtureends up at 102 C and 15.75 psi absolute  
  then it is possible to calculate the  
  amount of vapor and liquid that is
present at that location.

The internal energy of the initial  
  liquid at 130 C is 546.388 kj/kg which
in this case yields 546.388 thousand
joules.  I am assuming that this sameamount of 
energy remains within theliquid and vapor 
combintation of thelower temperature and 
pressure stream.

When I solved the equation relating the 
   quality of the mixture to the various
heat contents I determined that there   
 would be .053 kg or vapor and .947 kg ofliquid 
water at the output.  On firstglance, this 
result suggests that itshould be easy to 
separate the waterfrom the steam, but actually 
calculatingthe two volumes makes that not so
evident.

The volume of the vapor would be .053 kg
* 1.565 cubic meters per kg = .0826 
   cubic

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

I have not seen any evidence that the pumps are controlled by anything but a 
manual adjustment on the front.  Why have 22 set at 100% and 2 set at 50% flow 
rate in that group of pumps?  Also, Rossi did not utilize any form of automatic 
pump control during his earlier demonstrations.

Show me a document originating from Rossi or IH that describes a form of 
automatic fluid level control for this system.  Engineer48 is speculating, as 
he points out, and we can not use his diagram as anything definitive.

AA, do you see the data cables needed to control each pump?  I suppose that 
they may be hidden in the same location as the power cables for the pumps.  
Without additional proof, there is no valid reason to assume that these pumps 
are connected to a fluid level control loop and therefore no proof that the 
individual ECAT components are not filled with hot water.

I hope there is a control loop keeping the fluid level low enough to ensure 
that only vapor escapes the devices into the customer service line,  but this 
can not be established by the information I have seen.  What absolute proof do 
you have that we can use to set aside this concern?

Do you honestly believe that "good grief" is a reasonable answer to a valid 
question?  I was expecting a carefully considered answer that did not contain 
unsupported assumptions enclosed in sarcasm.  How are you going to feel if it 
turns out that the pumps were actually running in a manual mode without level 
control?  I am not attempting to be confrontational as you may believe, but 
instead want to understand whether or not Jed and many others are correct in 
their belief that the demonstration is seriously flawed.  If they are right 
then there must be an explanation as to why the meters are being faked out. 

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 2:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation


Good grief.  Of course there is control or there would be no pointin 
having all those pumps.



On 8/21/2016 9:12 AM, a.ashfield wrote:


"a pump  by itself does not regulate the level of the 
water. "
  what is the point of having all those digitally controlled  
pumps if there is no control?
  
    
      
On 8/21/2016 12:55 AM, David Robersonwrote:
  
  
Thanks for the information.  But AA, a pump by itselfdoes not 
regulate the level of the water.  There must besome form of active 
level feedback applied in order for thisto occur.  If no level 
sensing and feedback is used theneither the water totally fills up 
the device or it getsboiled off when subject to a constant input 
flow.

The question can be clarified by finding a direct reference 
   to level sensing in Rossi's documentation in which case thepumps 
would need to be controlled by software that cycleseach of them on 
and off, or possibly adjusts the flowdynamically.  Can you point to 
such a document.  A pictureof a pump is not adequate proof unless 
it is specified tohave a limited maximum pressure that would 
prevent theboiling point of the water from reaching significantly 
above102 C if the ECAT device fills up.

I am sitting on the fence with respect to assuming that the 
   test results are measured accurately.  Jed and others have
presented a fairly convincing arguement that all is notwell.  You 
and others appear to be 100% convinced that Rossiis correct.

If Jed and allies are right then science must be able to
explain what is erroneous regarding the calibrated meter
measurements.  I am seeking that explanation to fill in theblanks 
in the event that they are found correct.  To me thatis the 
scientific method.

Let us put my latest hypothesis to rest which will enhance  
  the proof that Rossi is on the proper track.  Is there any
evidence of  water level control feedback that we can locate?  I will look  
  carefully at Engineer48 photos on Ecatworld per your
suggestion.

Dave

 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
-OriginalMessage-
From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Aug 20, 2016 8:10 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation


  
 If you look at the my originalreference showing a link to 
photos of Engineer48 on

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

 From: a.ashfield 

"a pump byitself does not regulate the level of the water. "
what is the point of having all those digitally controlled pumps
if there is no control?

-
That is certainly what I would expect in an ideal configuration.  But, why 
would 22 of the pumps be set to full output and 2 to one half output unless 
manual control was being used for their settings?  Should they not all be set 
for automatic control in some manner?

Also, I noticed that each and every one of the pumps pictured were displaying a 
steady green light.  According to the writer that indicated that they were 
pumping accurately according to their internal program.  If controlled 
separately it would seem likely that at least one would be off during the 
picture.

I reviewed the article you suggested and see that it represents the opinion of 
the author and not Rossi or IH directly.   We need direct confirmation by Rossi 
or IH before accepting the proposed diagram.  I am a bit surprised that all 6 
of the pumps associated with a single tiger would feed a common input pipe 
according to Engineer48.  It would make far more sense for each pump to feed a 
single component of the device.  In his suggested configuration most of the 
precision is wasted and it would appear that less control of the entire tiger 
is available due to the parallel operation of all of the heat sources 
independent of the variation expected due to material differences.

To further investigate this issue, do you have the model number of the pumps?  
Also, Engineer48 makes the statement that the output is at the top of the pump 
which leads to the unusual contradiction I discussed above.  Is another pump 
configuration available that has the fluid output at the other port?  This 
would make more sense to me.  In that case each section of the tiger would have 
independent flow control.

Another issue that you may be able to clarify is the temperature feedback 
sensor location and reading.  Since the output of the steam is at 102 C or in 
that vicinity, the actual tiger sections must operate above that level.  To 
have any control of consequence each heat source needs to be operating at a 
temperature that is several degrees higher.  At least one earlier Rossi 
demonstration showed the source temperature of 130 C or in that vicinity.  That 
amount of temperature increase would certainly be adequate for control sensing. 
 I noticed that Engineer48 left that reading blank on his diagram, do you have 
information to fill it in?  I am sure Rossi would know the engineered value.

Dave

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

Thanks for the information.  But AA, a pump by itself does not regulate the 
level of the water.  There must be some form of active level feedback applied 
in order for this to occur.  If no level sensing and feedback is used then 
either the water totally fills up the device or it gets boiled off when subject 
to a constant input flow.

The question can be clarified by finding a direct reference to level sensing in 
Rossi's documentation in which case the pumps would need to be controlled by 
software that cycles each of them on and off, or possibly adjusts the flow 
dynamically.  Can you point to such a document.  A picture of a pump is not 
adequate proof unless it is specified to have a limited maximum pressure that 
would prevent the boiling point of the water from reaching significantly above 
102 C if the ECAT device fills up.

I am sitting on the fence with respect to assuming that the test results are 
measured accurately.  Jed and others have presented a fairly convincing 
arguement that all is not well.  You and others appear to be 100% convinced 
that Rossi is correct.

If Jed and allies are right then science must be able to explain what is 
erroneous regarding the calibrated meter measurements.  I am seeking that 
explanation to fill in the blanks in the event that they are found correct.  To 
me that is the scientific method.

Let us put my latest hypothesis to rest which will enhance the proof that Rossi 
is on the proper track.  Is there any evidence of  water level control feedback 
that we can locate?  I will look carefully at Engineer48 photos on Ecatworld 
per your suggestion.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Aug 20, 2016 8:10 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation


If you look at the my original reference showing a link to photos of
Engineer48 on Ecatworld, it shows the many precision pumps for eachTiger 
that maintain the correct water level in the reactors.
AA


On 8/20/2016 3:40 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


Could you show me a reference to level gauges in each of the  devices?  
I do not recall seeing one so far.
  
  Dave

 


 


 


-Original  Message-
  From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
  To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
  Sent: Sat, Aug 20, 2016 3:00 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation
  
  

 That would mean the Tiger E-Cats  would have to be completely 
flooded.  But the level gauges  don't show that.
  Why not suggest pixie dust?
  
  
  
On 8/20/2016 1:51 PM, DavidRoberson wrote:
  
  
Today I made aninteresting calculation that some may find 
relevantto the ongoing discussions.

According to steam tables, the following could be   
 possible, assuming that I did not make a mistake in
my calculations.

Assume you have 1kg of water inside a solid 
   container at 130 C and 39.2 psi absolute.  Then youplace 
a restriction device that allows all of theliquid to 
eventually escape.  Some of the liquidwill immediatly flash 
into vapor while most of the 1kg remains in the liquid form 
as it exits therestriction.  If you assume that the 
resultingmixture ends up at 102 C and 15.75 psi absolute 
thenit is possible to calculate the amount of vapor and 
   liquid that is present at that location.

The internal energy of the initial liquid at 130 C  
  is 546.388 kj/kg which in this case yields 546.388
thousand joules.  I am assuming that this sameamount of 
energy remains within the liquid and vaporcombintation of 
the lower temperature and pressurestream.

When I solved the equation relating the quality of  
  the mixture to the various heat contents I
determined that there would be .053 kg or vapor and.947 kg 
of liquid water at the output.  On firstglance, this result 
suggests that it should be easyto separate the water from 
the steam, but actuallycalculating the two volumes makes 
that not soevident.

The volume of the vapor 

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

Could you show me a reference to level gauges in each of the devices?  I do not 
recall seeing one so far.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Aug 20, 2016 3:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation


That would mean the Tiger E-Cats would have to be completelyflooded.  
But the level gauges don't show that.
Why not suggest pixie dust?



On 8/20/2016 1:51 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


Today I made an interesting calculation that some may  find relevant to 
the ongoing discussions.
  
  According to steam tables, the following could be possible,  
assuming that I did not make a mistake in my calculations.
  
  Assume you have 1kg of water inside a solid container at 130 C
  and 39.2 psi absolute.  Then you place a restriction device  that 
allows all of the liquid to eventually escape.  Some of  the liquid 
will immediatly flash into vapor while most of the  1 kg remains in the 
liquid form as it exits the restriction.   If you assume that the 
resulting mixture ends up at 102 C and  15.75 psi absolute then it is 
possible to calculate the amount  of vapor and liquid that is present 
at that location.
  
  The internal energy of the initial liquid at 130 C is 546.388 
 kj/kg which in this case yields 546.388 thousand joules.  I am  
assuming that this same amount of energy remains within the  liquid and 
vapor combintation of the lower temperature and  pressure stream.
  
