[Vo]:Roger Green - Interview of one of the first investors in Andrea Rossi

[Joe Hughes]

I found this interesting and thought I would share:
https://youtu.be/Xh-fHzNQrO0?si=lqZwy5yP9AcRvswf

Best Regards,
Joe

Re: [Vo]:Off topic: machine translation

[Joe Hughes]

Seems that might still be up for debate in some circles:

https://voynichportal.com/2019/05/16/cheshire-reprised/


On 5/16/2019 9:26 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:

The complete paper:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02639904.2019.1599566

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 8:38 AM Terry Blanton > wrote:


Speaking of linguistics, The Voynich code has finally and really
been cracked.  Can you believe it was written by Dominican nuns in
a proto-Romance language.
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-bristol-academic-voynich-code-century-old.html




On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:20 PM Jed Rothwell
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I wrote:

AI does exceed human abilities in a narrow range of
problems, such as playing Go, recognizing faces, or
determining that a young woman who shops at Target is
pregnant before her father realizes that fact.


I kid you not. See:


https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/#699048646668



I submitted the above message as letter to the editor. I hope
I do not upset the professor, who I admire a great deal. I am
a little surprised to discover I seem to know more about AI
than he does. Maybe more about linguistics applied to Japanese
and Chinese.





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Joe Hughes]

I'm not sure how you can say that AT&T never invented anything.
For decades Bell Labs (Part of AT&T) was one of the preeminent research 
labs in the world.


From Wikipedia:

/At its peak, Bell Laboratories was the premier facility of its type, 
developing a wide range of revolutionary technologies, including //radio 
astronomy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_astronomy>//, the 
//transistor <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor>//, the //laser 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser>//, //information theory 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory>//, the operating 
system //Unix <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix>//, the programming 
languages //C 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_%28programming_language%29>//and //C++ 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B>//. Eight Nobel Prizes have been 
awarded for work completed at Bell Laboratories.//^[8] 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs#cite_note-8> / //


 * /1937: //Clinton J. Davisson
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Davisson>//shared the Nobel
   Prize in Physics for demonstrating the wave nature of matter./
 * /1956: //John Bardeen
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bardeen>//, //Walter H. Brattain
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_H._Brattain>//, and //William
   Shockley <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley>//received
   the Nobel Prize in Physics for inventing the first //transistors
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor>//./
 * /1977: //Philip W. Anderson
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_W._Anderson>//shared the Nobel
   Prize in Physics for developing an improved understanding of the
   electronic structure of glass and magnetic materials./
 * /1978: //Arno A. Penzias
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arno_A._Penzias>//and //Robert W.
   Wilson <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Woodrow_Wilson>//shared
   the Nobel Prize in Physics. Penzias and Wilson were cited for their
   discovering //cosmic microwave background radiation
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation>//,
   a nearly uniform glow that fills the //Universe
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe>//in the microwave band of
   the radio spectrum./
 * /1997: //Steven Chu
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Chu>//shared the Nobel Prize
   in Physics for developing methods to cool and trap atoms with laser
   light./
 * /1998: //Horst Störmer
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_St%C3%B6rmer>//, //Robert
   Laughlin <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Laughlin>//, and
   //Daniel Tsui <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Tsui>//, were
   awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for discovering and explaining
   the //fractional quantum Hall effect
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect>//./
 * /2009: //Willard S. Boyle
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_S._Boyle>//, //George E.
   Smith <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_E._Smith>//shared the
   Nobel Prize in Physics with //Charles K. Kao
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_K._Kao>//. Boyle and Smith
   were cited for inventing //charge-coupled device
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device>//(CCD)
   semiconductor imaging sensors./
 * /2014: //Eric Betzig
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Betzig>//shared the Nobel Prize
   in Chemistry for his work in super-resolved fluorescence microscopy
   which he began pursuing while at Bell Labs./

//

/The //Turing Award <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_Award>//has 
twice been won by Bell Labs researchers:/


//

 * /1968: //Richard Hamming
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hamming>//for his work on
   numerical methods, automatic coding systems, and error-detecting and
   error-correcting codes./
 * /1983: //Ken Thompson
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Thompson>//and //Dennis Ritchie
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Ritchie>//for their work on
   operating system theory, and for developing //Unix
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix>//./

/
/Granted they were spun out of AT&T in 1990's, but still a very 
impressive list.


Joe

On 4/14/16 5:01 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote:

Jed,
Very few small companies went belly up because of those examples I 
gave. The number of people  impact was infinitesimal small.
The other side is that many small companies had the flexibility to 
shift and therefore they grow.


AT&T has never invented anything.
Shockley was given credit I think. Not important who and where as it 
was many people over decades getting there - I guess the selenium 
diode was a German invention in the 30is.
Same thing for HP and TI, which actually are examples of companies 
that grow because of seeing the shift. I do not believe that there is 
a given formula for a

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Joe Hughes]

Dear Jed,

I'm sorry if I missed this in an earlier exchange, but I'm very curious 
to hear your stance on this especially in light of the events of the 
last month.


With all the information that you have been privy to especially over the 
last few weeks, what is your stance on the "Rossi Effect" - does it exist?


Also, do you believe that he has been purposefully making fraudulent 
claims these past several years?


Lastly, do you believe that he has ever been able to achieve a LENR in 
any of his tests either internal or external?



Joe

On 4/14/16 11:25 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Ian Walker mailto:walker...@gmail.com>> wrote:

As to the supposed ERV 2 we have seen no proof it exists. In fact
the first we hear of it is from Jed, who then starts to back-pedal
quite a bit about it.


I am not back pedaling about anything! This is nonsense. I never meant 
to say there is an official second report. I said the lawsuit filing 
lists 3 people involved. One of them works for I.H. I.H. strongly 
disagrees with the ERV report. They made that clear in their March 10 
statement and in their response to the lawsuit.


The Penon report claims the device produces 80 times input. That is 
what Rossi said in his lawsuit. I.H. emphatically denies that. 
Obviously their experts reached a different conclusion, as you see 
from their press releases. You do not need me to tell you that.


Why is any of what I just said controversial? You can read the press 
reports and see for yourself I am right. You know darn well what I mean.


You may be convinced that Rossi is correct and IH is wrong. But you 
have no business saying that I am back pedaling or that I have no 
reason to say what I just said.


In my opinion, anyone who thinks that Rossi is better at doing 
calorimetry than the experts at I.H. does not know either party. There 
has to be a drastic mistake here and I am sure Rossi is the one who 
made it, since he is prone to dangerous, stupid, sloppy mistakes, such 
as the one that almost killed the NASA people.


I also stand by my opinion of Penon, based on his 2012 report. He is a 
certified idiot. Read the report and decide for yourself, but don't 
tell me I have no basis for my opinion.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why are there still so many jobs?

[Joe Hughes]

So would you consider the jobs required to create, support and run the 
internet, networks and infrastructure that this list runs on as bullsh*t 
planet wrecking consumption?
How about the jobs to create and deliver the computer, tablet or mobile 
device you use to post on this and all of the associated software 
required to do that?
I'm not suggesting you were advocating that you were not a part of the 
bullsh*t planet wrecking consumption - just questioning if in your mind 
there were any other categories between safety, security, etc and 
bullsh*t planet wrecking consumption. :)




On 8/4/15 5:03 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:

it's all pretty much just useless bullsh*t planet wrecking consumption.

Re: [Vo]:Cyclone Power turbines

[Joe Hughes]

Much of this info was posted in a previous thread regarding potential 
investment opportunities when investing in LENR. My concern is that I could 
find no details at the cyclone site corroborating that Dr. Kim is working with 
them in any capacity unless it just had not been updated yet but seeing how it 
is a penny stock I would not put it past someone to spread false info in an 
attempt to make a quick buck I have not reached our to cyclone directly to see 
if they have any comment on this relationship. But maybe someone can confirm 
that he is. If so I'm probably buying. :)


Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

 Original message 
From: Terry Blanton  
Date:03/06/2014  6:40 PM  (GMT-05:00) 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cyclone Power turbines 

Ruby posted this in her thread about LENR investing:

"Cyclone Power Technologies (CYPW:OTC) is a small company which
researches and produces engines operating from thermal energy.  CYPW
is a penny stock listed on OTC:Pink stock exchange, the wild west of
the stock world.  The stock price is currently at an all time low due
to delays in the R+D process.  Regardless, they are looking toward
LENR technologies, even adding Dr. Kim from Purdue to their consulting
board.  Dr. Kim is heavily affiliated with Defkalion and even with his
academic background he is very entrepreneurial, there is no doubt he
will do all he can to combine Dekflaion LENR technology and CYPW's
engines.  Due to the low volume and price, as well as the highly
speculative nature of penny stocks, CYPW is expected to explode during
widespread LENR media attention.  This is an ideal short term
investment."

Their steam engine was named Invention of the Year by Popular
Mechanics in 2008 and is a remarkably simple machine touting 30%
thermal conversion efficiency.  Their web site reports that they have
engaged the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State to help get
their engine into production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Mark_V_Engine

Combine this with a Hyperion heat source and you never have to stop
driving . . . except for bathroom breaks.

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Someone at the Defkalion brought this up. It looks promising. See:
>
> http://www.cyclonepower.com
>
> http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=548
>
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:Investing in LENR/Cold Fusion

[Joe Hughes]

Additionally I believe the main use of palladium is in the manufacturing of 
catalytic converters which would become obsolete in a LENR powered world. Not 
sure if the person writing this article took that into account prior to 
recommending investing in palladium or not. 

Regards,
Joe

mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

>In reply to  Kevin O'Malley's message of Sun, 2 Mar 2014 22:18:56 -0800:
>Hi,
>[snip]
>>Nickel/Palladium Nickel and Palladium come to mind when thinking of long
>>term cold fusion investments. Unfortunately, nickel is the most abundant
>>material in the earths crust, a change in the demand of nickel would not
>>affect the price drastically.
>
>This is completely wrong. 
>
>Crustal elemental abundances are (according to the figures I have):
>
>Oxygen 466000 ppm
>Silicon267700 ppm
>Aluminium   84100 ppm
>Iron70700 ppm
>Calcium 52900 ppm
>.
>.
>.
>Nickel105 ppm
>
>I suspect that this article is confusing the planetary abundance with the
>crustal abundance. The former includes the Ni/Fe core of the planet, however
>this is not accessible.
>
>Regards,
>
>Robin van Spaandonk
>
>http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>

Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion

[Joe Hughes]

i tried to explain this very thing to blaze over on the above top secret forums 
a little over a month ago and encouraged him to join this mailing list to hear 
from some real experts in the field which is how he wound up here. i agree his 
tune has changed incredibly from the beginning which is an awesome thing but 
still waiting for him to admit that there is a clear and direct line from Rossi 
to DGT and Rossi deserves to be recognized for that despite his character 
flaws. 

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

>DGT stole a page from Rossi's book on the Ni-H scientific side, now they're
>stealing a page from his book on how to conduct business and promise
>undisclosed future promises of independent university testing.
>
>I think they were working with Rossi and decided for themselves that the
>guy was too mercurial and if a clown like him could find the secret, so
>could they.  Like someone sidling up to the Wright Brothers like Selfridge
>(the first person to die in a Wright Brothers accident) and steal the IP.
>That same approach was tried by no less an aeronautical luminary than
>Langley when he finally realized how far behind he was in his research.
>
>http://books.google.com/books?id=XKaqfYxlsW8C&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=%22wright+brothers%22+++%22octave+chanute%22+smithsonian+langley+cheeky&source=bl&ots=uR3Rqkkfb9&sig=Sffd3uvfLAlm28sdKgke1cA-g-0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ATDzUYC_HOffiAKCr4HgDA&ved=0CEUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22wright%20brothers%22%20%20%20%22octave%20chanute%22%20smithsonian%20langley%20cheeky&f=false
>
>
>
>
>On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:00 PM, H Veeder  wrote:
>
>> From MFMP's facebook page.
>> Harry
>> ---
>> We are very sorry for the hiatus in our communications - we have been
>> working in...credibly intensely to move this field forward on several
>> fronts - all we can say is that we think ICCF-18 was a watershed for this
>> emerging science with excellent new discoveries and significant new
>> evidence of excess heat from Takahashi and Defkalion (DGT) as well as
>> strong new science related to LENR revealed by Carpintieri (piezo/cold
>> fission) and Vysotski (creation of collimated laser light from metal
>> induced by cavitation shockwaves).
>>
>> It was also a triumph for the Live Open Science approach that the MFMP is
>> pioneering with the help of its followers. So many attendees offered
>> equipment, IP and technology to our effort, frankly it will take us weeks
>> to come to terms with. A revolution is coming and you are at the head of
>> the field.
>>
>> We must reserve special congratulations to DGT for their Live Open
>> Scientific demonstration which was engaging and inspiring - would would
>> like to see them and others taking this approach more frequently in the
>> future.
>>
>> We have been told by a trusted source, whom we can not disclose, that
>> there will be an independent report of DGT Hyperion technology published at
>> some point. It is understood that some respected university professors have
>> been involved. We certainly hope this is true and that we can have some
>> detailed, rigorous analysis to support the promising live demonstrations of
>> recent days.
>> By: Martin Fleischmann Memorial 
>> Project
>>

Re: [Vo]:A show of hands, whose going to ICCF-18?

[Joe Hughes]

It might be a little late but what about a kickstarter project to pay for the 
streaming?

Ruby  wrote:

>
>I am going with my friend Eli who will act as cameraman.  We will be 
>doing as many interviews as possible, with every one we can.
>
>We hope to do daily video updates, but plan to keep most of the video 
>for a feature documentary film.
>
>I will be bringing t-shirts and stickers and they will be at the 
>Infinite Energy table, along with a few free 2013 History of CF 
>calendars for participants.
>
>I will be soliciting info and sponsorship for the 2014 History of Cold 
>Fusion Calendar which will feature the theme of educational institutions 
>and their faculty who have been involved in research.  This version will 
>also include holidays for all countries that have held ICCFs.
>
>I had thought about trying to stream, but I believe I've taken on enough 
>projects already, and won't have the ability.
>
>
>On 7/1/13 9:56 AM, Paul Breed wrote:
>> I am.
>-- 
>Ruby Carat
>r...@coldfusionnow.org 
>Skype ruby-carat
>www.coldfusionnow.org 
>

Re: [Vo]:Amazing sign of sanity in Wiki ICCF nomination for deletion -- KEEP

[Joe Hughes]

thanks for sharing Alan. the discussion around the article was a fascinating 
read. congrats to those involved in working through the process to enable this 
article to exist. 

Joe

Alan Fletcher  wrote:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Conference_on_Condensed_Matter_Nuclear_Science_(2nd_nomination)
>
>The result was keep. WP:FRINGE does not neccessarily exclude a topic from 
>inclusion into Wikipedia. However, I do not think fringe applies in the way 
>we'd all like it to. Despite being a fringe science, Cold Fusion actually 
>serves a prominent place in popular culture, science fiction, and fringe 
>science alike. A conference on the subject would not neccessarily fall to the 
>levels of fringe, then, as would a conference about Hollow Earth. From a pure 
>WP:GNG standpoint, this AFD has resulted in a huge improvement to the article 
>which makes me question at least some of the delete !votes which prempted 
>these improvements. In fact, most of the !votes came before these 
>improvements. Taking into the fact that the new references were highly 
>discussed on this AFD before being introduced to the article, though, means 
>that I cannot discount those votes on their timing alone. Several folks have 
>said that WP:GNG is not met if the sources are not about the conference. I 
>quote GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not 
>be the main topic of the source material." The only other argument to delete, 
>then, is that the coverage is not significant enough to write a decent article 
>but the current version of the article defeats that argument as well. Thusly, 
>I see a discussion that has stronger arguments towards keep. If it were a 
>!vote count, this may be a no consensus. But as an examination of the 
>argument, we have a keep result. v/r - TP 7:06 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7)
>
>[ By an administrator ]
>

Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change

[Joe Hughes]

Great interview Peter (and response to Mary). Thank you for sharing with us. As 
i started learning about the LENR field Dr. Kim's papers were some of the first 
I ever came across and as an amateur I did not fully comprehend a majority of 
what i read but never the less enjoyed reading them all the same. I am excited 
to see what his new papers that were mentioned have to offer. 

Joe 

Peter Gluck  wrote:

>*Prof. Yeong Kim interviewed*: a veteran finally gets optimistic following
>a technological breakthrough.
>Please see:
>http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/06/a-veterans-voice.html
>
>-- 
>Dr. Peter Gluck
>Cluj, Romania
>http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Sonoluminescence

[Joe Hughes]

Yes very interesting I knew i had read something about that when reviewing the 
cavitation article and Sonoluminescence piece but could not place it. You 
connected the dots for me. It was Znidarsics work. Here is the latest paper i 
can find. published in December of 2012. He must be on the right path as he 
cites both Dr. Storms and Jed. ;)

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4050

Joe

Jim Dickenson  wrote:

>Ken,
>
>Interesting - I didn't know of these experiments and this was written in
>May 2012.  There may be more to Znardisc's (sp??) theory afterall.
>
>http://pieeconomics.blogspot.com/p/cavitation-transmutation-take-this-viral.html
>
>- Jim
>
>On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Joe Hughes  wrote:
>
>> Interesting video clip featuring Dr. Seth Putterman describing his
>> thoughts on "A star in a jar".
>>
>> Sorry if this had been posted and i missed it. Been hard to keep up with
>> the list lately. :)
>>
>> This is a clip from a longer BBC video i believe.
>>
>> http://youtu.be/LWO93G-zLZ0
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Sonoluminescence

[Joe Hughes]

Sorry Axil it is unclear to me from your response which side you fall on 
regarding nanospire and Leclair's work.

Interesting article from a little while back regarding it:

http://pieeconomics.blogspot.com/p/cavitation-transmutation-take-this-viral.html




Axil Axil  wrote:

>Like most things in the perverse field of LENR, Sonoluminescence is counter
>intuitive. The star in the bottle is impressive but that false spark in the
>deep ultra-blue is a false trail to anything useful.
>
>The power that that spark wastes is turned outward. To be effective, the
>plasmonic field must be turned inward in a dark mode to build in a cascade
>of amplification.
>
>The cavitation bubble is one of the most powerful forms of power
>concentration but such is its plight to be ordinary.
>
>The lust for gamma rays have been amply supplied by LeClair to such an
>abundant extent that they as dangerous.
>
>And yet even the LENR faithful ignore LeClair’s results and he is not
>supported in any way.
>
>It must be his bubbles; there just too plain and inconspicuous not like the
>shining stars in the bottle.
>
>
>
>
>On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Joe Hughes  wrote:
>
>> Interesting video clip featuring Dr. Seth Putterman describing his
>> thoughts on "A star in a jar".
>>
>> Sorry if this had been posted and i missed it. Been hard to keep up with
>> the list lately. :)
>>
>> This is a clip from a longer BBC video i believe.
>>
>> http://youtu.be/LWO93G-zLZ0
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

[Vo]:The Believers out on Blu-Ray

[Joe Hughes]

Available for order now.