  When I solved the equation relating the quality of the mixture
  to the various heat contents I determined that there would be  .053 
kg or vapor and .947 kg of liquid water at the output.   On first 
glance, this result suggests that it should be easy  to separate the 
water from the steam, but actually calculating  the two volumes makes 
that not so evident.
  
  The volume of the vapor would be .053 kg * 1.565 cubic meters 
 per kg = .0826 cubic meters.  The volume of the liquid water  would be 
.947 kg* .001045 cubic meters per kg = .000989 cubic  meters.
  
  Using the above numbers it appears that you would have 83.488 
 times as much vapor by volume as liquid.  This is quite a  large ratio 
which suggests that it might well be possible to  mistake a stream of 
mass with this consistency as consisting  of only vapor.  Especially if 
a visual technique were used.
  
  I am not saying that this calculation reveals the source of  
the Rossi test confusion, but that perhaps it might open  discussions 
that have not been considered so far.  I do recall  that on earlier 
demonstrations that the temperature within the  ECATs was reported to 
be in the range of 130 C.
  
  Perhaps some of our mathematically inclined vortex residents  
can take a few moments to verify that my assumptions and  calculations 
make sense.
  
  Dave
  

  

[Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

Today I made an interesting calculation that some may find relevant to the 
ongoing discussions.

According to steam tables, the following could be possible, assuming that I did 
not make a mistake in my calculations.

Assume you have 1kg of water inside a solid container at 130 C and 39.2 psi 
absolute.  Then you place a restriction device that allows all of the liquid to 
eventually escape.  Some of the liquid will immediatly flash into vapor while 
most of the 1 kg remains in the liquid form as it exits the restriction.  If 
you assume that the resulting mixture ends up at 102 C and 15.75 psi absolute 
then it is possible to calculate the amount of vapor and liquid that is present 
at that location.

The internal energy of the initial liquid at 130 C is 546.388 kj/kg which in 
this case yields 546.388 thousand joules.  I am assuming that this same amount 
of energy remains within the liquid and vapor combintation of the lower 
temperature and pressure stream.

When I solved the equation relating the quality of the mixture to the various 
heat contents I determined that there would be .053 kg or vapor and .947 kg of 
liquid water at the output.  On first glance, this result suggests that it 
should be easy to separate the water from the steam, but actually calculating 
the two volumes makes that not so evident.

The volume of the vapor would be .053 kg * 1.565 cubic meters per kg = .0826 
cubic meters.  The volume of the liquid water would be .947 kg* .001045 cubic 
meters per kg = .000989 cubic meters.

Using the above numbers it appears that you would have 83.488 times as much 
vapor by volume as liquid.  This is quite a large ratio which suggests that it 
might well be possible to mistake a stream of mass with this consistency as 
consisting of only vapor.  Especially if a visual technique were used.

I am not saying that this calculation reveals the source of the Rossi test 
confusion, but that perhaps it might open discussions that have not been 
considered so far.  I do recall that on earlier demonstrations that the 
temperature within the ECATs was reported to be in the range of 130 C.

Perhaps some of our mathematically inclined vortex residents can take a few 
moments to verify that my assumptions and calculations make sense.

Dave

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

[David Roberson]

Bob, I agree with your assessment.  Rossi works in strange ways that are beyond 
normal comprehension.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Aug 19, 2016 3:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.



Having an independent customer use the heat and with the customer knowing how 
much heat is required to keep his product line running, would have been a 
wonderful confirmation that the measurements on the Rossi side of the wall were 
correct.  Certainly that was the spirit of the contract terms for the GPT.  
Making the customer's side secret, and the customer's log of the heat coming 
into his factory a secret, certainly looks bad for Rossi and makes the whole 
contrived test look like a scam.  If I were Rossi (and not running a scam), I 
would want that independent customer's validation that I had delivered the heat 
- it would make the test incontrovertible.  Instead, so far the opposite has 
happened - at least until the customer is subpoenaed to testify in court to the 
heat consumption of his "factory".




On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 1:25 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

  
What happened to the heat once it left Rossi's plant is irrelevantto 
the contract.  It looks like a desperate effort by IH to discovera problem 
after their hired gun failed to do so.
It would be like doing a black box experiment and then saying youdon't 
believe the measured exit temperature  so you are going tomeasure the main 
drain to see how much it warmed.

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

[David Roberson]

What would you do in their shoes?  If IH is convinced that the device did not 
produce the calculated heat then surely there must be evidence to that fact.  
The meters apparently fail to support their claims, so where do they look?

I am not convinced either way at this juncture and hope that additional 
evidence will come forth to reveal the truth.  Of course, if IH and others are 
honestly convinced that the system does not function as claimed then it is easy 
to understand the actions that they are taking.  It is painful to consider 
paying $89 million additional dollars for a pig in a poke.

But, if these guys are attempting to rob Rossi of his work, then I have zero 
sympathy for them.  That scenario does not ring true to me at the moment.

We are going to have to wait until further evidence is available before we can 
become totally convinced.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 19, 2016 3:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.


What happened to the heat once it left Rossi's plant is irrelevantto 
the contract.  It looks like a desperate effort by IH to discovera problem 
after their hired gun failed to do so.
It would be like doing a black box experiment and then saying youdon't 
believe the measured exit temperature  so you are going tomeasure the main 
drain to see how much it warmed.



On 8/19/2016 3:01 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


It appears that the most likely explanation required to prove  the 
experiment was faulty was to assume that mainly hot water  was the 
output of the ECAT system.   If this is to prevail, it  is necessary 
for someone to offer a reasonable explanation as  to why no one 
observed this problem during the test.
  
  Has anyone seen convincing evidence that steam was not the  
main product of the ECAT system?  The question about the  pressure 
being atmospheric at the output port does not appear  to hold water 
since this problem can be overcome by having a  pump inserted within 
the output stream of the customers  equipment.   I suspect most of us 
would agree that if the  pressure was indeed atmospheric at the steam 
port, then vapor  at 102 C would be relatively dry.
  
  Why question the steam temperature and pressure readings if  
they were performed with calibrated meters?  Is this merely an  attempt 
to explain away the possible excess heat?
  
  There remains a valid concern about where all of the 1 MW of  
heat is vented.  That at the moment, seems to be the main or  only 
evidence that the system did not function as expected.
  
  Dave

 


 


 


-Original  Message-
  From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
  To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
  Sent: Fri, Aug 19, 2016 2:11 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.
  
  

  

  
a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>wrote:
  

  

1) the conserved mass flow rate of the  system from 
February to November 2015 was on
  average 33,558 kg/day (1,398 kg/h).
  


That may have been the average, but daily  totals can only 
be in even thousands. The smallest  unit on this flow meter 
is 1,000 liters.




  

So what we have here are 10 months of the  ERV's 
averaged input water temp, flow rate,  output 
superheated steam temperature . . .
  


I doubt that 102 deg C is superheated.




  

and pressure that seems to be more  realistic than 
Jed's flow statement

"It was 36,000kg/day every day and it never  varied".
Well Jed that statement is now "BUSTED".
  





I was unaware of the earlier data. Note however  that 
Exhibit 5 also says:
  

  


  
 

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

[David Roberson]

It appears that the most likely explanation required to prove the experiment 
was faulty was to assume that mainly hot water was the output of the ECAT 
system.   If this is to prevail, it is necessary for someone to offer a 
reasonable explanation as to why no one observed this problem during the test.

Has anyone seen convincing evidence that steam was not the main product of the 
ECAT system?  The question about the pressure being atmospheric at the output 
port does not appear to hold water since this problem can be overcome by having 
a pump inserted within the output stream of the customers equipment.   I 
suspect most of us would agree that if the pressure was indeed atmospheric at 
the steam port, then vapor at 102 C would be relatively dry.

Why question the steam temperature and pressure readings if they were performed 
with calibrated meters?  Is this merely an attempt to explain away the possible 
excess heat?

There remains a valid concern about where all of the 1 MW of heat is vented.  
That at the moment, seems to be the main or only evidence that the system did 
not function as expected.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Aug 19, 2016 2:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.




a.ashfield  wrote:


1) the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to  November 
2015 was on
  average 33,558 kg/day (1,398 kg/h).

That may have been the average, but daily totals can only be in even thousands. 
The smallest unit on this flow meter is 1,000 liters.



So what we have here are 10 months of the ERV's averaged input  water temp, 
flow rate, output superheated steam temperature . . .

I doubt that 102 deg C is superheated.



and  pressure that seems to be more realistic than Jed's flow statement

"It was 36,000kg/day every day and it never varied".
Well Jed that statement is now "BUSTED".




I was unaware of the earlier data. Note however that Exhibit 5 also says:





In fact, from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, the effective flowed water 
in the unit was, according to your daily valuation report for that period, 
36,000 Kg/d on each and every day, without deviation. See Exhibit B. How is 
that plausible? It should be virtually impossible to have that level of 
consistency even over just a one-week period, let alone a one-month period.





I thought that was for the entire test. My mistake.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[David Roberson]

Bob,

You are describing a connection that would be ideal and likely accurately 
monitor the water flow rate.  The key ingredient is for the flow setting 
component to be located downstream of the flow meter which should be down 
stream of the main pumping function.  The pump would then ensure that positive 
pressure is applied to the flow meter.

But, is this what the schematic diagram shows?  Jed's theory that the water 
flow rate is much less than registered would suggest otherwise.  As previously 
stated, the answers to our questions will have to wait until the proper system 
information is released.

Another issue that eventually requires addressing is whether or not the flow 
through the meter is continuous or in bursts.  A burst system , if present,  
will further complicate the analysis.  Previously I recall discussion of 
dynamic pump control for each module as being part of the overall control 
system.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Aug 13, 2016 1:56 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!



David 



You noted the following: 

"The manual describing how to use this device does mention that it needs to be 
kept free of negative pressure and cavitation conditions."


I would think that the design of the flow system would position the flow meter 
down stream of the pump to assure a positive pressure on the flow meter.  In 
addition a calibrated orifice to help provide a constant flow might be included 
down stream from the  flow meter.

 

The use of gate valves to control flow is not uncommon, however, IMHO not as 
reliable as an orifice for flow control.  A throttle  valve would be the best 
option to control flow.


Bob Cook


From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 2:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!
 

I agree that it would be better to improve the fraud.  You have to wonder why 
he did not at least go to that level of expertise by using fractional data?

It would be far more believable to suspect that he used the average instead of 
making an effort to track the true data if he did not think anyone would care.  
Could Penon be so convinced of the 1 MW and extreme COP calculations that he 
did not believe that anyone would become too demanding?  I do not know.

Of course, I probably would assume that now it is too late to retract the data 
as reported since it will do great harm to the court case to do so.  How could 
you explain to the judge that your data was known by you to be inaccurate?

Penon is acting in a strange manner, the only way it makes sense is to think 
that he did not expect a problem to develop with IH.  Perhaps he really 
believes that the COP was great and the power met the requirements.

I am still attempting to understand how the flow meter may have been faked out 
by being less than full of water.  The manual describing how to use this device 
does mention that it needs to be kept free of negative pressure and cavitation 
conditions.  My current theory is that a restriction of some type is located 
ahead of the meter which limits the amount of liquid that can be pumped through 
the meter.  This problem is common in hydraulic systems where a clogged filter 
starves the hydraulic pump.

When starved, the pump lowers the input port pressure which might cause the 
incoming liquid to vaporize.  The life expectancy of a hydraulic pump is 
greatly reduced when cavitation of this type exists.

So, I am suspecting that the return water is vaporized to some degree by this 
process thus leading to a large meter error.  To be sure, we need a diagram of 
the compete system which includes the location of all the pumps, meters, and 
holding tanks, etc.  We also need to know the power being drawn be these pumps 
and tables of their operational parameters as a function of power input.

Dave







-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 12, 2016 4:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!




David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:



So, it would not surprise me too greatly to find that Penon became extremely 
bored making the same readings day in and out until he placed data into the log 
that assumed everything continued as it had for many long previous periods of 
time.


That might be true of the temperatures, which vary, then start repeating, and 
then vary again. But the flow rate and pressure was the same for every single 
day of the test, as noted by Murray. Penon did not start off off recording 
actual values with variations, and then later repeating values. He stuffed 
36,000 kg into every day, for the entire test.


By the way, as Rossi noted in the Lewan interview, Penon arbitrarily reduced 
the flow by 10% down to 32,

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[David Roberson]

I agree that it would be better to improve the fraud.  You have to wonder why 
he did not at least go to that level of expertise by using fractional data?

It would be far more believable to suspect that he used the average instead of 
making an effort to track the true data if he did not think anyone would care.  
Could Penon be so convinced of the 1 MW and extreme COP calculations that he 
did not believe that anyone would become too demanding?  I do not know.

Of course, I probably would assume that now it is too late to retract the data 
as reported since it will do great harm to the court case to do so.  How could 
you explain to the judge that your data was known by you to be inaccurate?

Penon is acting in a strange manner, the only way it makes sense is to think 
that he did not expect a problem to develop with IH.  Perhaps he really 
believes that the COP was great and the power met the requirements.

I am still attempting to understand how the flow meter may have been faked out 
by being less than full of water.  The manual describing how to use this device 
does mention that it needs to be kept free of negative pressure and cavitation 
conditions.  My current theory is that a restriction of some type is located 
ahead of the meter which limits the amount of liquid that can be pumped through 
the meter.  This problem is common in hydraulic systems where a clogged filter 
starves the hydraulic pump.

When starved, the pump lowers the input port pressure which might cause the 
incoming liquid to vaporize.  The life expectancy of a hydraulic pump is 
greatly reduced when cavitation of this type exists.

So, I am suspecting that the return water is vaporized to some degree by this 
process thus leading to a large meter error.  To be sure, we need a diagram of 
the compete system which includes the location of all the pumps, meters, and 
holding tanks, etc.  We also need to know the power being drawn be these pumps 
and tables of their operational parameters as a function of power input.

Dave



 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 12, 2016 4:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!




David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:



So, it would not surprise me too greatly to find that Penon became extremely 
bored making the same readings day in and out until he placed data into the log 
that assumed everything continued as it had for many long previous periods of 
time.


That might be true of the temperatures, which vary, then start repeating, and 
then vary again. But the flow rate and pressure was the same for every single 
day of the test, as noted by Murray. Penon did not start off off recording 
actual values with variations, and then later repeating values. He stuffed 
36,000 kg into every day, for the entire test.


By the way, as Rossi noted in the Lewan interview, Penon arbitrarily reduced 
the flow by 10% down to 32,400 kg. Both numbers are shown. I think 32,400 kg is 
used to compute heat. If a 10% reduction is valid, why not 20% or 90%?


It was sloppy of Penon to record positive flow rates, elevated temperatures and 
1 MW heat production on days when Rossi in his blog said the reactor was turned 
off. Eyewitnesses confirm that it was actually off. If you are going to commit 
fraud, you should at least try to make it look convincing. These people were 
just phoning it in!


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[David Roberson]

Let me mention a real life occurance that I have witnessed.  The FCC requires 
AM and FM transmitters to maintain their RF input powers at a certain level.  
Many years ago I noticed that the technicians would take a glance at the 
voltage and current meters every so often to enter that information into the 
station log.  A properly operating transmiter system hardly varies at all, so 
some guys would just copy the previous data into the log assuming that it 
remained the same throughout the period.

I think of this behavior as the bored meter reading technician.  It appears to 
be a form of complacency that typically takes place in many similar situations 
in life.  Another is the guy that is on guard duty at a location that never 
experiences problems.  Of course, most of the time all of these guys are going 
to be fine.  But, on rare occasions, big problems can creep up and bite them in 
the behind.

So, it would not surprise me too greatly to find that Penon became extremely 
bored making the same readings day in and out until he placed data into the log 
that assumed everything continued as it had for many long previous periods of 
time.  I am not saying this would be a good policy for him to follow, but one 
that might actually occur.  He likely gets bored just like everyone else.

I suspect that most folks would tend to perform in the manner described after 
months of extreme boredom.  All the experimental data should not be dismissed 
just because small portions might be in question.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Aug 12, 2016 3:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!




a.ashfield  wrote:


  
It is fairly simple why.  The only unbiased observer, the paidexpert 
ERV Penon, says the plant worked. 




He also said the flow was exactly 36,000 kg per day, and the reactor produced 
heat on days when Rossi informed the world it was turned off. How on earth can 
you call that "unbiased"?!? On what planet is that not brazen, in-your-face, 
outrageous fraud?


Quoting the Answer again:




"Penon further knowingly relied on flawed or fabricated data collections in his 
supposed evaluation of the Plant’s performance. For example, Leonardo and Rossi 
have admitted (on their internet blog postings) that there were days when 
portions of the Plant were not operating, but Penon in his final report does 
not report any material decrease in output of the Plant on those days. Rather, 
he makes the (inexplicable) claim in his final report that on these days the 
Plant’s performance either did not change or somehow even increased."




- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[David Roberson]

Good idea.  We need to understand what mechanisms are possible.

Perhaps MFMP can monitor the AC input power to the motor as a function of the 
pipe fill.  That may be a simple way to verify the flow meter readings to a 
first order.  I am assuming that these guys connect both the proper pump and 
flow meter together for a reliable test.

An ideal test would also include placing a strong flow restriction ahead of the 
flow meter and pump combination.  It seems logical that such a restriction 
would lead to cavitation within the pump as the flow rate of the water is 
reduced.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Aug 11, 2016 3:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!



The enemies of LENR will persist in using this flow meter meme until it is 
shown to be a fantasy.


Bob Greenyer mentioned that it might be time to verify the Rossi flow meter to 
see how it could be defeated in experiments. MFMP can then become a friend of 
the court and offer unbiased experimental experience to confirm or deny the 
accusations made about the 1 year test.








On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

the manual warns agains dispersion of air in the pipe not flowing half full.
I have a plumber friend indeed but he will not know how to make this strange 
thing. Are yo aware of what you say? Do you take responsibility? I understand 
everything- your role in this affair, your methods, your nastuiness, youyr 
hatred but telling this half full ineptness is unbelievable, I am seriously 
worried for you. DO YOU BELIEVE THIS INDEED?
If yes you have to take a test 


peter




On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:


Peter Gluck  wrote:

 

and how could they been seen as having rusty stains demonstrating your absurd " 
half full" idea?



Half full pipes are common, not absurd. If they were absurd, the manufacturer 
would not warn against them in the manual.


How were they seen . . . Interesting question. If you wanted to look inside a 
flow meter, how would you do it? Can you think of a way?


 


NOT Rossi has said this!




Rossi has not admitted to any of the problems in Exhibit 5, but all of those 
problems are real. I saw many of them myself, looking at sample of the data. 
Murray saw much more than I did.


 


Retract it and remember you was once a LENR faithfull!



I did not say it, so I can't retract it. The people at I.H. said it.


The word "faithful" has no place in science or engineering.


- Jed










-- 

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

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[David Roberson]

Jed, perhaps your IH sources made a measurement of the AC power being absorbed 
by the system pumps.  They could compare these numbers against the published 
tables to get an estimate of the actual quantity of fluid being pumped through 
them.

This technique would appear to offer a second reality check against the flow 
meter readings.  Could you comment?

Dave

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[David Roberson]

flim-flam, most of the 
heat emitted could be  combined back into the 
circulating loop (of  which there are 2: (water tank 1) 
→ (input to  ECat₁) → (combine with reservoir tank 
water) →  (back into ECat₁) → (back to water tank 1) …  
repeated for the bottom half. 
  
  In this system most of the input power can
  heat the effluent stream, if needed. The  
amount of 'real steam' in the big old  
misdirection-device (the "condensers", which  are huge, 
non-quantitative, impressive and so  on), which 
   thru air-in-the-lines becomes 'the ruse' looks   
   great. Metrology is done. It all seems great because 
   no one is alert to the intent-to-deviate
from the patent diagram. 
  
  The receiving tanks get both new tap water and
  a bunch of recirculated water, reheated. The  
bogosity of the experiment isn't easily  
revealed. No attempt is made to mass-heat a  bunch of 
water (like a small swimming pool's  worth) a finite 
amount. The whole thing runs  at whatever rate it   
   runs (which is carefully excluded from the   
   PDF). The only measure left is the misdirected  
one.
  
  It is ingenious.
  And if I were 'there', I'd too be calling for 
 different testing. 
  Namely… substituting a liquid-liquid heat 
 exchanger for the great big air blower.
  
  To heat the small swimming pool. 
  Which REALLY becomes quantitative, fast. 
  To at least 2 sig-figs.
  More than enough to expose
the rat.
  Or to confirmthe golden 
goose.
  
  Which (by my surmise) confirms why Rossi's so 
 up tight about the testing.
  Which he shouldn't  be if it 
is aiming toward MASS calorimetry.
  Which of course he's never done.
  Nor will he.
  
  Because it exposes rats.
  GoatGuy
  

  

  

  
  
  

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:52 PM Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com>  wrote:


  

Dave,
There was a schematic that GoatGuy referenced some time
ago.  His speculation of how it could be faked included airin the 
system registering on the flow meter.  I'm notcertain the schematic 
was the ultimate configuration thatwas used.  I'll try to find it 
in the archives.
  