Don't remember seeing this news on here. 

can be ordered here:
http://www.137films.org/store.html

[Vo]:Sonoluminescence

[Joe Hughes]

Interesting video clip featuring Dr. Seth Putterman describing his thoughts on 
"A star in a jar".

Sorry if this had been posted and i missed it. Been hard to keep up with the 
list lately. :)

This is a clip from a longer BBC video i believe.

http://youtu.be/LWO93G-zLZ0

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Joe Hughes]

Two things that confuse me about the two tests.
First,  they both utilized completely different power sources that were 
supposedly part of his trade secret. the supply during the first test was a 
three phase supply but the second one was a single phase output supply. Is it 
practical that for the power to be so critical to this device for him to be 
able to switch power inputs so easily or is the power not important and this is 
just Rossi trying to distract folks from the real magic in his system? Second, 
Rossi is incredibly paranoid and for good reason i might add, so was their 
something the first test showed that he was concerned about which caused him to 
'paint' the second ecat to hide something? I'm hypothesizing that the uneven 
paint job was an afterthought to hide something and not prepared purposefully 
like that. 

Also why did he agree to the test now? Is he comfortable enough in his progress 
in the design and with his partners now that he is willing to begin sharing 
with others or is it some form of misdirection play on his part?

Also I always enjoyed reading Dr. Kim's papers on lenr and i think these tests 
make some of those theories less plausible, however would love to read his 
comments on the tests. i don't believe he has ever posted on here. 



Andrew  wrote:

>The remaining "output hoax" possibility is beamed RF into the "antenna 
>resistors". Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around in 
>the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the input side 
>is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box there - the 
>waveform generator - that's off limits.
>
>Andrew
>  - Original Message - 
>  From: David Roberson 
>  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
>  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM
>  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
>
>  You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers.  Can you 
> imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path 
> radiation caused serious injuries?  This is far outside the realm of reality.
>
>  The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be 
> set aside with the proper scrutiny.
>
>  Dave
>  -Original Message-
>  From: Andrew 
>  To: vortex-l 
>  Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
>  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
>
>  Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly 
> coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. 
>
>  If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.
>
>  Andrew
>- Original Message - 
>From: David Roberson 
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
>Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
>
>And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they 
> were all blinded by the high power IR.  Give me a break.
>
>Dave
>-Original Message-
>From: Terry Blanton 
>To: vortex-l 
>Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
>
>Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.
>
>Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.
>
>Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
>create spot heating of the test device.
>
>:-)
>

Re: [Vo]:Placebo effect probably does not exist

[Joe Hughes]

So I wonder if an argument could be made that a mother that kisses their 
crying child's "boo-boo" and makes it stop hurting and the child stop 
crying could be classified as a very primitive form of placebo. I wonder 
what could be deduced or extrapolated from human nature into 
understanding the placebo effect from this - scans of a child's brain 
patterns for instance.


Kind of out of the box but this scenario occurred to me while reading 
the thread.



On 04/22/2013 01:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I am not critical of them. As far as I know, based on recent research, 
there is no evidence they exist. That's all there is to it. They might 
exist. I do not know of any theoretical reason why they shouldn't, 
given the complexity of biology. But there is no evidence they do exist.


A placebo appears to be exactly the same as no treatment at all. That 
isn't surprising.

Re: [Vo]:Japan breaks China's stranglehold on rare metals

[Joe Hughes]

I read in a separate article that the ocean depth at which the rare 
metals were discovered (5600+ meters) would pose significant technical 
challenges in extracting the rare metals with current technology


http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201303220057

The Chikyu, a JAMSTEC deep-sea drilling vessel, has recovered seabed 
mud from a depth of 2,500 meters for research purposes. A seabed oil 
field has been developed overseas at a depth of 3,000 meters.


But the development of seabed resources at depths of more than 5,000 
meters has no precedent, either at home or abroad. There remains a 
mountain of technological challenges, including how to withstand water 
pressure and ocean currents and how to process the mining products in 
the ocean, sources said.




No mention of that in this article - I wonder which one is more accurate 
and how long it would take to overcome these "challenges"




On 03/26/2013 10:34 AM, DJ Cravens wrote:

Japan breaks China's stranglehold on rare metals

I thought some here might be interested in this.
Perhaps I am the only one here that incorporates rare earth into my 
Pd.  However, but like the "boil off" rod from F &P I often add Ce, Th 
or other such metals to my materials.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/9951299/Japan-breaks-Chinas-stranglehold-on-rare-metals-with-sea-mud-bonanza.html

D2

Re: [Vo]:Speculation on Rossi from OILPRICE.com

[Joe Hughes]

I believe it has nothing to do with LENR and everything to do with 
attempting to control inflation because of all of the European and US 
money printing (QE).
You see the same large companies doing the same to commodities - As he 
mentioned it is being done by JP Morgan and crew but most likely with 
the backing of the Fed and the other European central banks.





On 03/08/2013 02:52 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

Why Are the Big Financial Institutions Selling Oil BIG?

http://oilprice.com/Finance/investing-and-trading-reports/Why-Are-the-Big-Financial-Institutions-Selling-Oil-BIG.html

Re: [Vo]:OT: Wealth and Inequality in U.S.

[Joe Hughes]

i would much prefer to live in a world where the immediate discussion on 
stories such as this was how can we increase government productivity and 
eliminate inefficiencies so the secretary's rate could be reduced below that of 
his not to immediately want to raise his. 

Paul Breed  wrote:

>Buffett says his rate is lower  while at the same time the company he owns
>is having a major battle with the IRS.
>
>With both Liberal:
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html
>
>and  Conservative references:
>http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520
>
>Do as I say not as I do.
>
>
>On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>
>> See also:
>>
>> "Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary"
>>
>> http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/
>>
>> This is the root of the problem.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:The limits of 3-D replicators

[Joe Hughes]

additionally they are working on perfecting the ability to print organs, 
arteries, ears, ect. using living cells and they are making incredible strides 
in theses areas and i would expect by next decade amazing advances in these 
technologies. there are projects on the internet where people are currently 
working on being able to print working guns. i actually just bought an 
ultimaker from europe and had it delivered. now i just have to put it together.

Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>John Berry  wrote:
>
>3D printers can use metal, glass and various other materials.
>> Semiconductors can be printed, as can batteries.
>>
>> Now I don't think there is any that can do all of these things of course.
>>
>
>I did not know that! They have made progress. I suppose you could more
>piecework from one machine to another, with no more difficulty than it
>takes with ordinary machine tools.
>
>I guess the plastic ones I have been following are the ultra-cheap,
>do-it-yourself models.
>
>- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

[Joe Hughes]

I have to agree with Terry here.
As a hiring manager in the software industry (more specifically 
internet) over the last few years I've found it is more and more 
difficult to find adequate talent and or work ethic and motivation - 
especially amongst the younger generation.




There seems to be a prevaling sense of
entitlement in this generation.


I was forwarded this article recently discussing this very topic. Found 
it interesting in some ways as being a technologist my entire life it is 
written from the perspective of someone with a business/sales background.


http://www.millersmoney.com/money-weekly/straight-talk-for-the-underemployed-youth


Joe

On 01/29/2013 01:27 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

I am an engineering manager in the consulting engineer business.  I do
run across cultural nepotism occasionally; but, right now, there is a
shortage of good engineering talent.

In my business, money is rarely the issue . . . it is expertise.  I
have two large engineering firms to draw from, AECOM in the US and
Atkins in GB fortunately.

In our local group, most of the engineers are around 60 years old.
Most of us are systems engineers with communications and
transportation experience.  We are presently taking in kids right out
of school and training them; but, people who have a good work ethic
are getting hard to find.  There seems to be a prevaling sense of
entitlement in this generation.

[Vo]:LENR article at Casey Research

[Joe Hughes]

I usually really enjoy reading the articles on the Casey Research site, 
although the latest article from their "Chief Energy Investment 
Strategist" is a total hit piece IMHO. Really burns me up - I think I'm 
going to have to send her an email in response to it.


http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/do-fringes-energy-science-offer-real-hope-energy-hungry-world

Excerpt:

/"Cold fusion is many things -- including a mental exercise for 
theoretical physicists and a hoax from Andrea Rossi -- but legitimate is 
not one of them//"/


Anyone have any thoughts on what information to use to best discount her 
claims?



Joe

Re: [Vo]:Celani demonstration -- Other ICCF17 Comments

[Joe Hughes]

Sorry if I missed this come across the wire last week:

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/08/07/lenr-gets-major-boost-from-national-instruments/

Thought it was a great article and was surprised to see our dear old 
friend Mary Yugu as chatty as ever in the comments at the bottom of the 
article.


Joe

On 08/14/2012 04:12 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/08/report-from-iccf-17/ 
<http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/08/report-from-iccf-17/>



  *Report from ICCF-17*

August 14, 2012

/I thought this comment from Tyler van Houwelingen deserved to be in 
separate post. Thanks Tyler!


/Greetings from ICCF-17,

After seeing the DGT presentation, speaking with them and speaking 
with people who have been onsite to see the hyperion in Greece, my 
take is that they are farther away from having a commercial ready 
device than we had hoped. Based on what people are telling me here 
with first hand knowledge, as recently as 3 weeks ago they were still 
unable to obtain stable demos of their technology (problems with the 
spark plugs failing), thus I suspect no chance of any 3rd party 
results soon as we had hoped and they had promised. They stated 
something along these lines yesterday, saying now they will release 
3rd party results only after receiving certification.


That said, DGT does appear to be pretty sound both with the science 
and engineering, however I believe they will need more resources and a 
bit of luck to get this to market in the next 6-12 months. IMHO


Brillouin is also very solid, as we knew, but still probably at least 
1 year from commercial readiness as well. IMHO


That just leaves Rossi in the short term and there are lots of mixed 
messages about him. Some things people with first hand knowledge are 
telling me makes me more confident, some things less.


At this point on day 2 of the show I am lowering my optimism of 
commercial readiness in my presentation a bit. Maybe it will come back 
up before Friday when I present, we shall see.


By the way, Celanis demo is being setup now and looks AWESOME. Finally 
seeing LENR first hand is very cool. With 25W excess heat expected, I 
will see if we can boil some water for the coffee here at the 
conference


tyler

/In addition, Jed Rothewell has been reporting on vortex-l about the 
Celani device that is being set up at the meeting:
/ 

Re: [Vo]:Through the Wormhole

[Joe Hughes]

very cool

On 03/19/2012 01:48 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

Animation not as colorful as Jodie Foster's trip in "Contact" but more
realistic:

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2012/03/what-a-trip-through-a-wormhole-would-look-like.html

T

[Vo]:Siemens, National Instruments & US Navy

[Joe Hughes]

I know there was a flurry of posts a couple of weeks ago regarding 
National Instruments not working with Rossi anymore.
Additionaly, speculation at some levels of Rossi working with Siemens 
and posts pointing to the US Navy being the first customer

I stumbled across this article on the web regarding the US Navy and Siemens:

http://livewire.electricalmarketing.com/2010/03/23/siemens-signs-contract-to-provide-navy-with-power-metering-equipment/
Excerpt:
"Siemens also received orders for project management services along with 
gas, water and steam flow meters that provide data to the WinPM.Net systems"


So does this support NI being dropped for Siemens because of their 
contract with the US Navy?


If I missed info along these lines that was submitted to this mailing 
list - I apologize in advance.


Joe

Re: [Vo]:Prediction on Antarctica's buried Lake

[Joe Hughes]

Yeah - some of those folks definitely go to sleep wearing their tin foil 
hats. ;)


I was posting those links not directly in relation to the heavy water 
theory but in response to zer tte's:
From what i have read so far they're not expecting much more than pure 
water, like really pure. They're supposed to be looking for some alien 
life form but seems to have found none so far. If they are really 
looking for heavy water, they've got quite a good cover but i don't 
really see how they could gain from it as Antarctica summer is really 
short so they only have a few months each year to work there (they've 
been digging for 30 years )
A post over their regarding the heavy water theory would probably yield 
some very interesting replies.




On 02/07/2012 02:32 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

What a surprise. I was not aware that so many people were following this...
most of whom, shall we say - already have a "conspiracy theory" slant.

I waded through 20 pages of good and awful postings - without seeing any
reference to heavy water, or to life evolved to use it. Have you seen this
mentioned specifically? Many of the posters mention "Smilla's Sense of Snow"
fabulous novel but weak movie.

It is certainly possible that there is a "meme" out there (speaking of
Rupert) and it would relate to the Lake, to special properties - and would
be broader than merely D2O or a mysterious lifeform.

Jones


From: Joe Hughes

Been following this for quite a few days over on this forum here - some
really fascinating info and discussions. Initial thread and info:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread804606/pg1

Latest thread started after reaching it:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread806014/pg1

Re: [Vo]:Prediction on Antarctica's buried Lake

[Joe Hughes]

Been following this for quite a few days over on this forum here - some 
really fascinating info and discussions.

Initial thread and info:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread804606/pg1

Latest thread started after reaching it:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread806014/pg1

On 02/07/2012 01:28 PM, zer tte wrote:
From what i have read so far they're not expecting much more than pure 
water, like really pure. They're supposed to be looking for some alien 
life form but seems to have found none so far. If they are really 
looking for heavy water, they've got quite a good cover but i don't 
really see how they could gain from it as Antarctica summer is really 
short so they only have a few months each year to work there (they've 
been digging for 30 years )

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's behavior is more tragic than deceptive

[Joe Hughes]

Very good points Jed.
Man - this has been the most fascinating day on Vortex in quite some time.

On 01/19/2012 04:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Chemical Engineer mailto:cheme...@gmail.com>> wrote:

As long as Rossi pays for NI's hardware and software they are
probably satisfied and don't mind the free advertising.


This would be the worst advertising imaginable!!! What corporation 
wants to be associated with Rossi? Do a Google search and you find 
hundreds of attacks against him. Check his background and you find it 
is dripping in scandal.


This is NOT good PR for NI. Not, not, _not_.

If I were them, I would not respond to Forbes, or I would say "we 
can't comment on whether we are in a relationship with this company."


  They do not require a "deep knowledge" of what he is doing or
even if his reactor works or not. 



If they do not have deep knowledge they are crazy to let themselves be 
associated it.



John Milstone > wrote:


Maybe they just got tired of the hundreds, if not thousands of
annoying emails and phone calls from Rossi's fans, demanding a
detailed accounting of just how great Rossi's invention really is?


In that case, all they have to do is issue a statement saying "no 
comment." Or, as I said, "we never talk about customer relationships 
of this nature." A company that is annoyed will deny everything and 
make no more comments.


The lady in charge of PR at the company issued a statement about 
Rossi. So did a VP of development. Believe me, NI is aware of this at 
highest levels. As Mary Yugo pointed out, they have millions of 
customers. The VP does not know them all by name, and will not make 
statements about 999,900 of these customers.



It isn't at all unusual for a company to release a statement on an
issue that is generating more than typical interest.


It is unusual for any company anywhere to make any statement 
pertaining to cold fusion. _Extremely_ unusual!


NI made the most insignificant acknowledgement possible . . .


Nonsense. I can think up any number of less 
significant acknowledgement, starting with "no comment."


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting new video from ecat.com

[Joe Hughes]

For all we know NI have a couple of fat cats sitting in their workshop 
in the US to play with.



I'd find this a little more plausible if Rossi's "US office" was in 
Austin, TX since NI does not have an office in Florida - or maybe even 
more if he would have mentioned Debrecen, Hungary where it appears NI's 
R&D department is located and most of it's manufacturing is done.

Re: [Vo]:E-CAT Home to be $50/kW

[Dr Joe Karthauser]

Just because the price is so low per kilowatt doesn't mean that you can buy it 
per kilowatt. I imagine that that's the price for the big ones, and the smaller 
ones are more expensive.

Joe

-- 
Dr Joe Karthauser

On 13 Jan 2012, at 15:28, Energy Liberator  wrote:

> I've been thinking about this a little more and am starting to wonder how 
> Rossi is able to achieve such a low price. At $500 for 10kW, that's way lower 
> than any conventional boiler that I know of. I'd image the actual process of 
> machining and automated assembly, of the unit can be kept quite low with the 
> volumes Rossi is talking about but what about the instrumentation and control 
> costs? I would have thought that they would be a significant cost in the 
> production of the unit. NI must have come up with some smart and economical 
> ways for   performing the monitoring and control of the device. I would 
> also hope that each device is tested before being packaged for shipping which 
> must involve some manual labour and so would account for a significant 
> portion of the device's production cost. There is also the industrial design 
> aspect. Rossi must have come up with some sort of design for an enclosure for 
> the unit which must be cheap to manufacture and easy to remove for refuelling.
> 
> 
> On 13/01/12 10:53, Energy Liberator wrote:
>> 
>> On Rossi's JONP - 
>> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=563&cpage=11#comment-169012
>> 
>> Andrea Rossi
>> January 13th, 2012 at 3:03 AM
>> Dear Albert Ellul:
>> Thank you.
>> The big science, after trying to ridiculize us, now has understood that the 
>> E-Cat works, so now they are trying to   copy and make patents 
>> to overcome us, discourage us and trying with this sophysticated way to stop 
>> us under a disguise of an indirect vindication. Is a smart move, but they 
>> are underevaluating us. I will never stop, within one   year we 
>> will start the delivery of million pieces at 50 $/kW, with a totally new 
>> concept, at that point the game will be over. This technology must be 
>> popular, must cost a very low price, must be a real revoluton, not a bunch 
>> of theoretical (wrong) chatters.
>> Warm Regards,
>> A.R.
>> 
>> The price is really tumbling now.

Re: [Vo]:Ultimate toy: Neocube

[Joe Hughes]

I've heard better reviews on the buckballs - basically same thing.
Actually ordered several sets for nephews this year at christmas.
http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/science/bbe8/?srp=2

On 1/5/2012 7:26 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 7:07 PM, David Jonsson
  wrote:


Very interesting, but I ended up ordering only 864 spheres.  It seems like a
perfect gift.

But I can't understand how the magnetic field aligns. Some combinations must
be impossible?

Indeed, they are axially aligned, kinda like the Earth.

T

Re: [Vo]:Hyperion Hyperlink

[Dr Joe Karthauser]

Yes, the Amiga circuit diagram was full of jokes :).

-- 
Dr Joe Karthauser

On 30 Nov 2011, at 16:10, Peter Heckert  wrote:

> Am 30.11.2011 16:52, schrieb Mary Yugo:
>> I knew they were coming out with something sexy.  It has a pleasure sensor!  
>> I kid you not:
>> 
>> http://i.imgur.com/X8AZQ.jpg 
> Remembers me of good old Amiga which had a BEER line connected to the 
> processor.
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:ECAT.com lunch new website in association with andrea rossi.

[Joe Hughes]

yeah looks real nice.
I'm very impressed.

On 11/16/2011 03:50 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

I already posted this, LOL!

2011/11/16 David ledin >


 look professional

http://ecat.com/

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat web site up

[Dr Joe Karthauser]

On 12 Nov 2011, at 01:39, Aussie Guy E-Cat  wrote:

> Nothing wrong with old programmers and old engineers. Cut by first code on a 
> 8008 system that I designed and built. Had a whole 256 bytes of ram. Put the 
> program in with switches. Now that is old code.
> 

Do you still have it? I'm sure that although I've still got the physical 
artefacts of old programmes I wrote when I was a kid, the patterns are long 
gone.