Jack
  
  
  

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:36 PM David  Roberson 
<dlrober...@aol.com>  wrote:


Jed,  I do not see any obvious reason why the flow meter can
  not be lower than the reservoir.   Do you have some   
   form of schematic that supports what you are  describing?
  
  Dave

 


 


 

  
-Original  Message-
  From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
  To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
  Sent: Wed, Aug 10, 2016 4:29 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info 
 too!
  

  
  

 Jed,
  Your answer is too pathetic for words.
  Placed so it was half full???   Show a diagram of 
 the piping so an engineer can judge it.
  I note you still won't admit you were wrong on
  something else even after I posted proof .
  
  
  

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[David Roberson]

Refer to the figure 1 schematic from Goat Guy's example.

Quick questions.  Is the device referred to as a water reservoir sealed or open 
to the atmosphere?  Also, why would much additional water be added to the three 
water storage devices once the system were in operation for a long period?  
Unless water is allowed to leak out, this input source would be shut off most 
of the time.

Dave

 

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[David Roberson]

Thanks Jack, I will look into this explanation and attempt to determine whether 
or not it makes sense.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 10, 2016 4:58 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!



Here is the previous post.  Again, not certain about whether it was the 
configuration used.  





Thanks to Brad for finding the comment from GoatGuy on Next Big Future.  I have 
had a chance to examine and think through the arguments.  I'm not an engineer, 
so maybe someone else can do a better analysis.  It seems like this explanation 
would work only if the plumbing connected to the water tanks in certain ways 
(e.g., outlets connecting to the central reservoir near the top).  If they 
connected on the bottom of the tanks, there would be mixing and prevention of 
air pockets.


Jack





F
T
V
s
















‒


GoatGuy2
Newcomer
13 hours ago

Hah! I got it… finally! (I see how the 'trick' is very likely being performed, 
and why IH decided on a different testing procedure from the 'contract 
approved' one.)

Its cute, subtle, and would result in an entirely misleading result. 
FIRST, you need to open the ( 
http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/R_123621412_3.pdf ) pdf 
file.

Look at Figure 1. In the center of the “reactor shelter”, is a box labeled 
“water reservoir”, which has 2 inlets and 2 outlets. 

Inlet 1, top = tap water from municipal line
Inlet 2, bot = return from steam condensers
Outlet 1, top = water to first half of E-cats and then to water tank 1
Outlet 2, bot = water to second half of E-cats and then to water tank 2

All that would be needed would be for the steam-condensor loop to have a BUNCH 
of air in the line for this to be a really misleading COP > 1 system. Sensors 
that measure gas flow cannot discriminate 100% steam from 50:50 steam from 0% 
hot air. Likewise, with a bit of flim-flam, most of the heat emitted could be 
combined back into the circulating loop (of which there are 2: (water tank 1) → 
(input to ECat₁) → (combine with reservoir tank water) → (back into ECat₁) → 
(back to water tank 1) … repeated for the bottom half. 

In this system most of the input power can heat the effluent stream, if needed. 
The amount of 'real steam' in the big old misdirection-device (the 
"condensers", which are huge, non-quantitative, impressive and so on), which 
thru air-in-the-lines becomes 'the ruse' looks great. Metrology is done. It all 
seems great because no one is alert to the intent-to-deviate from the patent 
diagram. 

The receiving tanks get both new tap water and a bunch of recirculated water, 
reheated. The bogosity of the experiment isn't easily revealed. No attempt is 
made to mass-heat a bunch of water (like a small swimming pool's worth) a 
finite amount. The whole thing runs at whatever rate it runs (which is 
carefully excluded from the PDF). The only measure left is the misdirected one.

It is ingenious.
And if I were 'there', I'd too be calling for different testing. 
Namely… substituting a liquid-liquid heat exchanger for the great big air 
blower.

To heat the small swimming pool. 
Which REALLY becomes quantitative, fast. 
To at least 2 sig-figs.
More than enough to expose the rat.
Or to confirm the golden goose.

Which (by my surmise) confirms why Rossi's so up tight about the testing.
Which he shouldn't be if it is aiming toward MASS calorimetry.
Which of course he's never done.
Nor will he.

Because it exposes rats.
GoatGuy





On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:52 PM Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com> wrote:


Dave,
There was a schematic that GoatGuy referenced some time ago.  His speculation 
of how it could be faked included air in the system registering on the flow 
meter.  I'm not certain the schematic was the ultimate configuration that was 
used.  I'll try to find it in the archives.

Jack


On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:36 PM David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

Jed, I do not see any obvious reason why the flow meter can not be lower than 
the reservoir.   Do you have some form of schematic that supports what you are 
describing?

Dave

 

 

 


-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 10, 2016 4:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!



Jed,
Your answer is too pathetic for words.
Placed so it was half full???   Show a diagram of the piping so an
engineer can judge it.
I note you still won't admit you were wrong on something else evenafter 
I posted proof .



On 8/10/2016 3:53 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:


  

  
Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com>wrote:
  


  
And what exactly is t

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[David Roberson]

Jed, I do not see any obvious reason why the flow meter can not be lower than 
the reservoir.   Do you have some form of schematic that supports what you are 
describing?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 10, 2016 4:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!


Jed,
Your answer is too pathetic for words.
Placed so it was half full???   Show a diagram of the piping so an
engineer can judge it.
I note you still won't admit you were wrong on something else evenafter 
I posted proof .



On 8/10/2016 3:53 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:


  

  
Peter Gluck wrote:
  


  
And what exactly is the truth, where wasthe flowmeter placed?





It was placed such that it was half full. That is what  the rust 
marks shows, and what careful testing shows.  Obviously it cannot 
be lower than the destination (the  reservoir).




 


  

Can you tell or is it under NDA?
  





I just told you. I.H. told you. You don't believe us.  You believe 
Rossi instead. He gave you no more proof than  I did, but you 
believe him, unconditionally. So I see no  reason to give you any 
more information. You will reject  it and demand more, and more, 
and more.




I expect I.H. will publish more in response to the  lawsuit. You 
can wait until then. But, since you do not  believe what they 
already published, there is no point to  waiting. You have already 
made up your mind that Rossi is  always right, no matter what he 
says, not matter how  impossible it is.




- Jed



  

  


  

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[David Roberson]

Please forgive me for asking you for clarification.  You state that there is a 
holding tank @60 to 70C from which the water is drawn.  Is this tank open to 
the atmosphere or is the system closed?

Also, do you know where the flow meter is located relative to this tank?  Is it 
lower than the tank and located ahead of the pump?  Do you have a reference 
drawing that shows the system layout?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 10:17 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


Jed,
There are several reasons why Penon might have declined to answerMurray.
Your theory that the flow meter was reading significantly high hasbeen 
shot down.
As the flow rate was controlled downstream of the meter, one would
expect it not to vary much.
Exhibit 5 has errors as pointed out earlier.
If the customer had a strongly endothermic process you would not get1 
MW released into the building
I don't know who is telling the truth, but is not yet proven that IHis.

The theory (not yours) earlier about vapor in the line effecting the
flow meter neglects that the return from the customer is into aholding tank 
@ 60 - 70C.  Water drawn from that would not have freevapor. 



On 8/9/2016 9:38 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:


  

  
David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
  


I would hope that  you could be convinced that Rossi is telling 
the truth  if he were to present a solid scientific proof to 
that  fact.  Is that not giving him the benefit of the  
doubt?  Can anyone be 100% confident that he is  
completely lying?





Yes, I am 100% confident he is lying. Take Exhibit 5.  If Rossi or 
Penon had legitimate answers to the issues  raised in that 
document, they would have answered them.  They had a contractual 
obligation to answer, and it would  have been in their interests to 
do so. They did not  respond at all. That tells me they have no 
answers and the  damning assertions made in that document are 
correct. I  have other proof of that. Independent observers told me 
 these assertions are correct.




  
I am also certain there was not 1 MW of waste heatcoming out of 
the customer site.
  

  


I have seen Penon's data, and I confirm it has 36,000  kg in every 
day, for weeks. As I explained here, that is  impossible. If you 
reset the counter to zero every day it  might go past 36,000 every 
day, for example, to 36,410,  36,228, etc., and with this meter 
that would show up as  36,000 every day. Except when daylight 
savings changes.  But that is not what happened.




32,000 may be a reasonable approximation of what the  meter showed, 
but it is definitely made-up data that was  stuffed into the tables.




- Jed




  

  


  

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[David Roberson]

Jed, what did the IH guys present during the actual test period say about the 
meter readings?  They appear to be a party to the deception unless they can 
verify that the readings were not reasonable during their watch.

Both groups should have something to say about the daily readings during their 
presence.  If they fail to mention this then pox on them all.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 9:57 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document




Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:


  
I'm not convinced the meter readings were totally faked, or even
necessarily faked at all.




Then explain how they could be exactly 36,000 per day for weeks. As I pointed 
out, the flow rate would have to be exactly the same to 1 second per day for 
this to happen.


This is simply not possible.


If Penon had said "these are approximate values" in response to Exhibit 5, that 
would be reasonable. Sloppy, but reasonable. No response at all is tantamount 
to admitting it is fake data.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[David Roberson]

You might well be correct Jed.  But, he had, I believe about 100 individual 
test devices.  Is it likely that every one failed?

Also, is the granularity of the test able to confirm that zero excess heat was 
generated?  Some believe that he is achieving a COP of 1.2? or so which might 
be undetected under this condition.

If he actually did not generate any additional heat, I would be concerned that 
this form of LENR is totally without merrit.  If so, it is time to go back into 
hibernation.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 9:42 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document




David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:


As I stated, I have many concerns about his system.  On the other hand, I have 
a much more positive belief that some form of nickel, hydrogen, lithium gas 
system might generate additional heat.  As long as that possibility exists 
within my mind I fail to see how Rossi's experiment would be completely 
invalid. 



Many cold fusion experiments fail to produce any heat. Experiments with Pd and 
Ni both fail. They are "completely invalid" but the authors say they did not 
work, so there is no problem. Some of Rossi's early experiments might have 
produced excess heat. I cannot rule that out. This one did not.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[David Roberson]

Jed, do your sources confirm that the readings were made on a daily basis and 
not calculated at the end of the experiment?  Does the flow meter reset its 
total reading at the end of each day?  Lewan says that the average was 36000 
kg/day which can be derived in many different ways.

Suppose you read a large number after the completion of the test.  If you 
divide that large number by the number of days during which the test takes 
place you will likely get a fractional value.  Now, if rounded off to the 1000 
kg reading step size you might get 36000 kg/day.  Could that be what the guys 
did?

We can eliminate that possibility if you can confirm that the meter was reset 
each day after the reading was taken.  Can you verify this occurred?

I am attempting to uncover what actually took place during the testing and do 
not have a horse in the race.  This should not be a controversial question.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 9:38 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document




David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:


I would hope that you could be convinced that Rossi is telling the truth if he 
were to present a solid scientific proof to that fact.  Is that not giving him 
the benefit of the doubt?  Can anyone be 100% confident that he is completely 
lying?



Yes, I am 100% confident he is lying. Take Exhibit 5. If Rossi or Penon had 
legitimate answers to the issues raised in that document, they would have 
answered them. They had a contractual obligation to answer, and it would have 
been in their interests to do so. They did not respond at all. That tells me 
they have no answers and the damning assertions made in that document are 
correct. I have other proof of that. Independent observers told me these 
assertions are correct.



I am also certain there was not 1 MW of waste heat coming out of the customer 
site.



I have seen Penon's data, and I confirm it has 36,000 kg in every day, for 
weeks. As I explained here, that is impossible. If you reset the counter to 
zero every day it might go past 36,000 every day, for example, to 36,410, 
36,228, etc., and with this meter that would show up as 36,000 every day. 
Except when daylight savings changes. But that is not what happened.


32,000 may be a reasonable approximation of what the meter showed, but it is 
definitely made-up data that was stuffed into the tables.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[David Roberson]

I understand your reasoning now.   You thought I assumed 1 MW which is 
obviously not the case.

But, are you convinced that the meter readings were totally faked?  According 
to most of the information I have seen that may not be the case.  Rossi and IH 
have both implied that they had their own agents on site during much of the 
testing.  It seems unlikely that the IH guys would just stand by and fail to 
verify that the meter readings were correct while they were present.

It seems much more likely to me that everyone present would take notes of the 
water flow rate readings, any temperature measurements or other indications 
that were available.   If true then I suggest that some process must be taking 
place to modify the readings and void their accuracies.  Temperature 
measurements are difficult to fake in most cases without detection.  The water 
flow rate would appear to be the most likely measurement to be in error.

Jed has suggested that the input flow rate appears to be off by a factor of 3 
or so and that is an excellent assumption to begin with.  The true rate may be 
more or less, but I have a suspicion that the meter actually reads in line with 
what has been reported by Rossi.  So, the goal is to figure out a scientific 
reason why the reading does not match the actual flow rate.  That is where this 
discussion began.

Bob Higgins has found information concerning the water flow rate meter which 
suggests that it remains reasonably accurate when not completely full of fluid. 
 This is also true with respect to accuracy when reading less than the minimum 
flow rate specification.  I would like to determine how a meter of this type 
can be so fooled.  That is my quest.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 1:22 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


In your discussion with Daniel, the exchange went something likethis:


  

  

You said:

OK, interesting concept.  I was thinking along the lines of 
   how a heat pump operates.  It consists of a closed systemwith a 
pump(compressor) and a strong restriction to theflowing fluid as 
well as heat exchangers.  A low pressurereturn pipe carries the 
active fluid in vapor form to thepump.  If sufficient heat is not 
absorbed by the expandingmixture then some of it remains in the 
liquid form

after Daniel said:


I was thinking more of the cooling mechanism,  which had to cool 
1MW.
  

  

  




  From this, I (naturally?) concluded that you guys were assuming  
there was 1 MW of heat involved, and all else followed from that.
  
  Aside from that, frankly, I don't care how the meter numbers were  
bolixed -- if the values which were hand-recorded were clearly not  real 
(as they were!) then I don't see how the meter's actual  performance 
matters in the least.  The performance of the human in  the system has been 
proved unreliable and no additional failure  modes are needed.
  
  Furthermore, the meter itself may be a red herring.  There was steam  
in the system which was supposedly carrying massive amounts of  heat -- but 
we don't have proof that the steam was actually steam  and not liquid 
water, and if it wasn't actually vaporized, then  the massive amounts of 
heat simply weren't there, no matter what  the flow rate.
  
  In short, there were multiple points where the system breaks down  
once you have acknowledged that the humans setting it up and  recording its 
performance were lying.  And sorting out the exact  details of what the 
system was really doing just doesn't seem all  that interesting -- it's not 
going to lead to new science, new  physics, or new energy sources.  In 
fact, it's most likely not  even going to lead to a provably correct model, 
just one you think  might be correct, because you'll never get the physical 
 proof you need to from the one who could provide it, which is  Rossi.
  
  At best it will lead to a better understanding of how one scammer  
operated.
  



On 08/09/2016 01:00 AM, David Roberson  wrote:


You fail to understand.  I am seeking a reasonable  explanation for the 
error in the flow rate that Jed is  assuming.  That is the scientific 
way to explain his belief  without just plain guessing.  For some 
reason you think that I  believe that Rossi is actually generating the 
1 MW of heat  without any reservations.
  
  Could this be the reason why you seem so negat

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[David Roberson]

You appear to be missing the point here.   It amazes me that you seem to 
believe that gas phase LENR is possible but for some reason are certain that 
Rossi does not see any extra heat generation.   I would conclude that gas phase 
LENR is likely not possible what so ever if Rossi's system does not generate 
some excess heat.   The question is how much does he produce?  There is 
evidence of excess heat generation during his earlier demonstrations that I 
consider reasonably sound.

And, his structure makes a great deal of sense to many of us.   Surely you 
realize that the active mixture must be heated in order to initiate the 
reaction.  And, once a reaction takes off, it can be controlled by modulating 
the input drive power.  I fail to understand why you believe that the internal 
heater is not required?  That is not to suggest that an external heat source 
could not be substituted in an alternate configuration.

I am curious about how you would construct a gas phase system that is 
practical?  What would be the three dimensional shape that you would choose, 
the type of heating employed, active material, etc.?  Once you begin the actual 
engineering of the device you will find that Rossi is not totally out in left 
field.

Should I say it again?  I have serious doubts about whether or not Rossi is 
making the 1 MW that he claims in his current system.  And, I want to 
understand how the meters might be hiding the real results if they in fact are 
wrong.  There must be a good explanation in science that we can find if we 
think about the problem and eventually get the data from him.  This new 
knowledge will guide us in the future in case others become confused in a 
similar manner.  I hate guessing if the truth can be determined.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 12:58 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


You don't seem to get it.

Rossi has been shown to be lying and fabricating results.

ROSSI.

ROSSI is not to be believed.  His "experiments" are consequently
worthless, because the basic assumption of good faith, on which all
conventional analysis of experiments ultimately rests, is gone.

This has nothing to do with gas-phase LENR, which has lookedpromising 
ever since it was first tried, in Italy, IIRC, a fewdecades ago.  
Unfortunately Rossi has totally muddied the water withhis Rube Goldberg 
machine which apparently has as its single purposeto provide a (bogus) 
justification for including a heater within thereactor, which makes all of 
his results a little harder to believeright from the get-go.  Wet LENR 
requires a power source to drivethe electrolysis, which hairs up the 
analysis, but it'sunavoidable.  Gas-phase LENR, OTOH, doesn't naturally 
require apower source; Rossi's claims that his machine was "too dangerous" 
tooperate WITHOUT a heater inside rang false to start with andnothing's 
made it sound any better since.

People lie, scammers exist.  Once you've figured out that's whatyou're 
dealing with, you should understand that you have *no* goodinformation on 
anything about his "experiments" and any analysis isunlikely to get you 
anything useful.
    

    
On 08/09/2016 12:43 AM, David Roberson  wrote:


As I stated, I have many concerns about his system.   On the other 
hand, I have a much more positive belief that  some form of nickel, 
hydrogen, lithium gas system might  generate additional heat.  As long 
as that possibility exists  within my mind I fail to see how Rossi's 
experiment would be  completely invalid. 
  
  Are you convinced that LENR is not a real phenomena?  If so, I
  will understand why you are taking the position that Rossi  
absolutely can not be believed.  That is OK, everyone is  entitled to 
their beliefs.
  
  If it becomes clear to me that my attempts to uncover a  
scientific explanation of how someone might be scamming an  experiment

I don't understand what you mean by that.

He lies about meter readings, about power input, about flow rate,about 
the phase (gas or liquid) of the water in his system.

What's to "learn" or "uncover" here?  How to be a world-class liar? 
Humans have evolved that ability over millions of years; we'remostly pretty 
good at it.

The "physics" of his experiments, if any, is utterly uninteresting
because it is entirely lost in the smoke he blows in order toconceal what 
he's actually doing.  And it's vanishingly unlikelythat the "physics" 
involves anything deeper than V=IR plus a bit ofmisdirect

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[David Roberson]

You fail to understand.  I am seeking a reasonable explanation for the error in 
the flow rate that Jed is assuming.  That is the scientific way to explain his 
belief without just plain guessing.  For some reason you think that I believe 
that Rossi is actually generating the 1 MW of heat without any reservations.

Could this be the reason why you seem so negative about my attempts to uncover 
the truth?  Perhaps you can explain to us how the flow rate is reading much 
greater than it should, especially taking into consideration the recent 
excellent posts by Mr. Higgins, and others?  If you are a scientist or engineer 
then you should want an honest explanation for the errors in flow rate 
readings.  Otherwise it would be better for you to leave that determination to 
those of us that have the proper training.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 11:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


If I understand this discussion, you appear to be engaging inmassive 
doublethink here.

You're trying to explain a bogus reading of the meter while assuming
that the system was actually producing 1 MW of heat.

If it was generating 1 MW then the meter reading was presumably correct,
and in that case there's nothing funky about the meter that needs tobe 
explained, save for the constant flow rate and other anomaliesJed has 
mentioned.

It's only if the system wasn't generating a megawatt thatthere's an 
anomalously high flow reading to explain, and in thatcase you can't very 
well assume that much heat is being dissipated.

So, either the meter reading was anomalously high and the heat wasmuch 
lower than a megawatt,  or the meter reading was moreor less bang-on, and 
there was a megawatt of heat being dissipatedsomewhere.  But not both.


On 08/08/2016 11:52 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


OK, interesting concept.  I was thinking along the  lines of how a heat 
pump operates.  It consists of a closed  system with a pump(compressor) 
and a strong restriction to the  flowing fluid as well as heat 
exchangers.  A low pressure  return pipe carries the active fluid in 
vapor form to the  pump.  If sufficient heat is not absorbed by the 
expanding  mixture then some of it remains in the liquid form.   I 
wonder  if a significant portion of that mixture in Rossi's case might  
be vapor, leading to false reading within the gauge ahead of  
the pump?
  