Joe
-- 
Dr Joe Karthauser

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

[Joe Catania]

Rossi has already exposed it by injecting the high frequencies. Any power 
meter used to check this would likely be subject to the same inaccuracy. I 
suggest a simple frquency meter with a lead touched to the dpf.
- Original Message - 
From: "Jouni Valkonen" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress


2011/11/10 Joe Catania :
requency generator inout? Is there any more info on that? I can tell you 
one
thing- the power company is not going to be too happy with Rossi or 
whoever

runs one of these things when they find out they are meter cheaters!


I think too that the falsification of input energy measurements is
most plausible way to do the cheat. However this cheat has a hole,
because anyone of the guests could just plug a power meter to their
iPad and then make a quick check of the calibration of ammeters.

These kind of fakes that are based on input electricity, I think, are
too easy to expose.

   –Jouni

Ps. it was possible to check for guest also every else variable that
was measurable. Including gamma radiation.

Re: [Vo]:About that Frequency Generator

[Joe Catania]

I've spoken to Lewan about "the device producing frequencies". I believe it 
to be a meter cheater in that it produces high frequency energy that cannot 
be tracked accurately by the clamp-on ammeter. Notice energy in= energy out 
in Oct test before dpf is used. After switching on this device all hell 
beaks loose and the E-cat appears to be producinbg anonmalous energy but 
this is easily explained by the fact that the device produces more power 
than the ~100W logged by the meter.
- Original Message - 
From: "Robert Leguillon" 

To: 
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 5:54 PM
Subject: [Vo]:About that Frequency Generator


Has anyone seen a photo? Does anyone know what make/model? Does anyone 
know the specific purpose it was serving? Does anyone know how it was 
hooked into the circuit? Was it electrically connected to the heater? Was 
it electrically connected to the E-Cat at all? Had anyone heard any 
reference to it before October 6? Was it needed for "self-sustaining" 
operation in September?


David Roberson  wrote:



Here is an analysis that I just completed.  It shows that Rossi has 
achieved what he has been suggesting.  LENR is real and will only get 
better with time.


Dave



I have been reviewing the data obtained during the September and October 
tests and can now confirm that there is proof that the ECAT generates a 
large amount of excess energy. I would assume that the skeptic ones among 
our group will read this report and realize that the proof has been before 
us for a long time but is not easy to discern.
Start with a graph of the temperature readings at the ECAT output 
thermocouple referred to as T2 during the October test. You must have a 
graph that includes all of the temperature-time pairs supplied by Mats 
Lewan in his Excel file.

My analysis is as follows:
Mr. Rossi performed a carefully controlled ECAT heating procedure. The 
pattern of setting the input power to “5”, then “6”, all the way to “9” is 
intended to slowly allow the internal components to reach ideal operation 
temperature. The reactor reaches equilibrium somewhere around 13000 
seconds into the test. Once this has been achieved, a series of on and off 
power pulses (“9”) is applied to the core. This series of power 
applications occur at a frequency that is high enough to be well filtered 
by the low pass nature of the internal ECAT heat flow mechanism. This is 
evident by the smooth curve of T2 versus time that shows up from 13000 
seconds through about 15500 seconds. It is important to note that the T2 
curve is slowly falling throughout this time duration. The average T2 
reading is 120.5 C and has a slight negative slope. I realized that the 
implication was that the ECAT output power would slowly begin to fall 
along with this curve since that temperature drives the check valve, etc.
What can we make of this curve of T2 versus time? It turns out that a lot 
of information is revealed. I did an analysis of the input power pulse 
waveform starting at 11400 seconds until 14881 seconds to get the average 
filtered component of the drive signal and obtained a net power input of 
1252 watts. Then I realized that all of this power must be causing the 
ECAT core module to reach some operational temperature. It then responds 
to the elevated temperature and the LENR effect within starts to generate 
extra energy. Next, the energy associated with the input power (1252 
joules/second * time) adds to the newly released energy of the core. The 
two of these energy sources end up as heat which proceeds to add energy to 
the water contained within the ECAT.
The water will now either increases or decrease in temperature, depending 
upon the heat that is lost from the system. We know of at least three loss 
paths. The main output leading to the heat exchanger, leakage water or 
vapor from the case, and heat leaving the case due to radiation or other 
means. All that we need to prove is that the sum of these loss factors is 
greater than 1252 watts in order to prove beyond doubt that LENR is 
functioning within the Rossi device.
There is one subtle point to explain. There is a very slight negative 
slope in T2 versus time during this region. I performed a quick 
calculation and found that the power lost within the water tank as a 
result of this slope is ((122-120.7) C x 4.188 joules/(C-grams) x 3 
grams)/1860 seconds = 87 joules/seconds or 87 watts. This calculation 
reveals that a very small increase in the drive power will allow the 
temperature of the water bath and hence output power to remain constant. 
This is a very important point to make. The ECAT will continue to put out 
the same power for as long as this input power (1252 watts) is applied. 
This may not be the ideal self-sustain mode that we all love, but it is 
significant.
Of course I was not content to leave out the additional knowledge revealed 
by this region of the T2 temperature reading versus time. There is more 
wonderful evidence to glean

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

[Joe Catania]

requency generator inout? Is there any more info on that? I can tell you one 
thing- the power company is not going to be too happy with Rossi or whoever 
runs one of these things when they find out they are meter cheaters!
- Original Message - 
From: "Horace Heffner" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress


First let me correct an earlier statement in this thread.  In regards
to the pipe conduits to the interior box from the front of the outer
box I said: "There are actually four: 1 water, 1 gas, 2 for
"frequency generator" input."

That was meant to say: "There are actually four: 1 gas, 1 main power,
and 2 for "frequency generator" input."  I think it is especially odd
that the two "frequency generator" conduits, one above the interior
box flanges, one below, are 1 1/4 inch pipe, while the conduit for
the main power is only 1" pipe. It seems reasonable to speculate as
to what might require, and be located inside, the large pipes.


On Nov 9, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:


2011/11/9 Horace Heffner :
The material I have analyzed fits inside the 30x30x30 cm box. The 
50x60x35

cm exterior box to which others refer is irrelevant, except when  water
levels and temperatures are simulated.





I am responding to this post only because words I did not issue have
been put in my mouth.


If you think that there is a 30×30×30 cm³ black box


"Black" is your wording, not mine, in relation to color.  Those
dimensions came from Mats Lewan's report which I reference in my paper:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf

I also determined from the photos that the actual dimension is closer
to 30.3 cm.  Any reference to a "black box" I might have made in my
writing was not literal, but I don't recall referring to the interior
box as "black". The color might be called rusty dirty scale deposited
on aluminum.



(it was not mine
impression, but my impression is based on indirect conclusion made
that I do not remember anyone saying seen such a large black box
inside),


If you had read my paper you would have seen a photograph appended of
the 30x30x30 cm interior box, with sealed pipe fittings going into it
from the front of the larger box.



and you think that Rossi is an evil criminal and fraudster,


I did not at any time say that.  Those are your words, not mine.  It
is you who repeatedly jumps to the fraud conclusion, not me.  Fraud
or self delusion are of course possibilities I recognize, as do many
others, especially given Rossi's inability numerous times to provide
anything other than highly flawed calorimetry data, or refusal to
admit the importance of such mundane scientific concepts as controls,
etc.  The lives of billions of people are affected by Rossi's actions
now, regardless the outcome.  Why will he never make the tiny
incremental effort required to properly demonstrate he produces
nuclear heat?  If he does not give a damn about the rest of the
world, only his marketing strategy, then that indeed does not speak
highly of his morality, does it?  His bizarre behavior raises logical
questions.  Has he no faith in himself to produce his claimed
results?  Has his discovery gone the way of Patterson's beads?  Are
his results now merely amplified artifacts, or insufficient to be
commercially viable?   Is he unable to run for multiple days, much
less multiple months as claimed?  Only Rossi himself is responsible
for creating these doubts.

What I *would* be happy to do is show the possibility that a logical
construction can produce the observed results.  Given the 37% extra
output heat that I mistakenly built into my spread sheet by biasing
the temperature, it does not take an unfeasible error in the Tout
reading to accommodate a good match of result by simulation.  Given
it is not even known for sure the Tout thermocouple was in direct
contact with metal, this is not a far reach.  However, if I could
show even a possible fraud based mechanism exists which simulates the
results with the given inputs, that would be sufficient to
demonstrate the calorimetry requires improving.  It should be
sufficient to quell at least some of the ridiculous non-quantitative
arm waving true believer arguments made here, but probably won't.

You do see the difference between calling Rossi an evil criminal
fraudster and showing a logical mechanism exists which reproduces the
experiment outputs given only the experiment inputs, don't you?  The
purpose for the latter is to provide some motivation or justification
for a customer demand for appropriate due diligence. The former would
serve no purpose. Many people in the blogosphere have said or implied
the E-cat is a fraud, so the former would be useless, in addition to
being unsubstantiated arm waving.




then why do you cannot understand, that it is also trivial to fit
internal chemical power source to 30×30×30 cm³ black box?


If you had read my paper, especially the section "CHARACTERISTICS OF
THE CEN

Re: [Vo]:Fox News report on Rossi

[Joe Hughes]

Of everything in the article, I found this to be the most interesting:
Several experts who spoke to FoxNews.com declined to comment or go on 
the record.


Depending on who they talked to, etc. and if that actually is indeed the 
case - then I see this as a huge shift in the general community - in the 
past, at least to me,  it appeared as though it was always incredibly 
easy to find an expert to go on the record calling someone a loony or a 
crackpot.