  This is merely a conceptual idea to digest.
  
  Dave

 


 


 


-Original  Message-
  From: Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>
  To: John Milstone <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
  Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 9:19 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described  
in court document
  
  

  
I was thinking more of the coolingmechanism, which had to cool 
1MW. The surface area isvery large. In less then 3D (scale of 
the tubes in 1D incomparison to other), turbulence can go from 
smallvortices to high, and when it exits to large tubes it  
  goes from high vortices to low. Depending on the design,  
  a lot of cavitation may form and accumulate in the flowmeter, 
if no system to elimate bubles is developed.


  
2016-08-08 21:32 GMT-03:00    David Roberson 
<dlrober...@aol.com>:

I agree, the pump might actually lower  the pressure at 
its input enough to allow the  water to vaporize if the 
flow is restricted  ahead of the gauge.
  
  Dave



  
  

  

  

  

  

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[David Roberson]

As I stated, I have many concerns about his system.  On the other hand, I have 
a much more positive belief that some form of nickel, hydrogen, lithium gas 
system might generate additional heat.  As long as that possibility exists 
within my mind I fail to see how Rossi's experiment would be completely 
invalid. 

Are you convinced that LENR is not a real phenomena?  If so, I will understand 
why you are taking the position that Rossi absolutely can not be believed.  
That is OK, everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

If it becomes clear to me that my attempts to uncover a scientific explanation 
of how someone might be scamming an experiment is wasting time for 'everyone' 
on this list, I will refrain from that effort.

You may not remember that I have contributed to the resolution of many 
important issues in the past.  Also, I have constructed thermal system models 
that yield quite interesting results that you can find in the list archives if 
interested.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 11:49 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document





On 08/08/2016 11:39 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


I would hope that you could be convinced that Rossi  is telling the 
truth if he were to present a solid scientific  proof to that fact.  Is 
that not giving him the benefit of the  doubt?  Can anyone be 100% 
confident that he is completely  lying?
  
  As long as there is any question about the facts, 


No.  Wrong criterion.  There will always be some questionsabout the 
facts.

The courts do not require guilt to be proved "beyond a shadow of a
doubt" or "beyond any question" or "beyond any possibility of error"because 
it is almost never possible to prove anything thatdefinitely.

On the other hand, Rossi has been proved to be a liar and ascammer 
beyond a reasonable doubt which is thecriterion jurors are generally asked 
to apply.  The number ofunlikely assumptions which must hold in order for 
him to be anhonest researcher is vastly larger than the number of 
assumptionswhich must hold if he is what he appears to be, which is a 
greedysleazebucket who's stealing money and wasting everybody's time. 
Concluding in the face of the evidence that you must give him  another 
chance is flat-out irrational -- i.e.,  it's anemotional decision, not a 
reasoned one, because there is noreasonable ground for concluding that.

If you want to waste time giving him endless chances to try yetagain 
and maybe this time produce an honest result that shows hisequipment really 
does work, feel free, but you are seriously wastingeverybody else's time by 
doing it here.  At this time it appearsthat there's a larger chance that 
you'll hit Megabucks than thatyou'll wake up and find out Rossi was 
vindicated.  (And that goesdouble if you actually buy a lottery ticket.)


  

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[David Roberson]

OK, interesting concept.  I was thinking along the lines of how a heat pump 
operates.  It consists of a closed system with a pump(compressor) and a strong 
restriction to the flowing fluid as well as heat exchangers.  A low pressure 
return pipe carries the active fluid in vapor form to the pump.  If sufficient 
heat is not absorbed by the expanding mixture then some of it remains in the 
liquid form.   I wonder if a significant portion of that mixture in Rossi's 
case might be vapor, leading to false reading within the gauge ahead of the 
pump?

This is merely a conceptual idea to digest.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>
To: John Milstone <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 9:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document



I was thinking more of the cooling mechanism, which had to cool 1MW. The 
surface area is very large. In less then 3D (scale of the tubes in 1D in 
comparison to other), turbulence can go from small vortices to high, and when 
it exits to large tubes it goes from high vortices to low. Depending on the 
design, a lot of cavitation may form and accumulate in the flow meter, if no 
system to elimate bubles is developed.



2016-08-08 21:32 GMT-03:00 David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>:

I agree, the pump might actually lower the pressure at its input enough to 
allow the water to vaporize if the flow is restricted ahead of the gauge.

Dave

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[David Roberson]

I would hope that you could be convinced that Rossi is telling the truth if he 
were to present a solid scientific proof to that fact.  Is that not giving him 
the benefit of the doubt?  Can anyone be 100% confident that he is completely 
lying?

As long as there is any question about the facts, we should be able to explore 
the complexities of the experiment.  So far, it appears that most of the folks 
with great reservations believe that the water flow rate measurements are where 
he confuses us the most.  I am attempting to follow up on that lead and 
determine whether or not it is based upon scientific fact.   If we can not 
convince ourselves that this is the source of the error, then we are coming up 
short.

I would hope that you, me and the others can actually figure out why the 
experiment is not indicative of reality.  Let's not become pseudo skeptics 
unless the data leads to that conclusion. Also, no one should assume that I 
believe most of what Rossi is saying because I harbor many serious concerns.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 9:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document





On 08/08/2016 08:27 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


I suppose that Rossi may not be telling the truth as  you have concluded, 
but I am attempting to give him the  benefit of the doubt.  

You have got to be kidding.

We have been discussing Rossi in this group for the last sixyears.

The first Vortex email I have regarding Rossi is from March, 2010. It's 
from Jed, and it's quite positive.

The road from initial elation with Rossi's fabulous results to the
conclusion that it's all just a fable with nothing to back it up waslong, 
contentious, and littered with a lot of dubious claims (fromRossi) and 
difficult to unearth facts (about what he was reallydoing).

The "benefit of the doubt" ran out long ago for this guy.

  

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[David Roberson]

I agree, the pump might actually lower the pressure at its input enough to 
allow the water to vaporize if the flow is restricted ahead of the gauge.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha 
To: John Milstone 
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 8:31 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document



Not necessarily. The water, though is entering relatively cold, it has passed 
through regions of turbulence, so it should be carrying bubbles due cavitation 
of the vortices.



2016-08-08 11:06 GMT-03:00 Bob Higgins :


 That problem could have been totally eliminated if the flow meter were 
oriented vertically.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[David Roberson]

I suppose that Rossi may not be telling the truth as you have concluded, but I 
am attempting to give him the benefit of the doubt.   You and I both would 
prefer to see a gauge that is more precise than 1000 kg/day but that does 
appear to be be in line with an approximately 3% error that is specified.  I 
get 1000/36000 * 100=2.777%.  And, if he actually did look at the total average 
flow rate throughout the test, it might indeed read 36000 because of the meter 
increments.  This certainly seems convenient, but would be possible.

The other issue concerning the question as to whether or not the water 
completely filled the gauge may depend upon whether or not the pump was located 
ahead of the meter.  A similar problem often occurs in hydraulics when a filter 
is placed ahead of the pump in the suction line.  In that case it is possible 
to damage the pump by cavitation if the fluid flow is restricted by pressure 
loss within the filter.  So, perhaps in this case Rossi has placed a high 
pressure loss piping component within the system.

If the water flow gauge is placed beyond the restriction, then that portion of 
the piping might be starved of water even if located at the lowest point within 
the system.  The output port of the pump would be full of water while the input 
is starved.  Could this represent what is being observed?   Whether intended or 
not the gauge might loose its accuracy as you are suggesting.
 

 Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 7:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document




David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:


Jed, you post Mats Levan's statement as proof for your conclusion that the flow 
rate was exactly 36,000 kg/day.  I just read his article and it clearly says 
that this is the average rate of flow for the test period.  How do you draw the 
conclusion from his article that the rate is exactly the same each and every 
day?


He lied. I expect he wanted to give the impression it was an average, because I 
think many people realize that saying it is exactly 36,000 per day is absurd. 
But his data shows exactly that much for every day. As you see from the 
instrument it can only show an even multiple of thousands, which is also 
absurd, for this volume.


Imagine if he had told Lewan "we record exactly exactly 36,000 kg per day." 
People would be suspicious! People here are suspicious. His supporters think I 
made that up, or I am lying.




I also read that the flow meter was placed within the lowest point of the 
system.


I recall he did say that. He lied again! Seriously.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[David Roberson]

Jed, you post Mats Levan's statement as proof for your conclusion that the flow 
rate was exactly 36,000 kg/day.  I just read his article and it clearly says 
that this is the average rate of flow for the test period.  How do you draw the 
conclusion from his article that the rate is exactly the same each and every 
day?  I am not doubting what you say, but I read it differently.  Can you 
elaborate?

I also read that the flow meter was placed within the lowest point of the 
system.  Is this consistent with the conclusion that the water did not fill the 
gauge?   A closed system would seem to suggest that any device such as the 
referred to gauge located at the lowest point would be full of water provided 
that water was not vaporized.   Perhaps someone can suggest a scenario that 
would allow the water to occupy only a portion of the gauge for a system of 
this type.  I assume that the gauge water is at the coolest temperature and not 
vaporized to a significant degree.

I think it is necessary for all of us to ensure that the facts that we are 
stating make scientific sense.  It is not clear to me that this criteria is 
being met.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 4:05 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document




Russ George  wrote:



Just show your source and the documented evidence/data, you ask for no less of 
Rossi et al.




I was asked not to reveal this up until now. You can now learn nearly 
everything I know by reading the documents uploaded by I.H. in the trial 
(especially Exhibit 5), and Rossi's interview with Lewan. See:


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6qvuFUMAp9HMEQyeHZlX256U1E/view



https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/



For convenience, let me again summarize what the sample data I have seen shows:

Flow 36,000 kg/day exactly. Pressure 0.0 bar exactly. Fluid temperature 102.8°C 
(varying by a few degrees).


That's all there is to it. If you would like to make your own version of 
Penon's data, make a table with days on the y-axis, and fill in 3 columns with 
those numbers, adding a slight variation to the fluid temperature.



Penon listed the flow rate as 36,000 kg/day and then arbitrarily subtracted 10% 
from that, as Rossi told Lewan. I do not know what justification he had for 
doing that.



The water reservoir temperature is shown once at 60°C. That is also the number 
Rossi quoted. Exhibit 5 has a more precise number: 68.7°C.







 No one can have any respect for your anger laden statements as being anything 
other than rants.