I personally love the way Rossi has approached this entire thing and 
think he's beginning to make people actually worried that he might have 
done it - his attitude of I don't care if you believe me - It's real - 
and I'm moving forward, at first, I think took people back but because 
of his steadfastness and by staying on message: here take a look - see 
it works - don't believe me - fine - doesn't matter - because it works. 
Is starting to make people question themselves for doubting.




On 11/02/2011 02:50 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

vorl bek mailto:vorl@antichef.com>> wrote:

Why is it stupid? It sounds like a standard mainstream (and
you can not get more mainstream than Fox News) gee-whiz science
story . . .


I guess so. I would call it ignorant, unscientific blather. Also, 
regarding cold fusion and its history, it is a grab bag of random 
facts, nonsense, misunderstandings and misinterpretations.


It is harmless blather.

Cold fusion fans should love it.


Not me. I don't mind it though. Any news is good news in show business.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hey, it didn't blow up! And by the way, there does seem to be a permit.

[Joe Hughes]

At first I was disappointed it wasn't a major US company for selfish 
reasons - cause I want one as soon as possible :)  but their profile 
does make a lot of sense.

More info on them posted on the ecatnews site with a shout out to Jed.
http://ecatnews.com/?p=1129

Joe


On 10/28/2011 10:50 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

I mean that I predicted GE would NOT want to get involved.

Look at the Manutencoop profile:

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=9156703

Recently founded, growing rapidly, still hungry. Privately owned, 
leaving them free to make big decisions and take risks. Just the kind 
of go-go place you would expect to run with this.


People think the microcomputer biz began exclusively with garage start 
ups such as Apple and Microsoft. It did to a large extent, but the 
money came from established venture capitalists and many of the 
players were mid-sized companies such as Radio Shack, with its 
Trash-80. It could'a been a contenda. It was, for several years.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s customer

[Dr Joe Karthauser]

> 
> I expect the EU has similar fair trade laws so I do not think Defkalion will 
> be able to enforce this policy. I think it makes them look stupid even 
> mentioning it. Who are they kidding? I suppose they are trying to kid Rossi, 
> or at least humoring him.

I'm not sure that we do. I don't think that there's any requirement for anyone 
to necessarily sell anything to anyone at any given price. We do however have 
protections in law that things are fit for the purposes that they are sold for.

Joe

Re: [Vo]:1 MW plant testing is underway.

[Joe Catania]

Physics is natural science.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 2:40 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:1 MW plant testing is underway.


  That's excellent news. Very open of Rossi. Entirely reasonable.


  We complain about Rossi's habits, but you have give him credit for allowing a 
lot of access to this tests, and for giving out a great deal of information. 
The problem is not that he is unwilling to share data. It is that his tests do 
not produce good data, and he does not write scientific papers.


  People have said that Rossi is a liar, or he exaggerates, or he cannot be 
trusted. As I see it, he has a split personality. When he talks about business 
or personal matters, I think he gets excited and he blurts out nonsense. I 
don't take this nonsense seriously. He scapegoats people -- including me. He 
can be devious, sometimes planting misinformation to cause dissension. I know 
he does that, because he did it to me several times.


  However, when it comes to engineering-based technical claims, as far as I 
know, Rossi is the soul of honestly. He has often made astounding claims that 
seem utterly impossible. As far as I know, all the ones that have been put to 
the test turned out to be true. I do not know about that factory heater that 
ran for a year. Cousin Peter says he cannot believe it. I can't be sure it is 
real, but I am sure it is unwise to bet against Rossi.


  I do not think there is a shred of evidence that Rossi has ever tried to use 
a hidden source of energy, fake instruments, or any other kind of fraud. It 
would be much harder to do this with his cells and reactors than with any 
previous cold fusion devices, because the scale of the reaction is so much 
larger. He is careless with instruments, and sloppy, and this sometimes 
obscures the results. That is not a deliberate effort to hide results or escape 
from scrutiny. It is what it appears to be: sloppy. Lots of people are like 
that. Some geniuses such are Arata are like that. Many programmers write 
unstructured spaghetti code too. It is not because they are devious or they 
want to sabotage the project or infuriate their co-workers. It is because they 
are sloppy. They should be promoted to management where they will cause less 
harm.


  Many engineers and inventors have this kind of split personality. Edison is a 
famous example. He was a "sharp dealer" as they said in the 19th century. Sharp 
dealing -- cheating, breaking contracts, and taking unfair advantage -- was 
widespread and considered normal back then. He put on Dog and Pony show 
exhibits of his inventions. When investors asked him how much progress he was 
making, he lied so extravagantly, it would have embarrassed a data processing 
project manager circa 1972, when computer programming was at the lowest ebb of 
reliability and projects routinely went off the rails. Edison did all of that, 
but he would never lie to himself, to his coworkers, or in a serious technical 
discussion. He did not have it in him to lie. Most engineers and programmers do 
not. It would be analogous to a farmer who neglects to plant seeds and then 
expects a crop to grow. Every technician in history has known that you cannot 
fool Mother Nature.


  I cannot judge Rossi's assertions about theory or transmutations. 
Theoreticians tell me they are bunk. I suppose they are, but Rossi is unaware 
of that. They are not lies.


  I have also learned to believe everything Rossi says about his operational 
plans. When he said he was building a 1 MW reactor, I believed him. He says he 
will try to turn it on. I have no doubt he means it. I just hope he does not 
blow himself up, or get arrested for operating it without a license. I hope 
that someone dissuades him but I doubt anyone will. If he changes his mind at 
the last minute, I would never accuse him of lying. A person who does cutting 
edge research who does not frequently change his mind, his plans, and his 
entire approach will fail catastrophically. Flexibility is essential to that 
job, as it is to a general fighting a battle. As Eisenhower said, "no battle 
plan survives contact with the enemy." You have to respond to things as they 
are, not as you hoped they would be. I wish Rossi would change course more 
often, not less often.


  I think Rossi is careless with instruments because he is old fashioned and he 
agrees with Fleischmann and me that direct observation is the best science. It 
is better than proof by instruments and calculation. He does not bother to 
write down the thermocouple readings, or insert an SD card, because he thinks 
that the heat continuing for 4 hours is all the proof anyone can ask for. 
Worrying about the thermocouples when you have a reactor too hot to touch is 
ridiculous. It is useless nitpicking in the face of definitive, first-principle 
proof that you can literally feel with your hand. The instruments are the icing 
on the cake; 

Re: [Vo]:Krivit report on Oct. 6 Rossi test

[Joe Catania]

Jed if you can't explain your position you are a fraud. Me building a test 
circuit is not going to vindicate you. Lewan hasn't answered queries about the 
freq device but most people know that cheap meters cannot follow this well. If 
current and voltage aren't in phase its no good. If high freqs distrurb meter 
likewise. I'm saying the coicidence is glaring that excess energy is only 
produced after this device starts therefore it not measuring power accurately. 
How that, in your mind, requires me to test it is beyond everyone here. The 
idea here is not to assume that the power measurements are valid. Proove that!
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 5:02 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Krivit report on Oct. 6 Rossi test


  Joe Catania wrote:


I suggest you accept my treatment was theoretical. Rossi should comply, not 
me.

  Rossi set up two meters, a Digitmaster DM201 and a Mastech MS2102. You are 
saying you know a "theoretical" way to fool both of them, simultaneously, with 
some sort of external signal generator or electrical waveform. If you are not 
willing to do an experiment proving this claim of yours, I think you should at 
least explain your theory here. Otherwise, why should anyone believe that you 
actually know how to do this?

  Rossi has already done a credible measurement of input amperage. I would have 
preferred a wattmeter and something like a battery backup, but using two 
separate meters does reduce the likelihood of error. I do not know much about 
these meters but it seems to me that an external signal generator is unlikely 
to affect both of them the same way simultaneously. It seems to me that you are 
now making a claim contrary to conventional knowledge, so you should back it up 
if you want people to take you seriously. The ball is in your court.

  I was being flippant before but I mean that seriously. A skeptical assertion 
dismissing evidence does not get a free pass. You have to prove your point just 
as Rossi must prove his.

  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Krivit report on Oct. 6 Rossi test

[Joe Catania]

I suggest you accept my treatment was theoretical. Rossi should comply, not me.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 4:14 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Krivit report on Oct. 6 Rossi test


  Joe Catania  wrote:


The point is more that the choice of a meter that can't measure high 
frequency is requisite for this hoax.


  Two different meters, in this case.


  I suggest you make a box that fools both of these meters to demonstrate that 
it can be done.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Krivit report on Oct. 6 Rossi test

[Joe Catania]

The point is more that the choice of a meter that can't measure high frequency 
is requisite for this hoax.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 3:56 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Krivit report on Oct. 6 Rossi test


  Joe Catania wrote:


I should? I've already done what I should do.

  Nonsense! You should tell the company. They will be grateful you have 
discovered this terrible problem with their instrument. They may pay you a 
large sum of money for helping them find this problem. You should inform all of 
the other companies that make ammeters. You will become a highly paid industry 
consultant and they will invite you to give keynote speeches at their trade 
shows.

  Think about this. You have discovered a way to fool an instrument that is 
used throughout the world, often in critical applications. You are the second 
person to discover an easy way to make this instrument display the wrong 
numbers. (Rossi was the first.) No doubt thousands of industrial accidents 
occur everyday because this happens inadvertently. When you tell the world why 
these instruments do not work, you will be a hero.

  I had no idea it was so easy to interfere with the operation of such a widely 
used, critical instrument.

  Do you also happen know how to make a thermocouple produce the wrong answer? 
By ESP perhaps? Can you use your superpowers to change the answer on my Casio 
calculator, while you are at it?

  I hope that you will use your powers for good and not evil.