The court documents show that my statements are based on facts. Or at least, 
facts claimed by I.H. I think Rossi's statements have been rants. They include 
no technical details or numbers.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The principle of the mutual energy

[David Roberson]

Robin,

It is my experience that the coupling falls off as 1/r to the third power at 
large distances.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Jul 20, 2016 12:04 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The principle of the mutual energy
>For example in my past self resonant coil experiments very efficient energy 
>transfer between two air coils at a distance does not fit to magnetic coupling 
>working for transformers, nor to standard electromagnetic wave transmission 
>despite of presence of substantial electric and magnetic fields. These fields 
>are now known   as evanescent waves. May the coupling through evanescent waves 
>have a similarity with the handshake described on this paper. 
>OTH, I think self resonant coils (Tesla coils) could not be substituted by a 
>LC 
>tank. Coils can resonate in multiple frequencies at the same time and may 
>cause 
>some odd effects depending to waveshape and to geometry.
>BTW, Imrecons appears specialized in computer tomography.
>http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08710

It is also well known that the energy transfer between resonant air coils drops
off as 1/R rather than 1/R^2. That's why I think it's possible that many so
called free energy experiments actually make use of resonance with the protons
in the inner Van Allen belt. The resonance wavelength may be about the same as
the altitude of the inner Van Allen belt for some protons.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:A relevant patent application

[David Roberson]

Exactly my thoughts as well.  I suppose the patent trolls might be gearing up 
for a big legal battle to come.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Jun 11, 2016 5:37 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A relevant patent application

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sat, 11 Jun 2016 10:54:31 -0700:
Hi,

Another "me too" application that seeks to grab market share while not having a
clue what's actually going on.

>
>https://www.google.com/patents/US20150027433
>
>David L. Frank
>BHI GLOBAL LLC 
>Highland Beach, FL, USA 
>
>Other Patents / applications
>
>2016/0155,576  2016DENSE ENERGY ULTRA-CAPACITOR 
>9,200,816  2015Hydrogen jet propulsion system  
>2015/0027,433  2015Self-Regulated Hydrogen ThermoCell 2014/0325,987
>2014   Hydrogen Jet Propulsion System  
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[David Roberson]

Thanks Jed,

I followed the link and was not able to locate any significant test data to 
conclude anything of importance.  Most of the information appeared to be 
associated with the old test of October 6, 2011 which may or may not be 
relevant.

I suppose that most of us are going to have to wait a while before we will be 
able to review the privileged data you have.  In the past I have found you to 
be an honest source which I assume remains true.  For this reason, and for 
several other issues that have been argued too many times recently, I worry 
that our dream of high power LENR may remain out of reach.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Jun 7, 2016 1:37 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1




David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:


Could you direct me to a site that contains the test data that you are 
referring to?


No, sorry. It is all a big secret. I have some limited data from before the 
brouhaha under an NDA.


Rossi gave some information during his interview with Lewan. I think he gave 
more than he intended to. See:


https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/



- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[David Roberson]

Jed,

Could you direct me to a site that contains the test data that you are 
referring to?  Also, I would like to find out exactly what equipment was used 
for the testing.  Are either of these items available to download at any 
location that you are aware of?

Also, How many hours long is the data set that you have seen?  Does it cover a 
day's worth of operation?  And, are you confident that it is representative of 
the remainder of the data?

I would appreciate any help that you may be able to supply while keeping your 
agreements.

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 7, 2016 11:15 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1




Peter Gluck  wrote:


Dear Jed,


Excuse me for joining the discussion, however the choices are
simple something or nothing, excess heat or NOT excess heat- zero, nada, niente 
nihil etc.
In the moment you accept that it was a small excess heat you are accepting 
implicitly that by adequate means it can be increased.. no compromise here.



You misunderstand. I have been over this several times, but I will repeat what 
I said about this.

As I.H. said, Rossi uses "inoperable reactors, relying on flawed measurements, 
and using unsuitable measuring devices." His data and configuration notes bear 
this out. The test setup is a farce. Because the test is so poorly done and so 
crude, the margin of error is gigantic. I suppose the COP might be somewhere 
between 0.5 and 1.5 if you take the numbers at face value.


However, as a practical matter I am sure the COP is less than 1. That is the 
most plausible interpretation of the data. Just because the instruments are so 
bad they could indicate practically anything, that does not justify the 
assumption that they indicate an anomaly.


I am working with Rossi's own data. I.H. says they are confident there is no 
excess heat. I presume this is because they have additional data that they 
collected themselves. I have not seen this data, but I take their word for it 
there is no heat, and I am sure they have better proof than Rossi's own 
nonsensical numbers.



Anyone could set up instruments to measure the heat properly, with reasonable 
accuracy. I assume I.H. did this. Rossi fought to prevent them from doing it, 
but I suppose they finally were able to do it.



You could answer all questions about the calorimetry by visiting the pretend 
customer site next door, because that is where the fluid is cooled down. Rossi 
fought to prevent that, as well. Given that this pretend customer conducts no 
business, has no employees, pays no taxes and has never had any equipment 
inspected, my guess is that there nothing more in the customer site than a 
radiator and fan that removes ~15 kW of heat.








I cannot describe the details, but let me illustrate what I mean with an 
unrelated example. I have a blood pressure meter that had a weak battery. It 
registered something like 180 systolic over 60, then 210 over 140, then 90 over 
20. The latter would mean I am dead. Since I am alive, it was clear the 
instrument was malfunctioning. In Rossi's case, the malfunctions are even 
larger than this. The instruments were selected and then installed in ways that 
makes it impossible to get a meaningful answer. This is either extremely 
stupid, or deliberate fraud. Since Rossi does not seem stupid to me, I assume 
it is fraud.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[David Roberson]

This is a civil case.  No one is guilty on either side.  Criminal law does not 
apply so let's forget about the issue of innocent until proven guilty.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Jun 4, 2016 5:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1


I KNOW the charged one should not be called guilty until after the
trial.  The question is, do you?


On 6/4/2016 4:49 PM, Eric Walker wrote:


  

  
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 2:50 PM,a.ashfield   
  wrote:
  


  
Like Jed, youconclude he is guilty until proven innocent.

  
  


Rossi is suing IH, which are the ones  to be assumed innocent until 
proven guilty under US law.  By  contrast, we have five years of 
Rossi's comments and behavior  upon which to draw conclusions.  This is 
hardly a snap  judgment I've come to.




Eric



  


  

Re: [Vo]:The most mysterious star in the universe

[David Roberson]

One would think that the astronomers have cataloged enough stars during the 
original research project to know how the variable ones behave.  Of course it 
is entirely possible that what they are seeing is a rare form of variable star 
like you are suggesting.

I wonder what would happen if a large field of dark bodies much closer to the 
earth were passing in front of the star?  Once, I suggested that it might be 
possible to detect 'UFO' type objects by observing as many of the background 
stars as possible while looking for variation to the intensity of the light 
arriving from them.   This concept is a bit like radar in reverse.  Even a 
craft with a stealth coating would be visible using this scenario.

For my concept to work it would be necessary to figure a way to ignore the 
twinkle of the stars caused by atmospheric variations.  I assumed that a local 
craft would blank out a region in space that is much larger than a star 
appearing behind it from the earth's surface.  This should be apparent to the 
observer in most cases.  The location and motion of the craft could be 
determined by following the series of blanked out stars.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, May 30, 2016 6:38 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The most mysterious star in the universe

In reply to  H LV's message of Mon, 30 May 2016 15:11:52 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]

1) I wonder if they have considered the possibility that the output of the star
itself is simply variable? 


>The most mysterious star in the universe
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gypAjPp6eps
>
>Published on Apr 29, 2016
>
>Something massive, with roughly 1,000 times the area of Earth, is blocking
>the light coming from a distant star known as KIC 8462852, and nobody is
>quite sure what it is. As astronomer Tabetha Boyajian investigated this
>perplexing celestial object, a colleague suggested something unusual: Could
>it be an alien-built megastructure? Such an extraordinary idea would
>require extraordinary evidence. In this talk, Boyajian gives us a look at
>how scientists search for and test hypotheses when faced with the unknown.
>
>?Harry?
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[David Roberson]

Guys,

I am confident that all of us would love to see LENR advance and become a very 
important energy source in the near future.  Jed has been a tireless supporter 
of the field for many years and I appreciate his posts to this list.  Mr. 
Ashfield has also made many important contributions that I and others respect.

So, why not bury the axe and let's return to the important discussion of LENR 
science without resorting to attacks upon each other?  We will achieve far 
superior results working as a team instead of fighting among ourselves.  There 
will always be differences of opinion between the members of the list, but they 
need to be controlled in a manner that does not lead to conflict.

Jed, if you were pointing out that ventilation is required when dealing with 1 
MW of heating, then that makes sense to most of the folks on this list.  Of 
course, it would be possible to extract that amount of heat by using a second 
method of heat extraction that could have been considered.  For example, a 
second incoming source of cold water could be heated by a heat exchanger that 
then allowed for the heat to be taken away within it's exhaust stream.   No one 
really knows what happens to the heat being generated by Rossi's system since 
he would not allow IH to examine the customer's section of the building.

I also agree with Jed that IH should have been allowed access to the customer's 
equipment.  For some reason that did not take place so we find ourselves in the 
present condition where legal action is going to cloud the subject for who 
knows how long into the future.  This is very unfortunate in my opinion.  It is 
also not surprising that this lack of reasonable cooperation is raising doubts 
about Rossi and his claims; in time the truth will prevail.

I hope that my words did not offend anyone since that was clearly not my 
intention.   We are all members of the same team that want to advance the 
science of LENR.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, May 26, 2016 7:42 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.




a.ashfield  wrote:

 
This started because you objected to me saying you wrote the heat would be 
fatal and then denying you meant that.


The title of the thread that I started was:

"1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial ventilation would 
be fatal"

See? It says "without industrial ventilation." Do you understand? Let me repeat 
that:

without industrial ventilation
without industrial ventilation
without industrial ventilation
without industrial ventilation
WITHOUT INDUSTRIAL VENTILATION
WITHOUT INDUSTRIAL VENTILATION
WITHOUT INDUSTRIAL VENTILATION


WITHOUT INDUSTRIAL VENTILATION




I said that without measuring the ventilation system, there is no proof of 1 MW 
of heat. What is so damned difficult about that? How can you possibly 
misunderstand what I mean?



 
  The title of you post suggests it was a straw man.  This is getting 
repetitive and I suggest we quit it.



I suggest you stop this pretend willful ignorance bullshit.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial ventilation would be fatal

[David Roberson]

Air must come into the building to replace the heated air that is exhausted.  
Is there evidence for the existence of an input opening adequate to achieve 
this requirement?  Are all the doors and windows closed?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha 
To: John Milstone 
Sent: Sat, May 21, 2016 3:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial 
ventilation would be fatal



That's a surprisingly small volume. The machine has one of its smaller 
dimensions 3 meters. So, even 1.5m/s per second at one end would cool the 
device.


2016-05-21 15:51 GMT-03:00 Alan Fletcher :


Back-of-the-envelope calculation

I'm going to look at a column of air of volume V -- with area A ... and a 
height H sufficient to hold 
1-second's worth of 1MW of heat. This has to be vented in 1 second.

1MW is 1000 kJ /second. 
Q = 1000 kJ in one second

Specific heat of air at 100C is 1 kJ / (kg K)
Density of air at 100C is r = 1kg/m^3

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-properties-d_156.html

Ambient air is 20C, heated air is 100C dK = 80

Q = S * dK * M 


Mass = 1kg * r * V = r * V

Q = S * dK * r * V

Solve for V :

V = Q / ( S * dK * r ) = 1000 / ( 1. * 80 * 1.) 
 = 12.5 m^3 per SECOND
 = 750 m^3 per MINUTE

 = 26,486 CFM (Cubic Feet per Minute)

That's a teeny tiny little fan!
http://www.industrialfansdirect.com/wall-ventilation.html?=CIb8x7zb68wCFQEJaQodk4AMnQ



From: "Alan Fletcher" 
To: "vortex-l" 
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 10:37:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial 
ventilation would be fatal





This chimney sizing link doesn't really apply --- it's for natural draft up a 
chimney of a given height and diameter --  WITHOUT a fan.


(The longer the chimney the higher velocity of the draft, so a given diameter 
can exhaust more heat.  They recommend "The velocity of air and flue gas in a 
smaller furnace should not exceed 2 m/s. " -- so I presume that the charts are 
based on this, and not the maximum 10m/s.).


I haven't put a ruler on the aerial photos of the vents on the roof ... but it 
looks like they could easily be 22 inches.


Since  a 22-inch vent WITHOUT a fan at a velocity of 2 m/s can handle 1MW, it 
seems likely that a vent WITH a fan could also do so.


There's probably a vent/fan sizing chart somewhere, but this isn't it.



From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "vortex-l" 
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 9:16:31 AM


As I said, 1 MW in this space would be like running 16 space heating furnaces 
continuously without thermostats. To remove that much heat, you need a 22" vent 
and a large fan. An expert from I.H. would have to confirm this ventilation 
equipment is installed and working to confirm the claim. 1 MW of heat release 
calls for at least at 22" vent:


http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/chimney-sizing-d_175.html












-- 

Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996

[David Roberson]

This situation seems to be following the theory that the heat is generated 
throughout the volume of the material while it escapes through the surface area 
of that mass.  Volume varies as the cube of the linear dimension while surface 
area is proportional to the square.

With this thought in mind, adding more of the same material is going to lead to 
a higher internal temperature as long as a reaction is taking place inside a 
mass that generates heat.   This type of experiment might actually be the best 
means available to prove that LENR is taking place, assuming the dangers can be 
overcome.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, May 20, 2016 9:59 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996




H LV  wrote:



2.5 lbs of powered nickel offers a great deal of surface area for heat of 
adsorption. Also the nickel powder had been sitting in a vacuum before the 
hydrogen gas was added so this would further enhance the adsorption of hydrogen.




Yes. This is what I meant by "critical mass issue." Maybe I should call it 
"critical thermal mass."


The large mass may also enhance hydrogen adsorption, as noted. In other words, 
100 g of powder might absorb X amount, where 1000 g absorbs more than 10 times 
X.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996

[David Roberson]

Jones,
 
Is it possible to find another source to back up what you are describing in 
this event?   A second written record would be fine if available.
 
I have not heard of that particular thermal run away reaction that you have 
listed below but would find it interesting to follow up on.  The recent 
negative information that is coming out pertaining to Rossi is beginning to 
concern me and your example seems like just the medicine needed to cure that 
problem.

It has been my intent to continuing standing by with an open mind until the 
year long test data is released by Rossi or IH and analyzed.  This is not an 
easy position to maintain at this point with all the negativity being expressed 
by Jed and others.

Thanks,

Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, May 19, 2016 2:09 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway  in 1996



Most observers of the LENR/nickel hydride scene are unaware of the details of 
the Thermacore, Inc. runaway reaction back in 1996. 
Unfortunately, this was the last effort that this company made in the field, 
and the main reason that they dropped LENR. The incident echoes other thermal 
runaways, including P, Mizuno, Mark Snoswell in Australia and Ahern. However, 
it was far more energetic than any of the prior incidents.
This was to have been an powered experiment but they never had time to apply 
input power. This was was a follow-on to a Phase one grant from USAF (document 
in LENR-CANR library) and was simply intended to be an analysis the absorption 
reaction of a large amount of nickel powder and hydrogen at modest pressure. 
Instead, it was likely the most energetic single event in the history of LENR.
Recently, Brian Ahern has been in contact with Nelson Gernert, the chief 
researcher in the new Thermacore (having gone through two changes of ownership) 
who was also in charge of the runaway. None of this has appeared in print 
before. 
Gernert added 2.5 pounds of nickel powder (200 mesh of Ni-200) into a 3 liter 
stainless steel Dewar.  The Dewar weighed 300 pounds. It was a strong pressure 
vessel with a hemispherical volume. Thermacore evacuated the nickel under 
vacuum for several days before adding H2 gas at 2 atmospheres (apparently there 
was no potassium but this detail needs to be verified).

The most amazing thing happened next. The powder immediately and spontaneously 
heated before external power could be added. The Dewar glowed orange (800C) and 
the engineers ran for cover. No external heat had been used and no radiation 
monitors were running. The nickel had sintered into a glob alloyed into the 
vessel and could not be removed.

The (then) owner of Thermacore, Yale Eastman was frightened that an explosion 
was imminent and that someone could be killed. He forbade any further work on 
LENR. The incident was not published. 
The Dewar was no longer safe as a pressure vessel and they junked it. They did 
not measure it for radiation. Superficial thermal analysis - 3 liters of H2 gas 
at 2 atmosphere will have a heat of combustion of 74 kilojoules when combined 
with oxygen (but there was no oxygen in the Dewar).  

Heating a 300 lb Stainless vessel to 800C requires 21 megajoules. That is 
ostensibly 289 times the possible chemical energy!





Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 10:44:35 -0400
Subject: Re: MILLS AND THERMACORE
From: na...@gwu.edu
To: ahern_br...@msn.com
Thanks, Brian.
I will try to get a complete copy.
Dave

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
aLL MY COPIES LACK PAGE 4. 

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[David Roberson]

I am in agreement with what you two are suggesting.  Why should Rossi not allow 
the other parties to see how the heated water is used?  This fact seems 
damning.  I would not accept this condition either.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 17, 2016 9:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test




Eric Walker  wrote:



It is a measure of Rossi's reality distortion field that people here are ok 
with Leonardo's and the ERV's having prevented access to IH to see the customer 
installation.  In any other context, it would be hard to imagine that this 
would have taken place or to assume that the ERV was impartial.



Yes. I am surprised that Rossi's supporters do not see this. I am especially 
surprised and disappointed in Lewan. He should have realized that not letting 
I.H. experts see the equipment is outrageous. It destroys Rossi and Penon's 
credibility.


 

It also shows how adversarial and calculating the relationship between Leonardo 
and IH had become by that point, as though two people were playing chess, 
without a mote of real trust between them.



Yes, regrettably that is the case. As I said before, I heard they had 
disagreements, but I sincerely hoped they would iron out the problems and agree 
on the test results. But it is not possible to iron out this problem! If you 
are not allowed to do a thorough analysis of the customer's machinery that is 
using the heat, it is game over. No one can evaluate a machine faced with that 
kind of intransigence.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[David Roberson]

Jed,

Do I understand that you have seen the actual test data and have determined 
that zero power in excess of the input is achieved?  This is a strong position 
that you are taking and should not be stated without absolute certainty.

I am waiting until I see the proof before drawing such a conclusion.  The 
evidence is looking bad for Rossi at the moment due to many of the facts you 
mention, but I need convincing.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 17, 2016 9:33 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test




Daniel Rocha  wrote:


I think it is pretty much obvious that I don't believe you. Or any of the other 
people here.



You have no reason to doubt me. You know that I have seen the data, and that I 
am capable of doing ordinary, elementary calorimetry. You know that Rossi and 
Penon said they would not allow anyone to see the customer machinery, so 
obviously they are either world-class idiots or frauds. Anyone who say "I won't 
let you see the machinery that uses this heat" has zero credibility, to 5 
significant decimal places. People who believed Rossi before should instantly 
disbelieve him, based on that statement alone. You do not even need to see all 
the other idiotic mistakes he made.


You have no information from Rossi about the calorimetry, other than the 
statement that he says he will not let people see the most critical aspect of 
it, and the most obvious proof of his claim. You have no reason to believe 
anything he says.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]: MFMP GS5.3 - a replication

[David Roberson]

Guys, lets hope that the radiation does not escape the system if we ever want 
to see any of these units become adopted in large numbers.  Be careful what you 
hope for!  I would be far more satisfied to find that the original measurement 
was not accurate.

If this radiation signal is for real, can the energy be confined to within a 
well shielded device?  I have not followed the testing too closely, but I tend 
to recoil at the mention of gamma radiation.
 
Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Apr 12, 2016 12:12 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP GS5.3 - a replication




On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Bob Higgins  wrote:



We are all hoping for a repeat performance of the "signal", the gamma burst 
output.  In GS5.3, the team is much better prepared to monitor the radiations.  
Time bases for all of the data acquistions have been carefully synchronized.  
Amptek has generously loaned MFMP an X-123 CdTe x-ray spectrometer capable of 
about 6keV to 80keV measurement.  Mark Jurich has borrowed an x-ray 
scintillator system from SLAC to monitor.  The GM detector has been upgraded to 
a sensitive 2" pancake detector.




I'm looking forward to the conclusions.  I'm sure MFMP have done a range of 
calibrations; possibly something like these?

Calibrated the x-ray spectrometer and scintillator against known standards.
Verified that the x-ray spectrometer, the x-ray scintillator and GM detector 
work in coincidence (when there's a signal in one there's a signal in the 
others).
Taken background readings over a period of weeks n order to characterize 
occasional background events and avoid confusing them for a possible signal.

Eric