  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Krivit report on Oct. 6 Rossi test

[Joe Catania]

I should? I've already done what I should do.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 3:11 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Krivit report on Oct. 6 Rossi test


  Joe Catania wrote:


Yes your imagination is vivid. I'm refering to the clamp on ammeter of 
course. Nice try.

  Ah, so you should inform Digimaster company that their instrument can be 
fooled with a simple device. Please let us know their reply.

  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Krivit report on Oct. 6 Rossi test

[Joe Catania]

Yes your imagination is vivid. I'm refering to the clamp on ammeter of course. 
Nice try.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 2:40 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Krivit report on Oct. 6 Rossi test


  Joe Catania wrote:


Strange, I just commented on The EEStory.com thst input energy looks equal 
to output up to the time Lewan turns on the infamous "device that creates 
frequencies" which to my mind is clearly a meter beater.

  You have a vivid imagination. Perhaps you should inform Termometro and 
whoever made that analog, non-electronic water meter.

  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Krivit report on Oct. 6 Rossi test

[Joe Catania]

Strange, I just commented on The EEStory.com thst input energy looks equal to 
output up to the time Lewan turns on the infamous "device that creates 
frequencies" which to my mind is clearly a meter beater.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 2:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Krivit report on Oct. 6 Rossi test


  I wrote:

it clearly shows that by the end of the warm-up period, I put energy 
already exceeded input energy.


  Meant to say: OUTPUT energy already exceeded input . . .


  The point is, this is balance of heat generation and loss, similar to a 
financial balance sheet. Not complicated.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat

[Joe Catania]

You don't understand skin effect well. Injecting high frequencies obviously 
may fool the meter. I think it would be safer to heat with DC.
- Original Message - 
From: "Peter Heckert" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat


The skin effect can be neglected, because it adds a pure ohm resitance to 
the wire and the resistance is unknown anyway.
And inductive resistance means that the power is smaller than U_rms*I_rms 
because there is phaseshift.

Both effects reduce the heating power.
So there are two possibilities remaining:  Use a large crest factor or a 
high frequency that the meter cannot detect.

I think we can exclude this. This would be too easy to detetect.

Fraud would be much easier: The heat exchanger could be manipulated, so 
that only part of the water was heated.
Because the thermal difference was so small, it would be almost impossible 
to detect.


Another possibility is to make a small modification to each component:
Measure the flow rate a little bit wrong, measure temperatures a little 
bit wrong, calculate a little bit wrong, introduce so much errors and 
inaccuracies that a single one -if discovered- would prove nothing, but 
all together make an energy gain.



Am 12.10.2011 21:15, schrieb Joe Catania:
Heckert, why don't you go stand on a corner with a tin cup. Yes skin 
effect is important at high frequencies especiall in the case of certain 
pulse shapes. I'm a physicist and I happen to have intimate knowledge of 
just hgow important skin effect can be. Inductive reactance isn't just 
proportional to inductance its proportional to frequency as well. No 
doubt there may be considerable iron nearby the current. Alternating 
electric and magnetic fields can induce electric polarization and eddie 
currents which can dissiapte heat.
- Original Message - From: "Peter Heckert" 


To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat



Am 12.10.2011 20:00, schrieb Joe Catania:

Nonsense, high frequencies are subject to skin effect.

So you have studied electrical engineering?
I have. Unfortunately I dont know the proper english expressions to 
explain this, but it is trivial, anyway.
For these frequencies that are in question here and with those thick 
cables you can almost forget the skin effect.


- Original Message - From: "Peter Heckert" 


To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat



Am 12.10.2011 18:39, schrieb Joe Catania:
http://www.omega.com/heaters/pdf/HEATER_INTRO_BAND_REF.pdf, as you 
can see this one uses a coiled wire. If not designed properly this 
could have high inductance.
If you suceed to make a remarkably high inductance without an iron 
core, then you should patent and market this.

You will get rich and famous.

Also Lewan say he injects high frequency at one point.
A series inductance will shift the current phase and reduce the power. 
Power maximum is, when inductance is zero.

This is even more true with high frequencies.

Kind regards,

Peter

- Original Message - From: "Terry Blanton" 


To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat



Yep, it's called power factor.  You're really on top of things, Joe!

T

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Joe Catania  
wrote:
It occurs to me that the means they are using to measure power is 
prone to
error. An energy analyzer would be the best way to do it. If 
there's any

reactance in the circuit they power calculations they use would be
inaccurate.

Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat

[Joe Catania]

You interst me in the way Rossi may be going about this. It seems you are 
suggesting Rossi is studying from the book , How to Scam the Masses and 
Become Rich without Detection. The high-frequency injection certainly would 
seem to be in the bag of tricks for many scammers. Its well known that 
pulsed power will blow a fuse which can't be blown by the same DC level.
- Original Message - 
From: "Peter Heckert" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat





Another possibility is to make a small modification to each component:
Measure the flow rate a little bit wrong, measure temperatures a little 
bit wrong, calculate a little bit wrong, introduce so much errors and 
inaccuracies that a single one -if discovered- would prove nothing, but 
all together make an energy gain.
 If he is a real talented chaos experimenter who doesnt doublecheck and 
who doesnt make plausibility tests, as this seems to be the case, then he 
might have done just this with a long series of dilletantic experiments 
and he could really believe in the energy  production.

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat

[Joe Catania]

No you don't understand skin effect.
- Original Message - 
From: "Roarty, Francis X" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 3:15 PM
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat


Joe, Peter is correct -XL =6.28fl and real current thru the coil is 
"choked" off even though the dc resistance looks like a short. skin effect 
is only relevant on small diameter wires but in any case would also be 
choked off by the impeadance just like the DC path. The impedance 
effectively places itself in series with the circuit limiting any currents 
even through magnetic couplings - whatever momentary current goes one way 
is stored in the field and then repaid on the alternate cycle. A Coil 
would get hot to the touch if it really "dropped" the power like a 
resistor but it does not get hot because it is only storing it not 
dissipating it.

Fran

-Original Message-
From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 2:01 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat

Nonsense, high frequencies are subject to skin effect.
- Original Message - 
From: "Peter Heckert" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat



Am 12.10.2011 18:39, schrieb Joe Catania:

http://www.omega.com/heaters/pdf/HEATER_INTRO_BAND_REF.pdf, as you can
see this one uses a coiled wire. If not designed properly this could
have high inductance.

If you suceed to make a remarkably high inductance without an iron core,
then you should patent and market this.
You will get rich and famous.

Also Lewan say he injects high frequency at one point.

A series inductance will shift the current phase and reduce the power.
Power maximum is, when inductance is zero.
This is even more true with high frequencies.

Kind regards,

Peter


- Original Message - From: "Terry Blanton" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat



Yep, it's called power factor.  You're really on top of things, Joe!

T

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Joe Catania 
wrote:

It occurs to me that the means they are using to measure power is
prone to
error. An energy analyzer would be the best way to do it. If there's
any
reactance in the circuit they power calculations they use would be
inaccurate.

Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat

[Joe Catania]

Heckert, why don't you go stand on a corner with a tin cup. Yes skin effect 
is important at high frequencies especiall in the case of certain pulse 
shapes. I'm a physicist and I happen to have intimate knowledge of just hgow 
important skin effect can be. Inductive reactance isn't just proportional to 
inductance its proportional to frequency as well. No doubt there may be 
considerable iron nearby the current. Alternating electric and magnetic 
fields can induce electric polarization and eddie currents which can 
dissiapte heat.
- Original Message - 
From: "Peter Heckert" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat



Am 12.10.2011 20:00, schrieb Joe Catania:

Nonsense, high frequencies are subject to skin effect.

So you have studied electrical engineering?
I have. Unfortunately I dont know the proper english expressions to 
explain this, but it is trivial, anyway.
For these frequencies that are in question here and with those thick 
cables you can almost forget the skin effect.


- Original Message - From: "Peter Heckert" 


To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat



Am 12.10.2011 18:39, schrieb Joe Catania:
http://www.omega.com/heaters/pdf/HEATER_INTRO_BAND_REF.pdf, as you can 
see this one uses a coiled wire. If not designed properly this could 
have high inductance.
If you suceed to make a remarkably high inductance without an iron core, 
then you should patent and market this.

You will get rich and famous.

Also Lewan say he injects high frequency at one point.
A series inductance will shift the current phase and reduce the power. 
Power maximum is, when inductance is zero.

This is even more true with high frequencies.

Kind regards,

Peter


- Original Message - From: "Terry Blanton" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat



Yep, it's called power factor.  You're really on top of things, Joe!

T

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Joe Catania  
wrote:
It occurs to me that the means they are using to measure power is 
prone to
error. An energy analyzer would be the best way to do it. If there's 
any

reactance in the circuit they power calculations they use would be
inaccurate.

Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat

[Joe Catania]

Another problem is magnetic and electric field coupling to dipolar matter. 
This can dissipate energy as well.
- Original Message - 
From: "Man on Bridges" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat



Hi,

On 12-10-2011 20:08, Joe Catania wrote:
But an analyzer would eliminate doubt. You'd actually be measuring power 
instead of relying of neglecting something you know nothing about.


A cheap secondhand CRT oscilloscope up to 10 MHz would show a lot of 
information as well ;-)


Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat

[Joe Catania]

But an analyzer would eliminate doubt. You'd actually be measuring power 
instead of relying of neglecting something you know nothing about.
- Original Message - 
From: "Alan J Fletcher" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat



At 10:58 AM 10/12/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

2011/10/12 Joe Catania :
It can measure also DC current, but with separate DC settings of
course. So could it be plausible to feed DC-current along with AC and
clamp ammeter would not notice a thing? Then only conducting wire's
capacity could limit how much electric power Rossi is feeding into
E-Cat.


In September Lewan checked the DC periodically, and found it was zero.

Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat

[Joe Catania]

Nonsense, high frequencies are subject to skin effect.
- Original Message - 
From: "Peter Heckert" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat



Am 12.10.2011 18:39, schrieb Joe Catania:
http://www.omega.com/heaters/pdf/HEATER_INTRO_BAND_REF.pdf, as you can 
see this one uses a coiled wire. If not designed properly this could 
have high inductance.
If you suceed to make a remarkably high inductance without an iron core, 
then you should patent and market this.

You will get rich and famous.

Also Lewan say he injects high frequency at one point.
A series inductance will shift the current phase and reduce the power. 
Power maximum is, when inductance is zero.

This is even more true with high frequencies.

Kind regards,

Peter


- Original Message - From: "Terry Blanton" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat



Yep, it's called power factor.  You're really on top of things, Joe!

T

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Joe Catania  
wrote:
It occurs to me that the means they are using to measure power is 
prone to
error. An energy analyzer would be the best way to do it. If there's 
any

reactance in the circuit they power calculations they use would be
inaccurate.

Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat

[Joe Catania]

The real point is that line current and voltage may not be in phase to begin 
with. Heckert is not knowledable and must resort to ad hominems. For 
instance there are most likely eddy currents induced in the band heaters.
- Original Message - 
From: "Jouni Valkonen" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat


2011/10/12 Joe Catania :

It occurs to me that the means they are using to measure power is prone to
error. An energy analyzer would be the best way to do it. If there's any
reactance in the circuit they power calculations they use would be
inaccurate.


Indeed, they used very cheap (€40) clamp ammeter (DIGIMASTER DM201)
that can only measure AC current in very limited frequency range at
50-60 Hz. But if there are spikes in the feed, it may measure even 50%
too low values. However, I think that spikes would show up in voltage
meter.

It can measure also DC current, but with separate DC settings of
course. So could it be plausible to feed DC-current along with AC and
clamp ammeter would not notice a thing? Then only conducting wire's
capacity could limit how much electric power Rossi is feeding into
E-Cat.

  –Jouni


http://www.zetabishop.it/product/8630/Pinza-Amperometrica-Digimaster-DM-201-VCA-ACA.asp

Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat

[Joe Catania]

http://www.omega.com/heaters/pdf/HEATER_INTRO_BAND_REF.pdf, as you can see 
this one uses a coiled wire. If not designed properly this could have high 
inductance. Also Lewan say he injects high frequency at one point.
- Original Message - 
From: "Terry Blanton" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat



Yep, it's called power factor.  You're really on top of things, Joe!

T

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Joe Catania  wrote:
It occurs to me that the means they are using to measure power is prone 
to

error. An energy analyzer would be the best way to do it. If there's any
reactance in the circuit they power calculations they use would be
inaccurate.

[Vo]:Energy Analyzer for E-Cat

[Joe Catania]

It occurs to me that the means they are using to measure power is prone to 
error. An energy analyzer would be the best way to do it. If there's any 
reactance in the circuit they power calculations they use would be inaccurate.

Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof

[Joe Catania]

Since you know nothing of the e-cat your remarks have been dismissed. Yes it 
was prooveable in the September e-cat that the effects were purely based on 
thermal inertia. I suspect the same here. Rothwwell has not been able to 
substantiate his position which seems to be a blind acceptance of CF before 
aanyone heard of Rossi. I never made the claims you say I made. Yes there 
has been conversion and elaborate journalism on this point. You seem to 
confuse your total ignorance with lack of merit. You will regret that.
- Original Message - 
From: "Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint" 

To: 
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 3:44 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is 
irrefutable proof




From one narcissist to another...

Seems ol Joe thinks he's converted the lot of us...

   http://www.theeestory.com/users/1681/posts#

"80kgs of metal can easily store over 40MJ. It's not on the level of a
discussion. My arguments have been extremely convincing as I think you can
tell by the recent conversion of vortex members and Krivit."

Joe Catania states,
"The band heater temp is ~900C. In September test my calculations show 
that

boiling could be produced for many hours. There is certainly a massive
amount of metal in the e-cat."

Joe:
So your reasoning is based on the band heater being 900C, and therefore 
the
majority of the massive amount of metal in the E-Cat is at or near that 
same

temperature. You sincerely think that everything underneath the insulation
is anywhere near that temp?  The melting point of lead is 327C, so we
certainly know that the lead is no more than one-third 900C, or else we'd
have a mass of molten lead on the table.

In addition, with the irregularity of the shape of the "plumbing", at 
least

with the old, tubular design, it is unlikely that there is much physical
contact between the lead shielding and the "plumbing" (water jacket), 
ergo,
poor heat conduction between the plumbing and the lead, ergo, not much 
heat

storage in the lead.

Finally, the only thing that could be anywhere near 900C is the (stainless
steel) core container that is the transfer medium between the reaction
material (Ni-powder-hydrogen-catalyst) and the water outside the core
container.

Conclusion:
Being that the only mass that could possibly be anywhere near 900C is the
reactor core container, which might be a few kilograms, would you care to
revise your "... not on the level of a discussion" heat storage 
estimate???


-Mark

Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof

[Joe Catania]

What do my posts matter anyway? Yes please block me.
- Original Message - 
From: "OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson" 

To: 
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is 
irrefutable proof




Congratulations, Mr. Catania.

Further posts from you will be routed to my block list.

I'm sure you could care less. I guess the feeling is mutual.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof

[Joe Catania]

No that was part of the decor in a restaurant in Taormina. Its nice to know 
that the only thing that counts here is spelling (and self-affected 
narcissists).
- Original Message - 
From: "Terry Blanton" 

To: 
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is 
irrefutable proof




Quit picking on Catania who does not know the difference between
'your' and 'you're'.  He passed away some time ago as is evidenced by
this piccy of him surrounded by flowers.  RIP JOE!

http://www.theeestory.com/posts/199540

T

Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof

[Joe Catania]

LOL. That's hypocritical.
- Original Message - 
From: "Rich Murray" 
To: ; "Rich Murray" ; "Rich Murray" 


Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is 
irrefutable proof




Jed Rothwell is a serious, intelligent, dedicated, honorable, careful,
scientific layman with the highest motives to benefit our world -- he
always acknowledges his bias clearly and openly.

I think it would be much to his credit to agree that the term
"pathological skeptic" is as unworthy in public discourse as
"buffoon".

within infinite patience,  Rich Murray

Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof

[Joe Catania]

Funny, you don't seem annoyed. All Jed is capable with regard to this matter 
is condescension.
- Original Message - 
From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" 

To: 
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is 
irrefutable proof






On 11-10-10 11:04 AM, Joe Catania wrote:

Newton's Law is irrelevant. Your the type of buffoon who ...


And you, /Mister/ Catania, are apparently the type of poster who resorts 
to ad hominems when he's having trouble expressing himself clearly enough 
to get his point across.


Jed's may be a lot of things, possibly even including "wrong", but he's no 
buffoon.


And you,  /Mister/ Catania, are plonked.  I don't need to see this kind of 
stuff on Vortex.  (You are also apparently the type of poster who can't be 
bothered to proof read his posts for obvious typos before sending them, 
which also contributes needlessly to the annoyance level of this list.)

Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof

[Joe Catania]

LOL. That's hypocritical.
- Original Message - 
From: "Rich Murray" 
To: ; "Rich Murray" ; "Rich Murray" 


Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is 
irrefutable proof




Jed Rothwell is a serious, intelligent, dedicated, honorable, careful,
scientific layman with the highest motives to benefit our world -- he
always acknowledges his bias clearly and openly.

I think it would be much to his credit to agree that the term
"pathological skeptic" is as unworthy in public discourse as
"buffoon".

within infinite patience,  Rich Murray

Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof

[Joe Catania]

Newton's Law is irrelevant. Your the type of buffoon who believes that since 
there's an Ohms LAw every conductor obeys it. The temperature "law" the e-cat 
obeys is ostensibly written in the temperature data if we can consider that 
valid. Whether that confirms its Newton's Law or notr is not relevant to the 
dubunking of the CF myth. Cf is not being assumed and since it hasn't been 
shown we are correct in not assuming it. You still aren't able to show me the 
temperature data you say exists and is increasing.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 10:28 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is 
irrefutable proof


  Joe Catania  wrote:


That appears to be a graph of power noy yemperature.


  It is derived from Lewan's temperature readings. The flow rate was unchanged 
so correspondence to the temperature is unchanged for the entire dataset. In 
other words, you could replace the vertical axis power numbers with the 
corresponding temperatures and it would look exactly the same.



If its passive cooling? Excuse me but are we discussing something here?


  You claim the heat comes from heat storage with no input power. That would 
mean it is passive cooling, by definition. It has to follow Newton's law of 
cooling. That is how heat storage and release works. You keep talking about 
thermal inertia. I suggest you learn what that is, how it works, and what laws 
of physics govern it.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting

[Joe Catania]

I already said there was heat storage. We are not contesting me here Jed and 
that's what is clear.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 10:43 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting


  Joe Catania  wrote:


Jed I'm not going to bother to comment on your very flawed analysis. It 
dosen't seem you want us to agree.


  You don't believe that heat storage means the temperature rises?


  Forget about me. You do not agree with Newton; that's your problem. What the 
heck do you think "heat storage" is, anyway?


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof

[Joe Catania]

Newton's Law is irrelevant. Your the type of buffoon who believes that since 
there's an Ohms LAw every conductor obeys it. The temperature "law" the e-cat 
obeys is ostensibly written in the temperature data if we can consider that 
valid. Whether that confirms its Newton's Law or notr is not relevant to the 
dubunking of the CF myth. Cf is not being assumed and since it hasn't been 
shown we are correct in not assuming it. You still aren't able to show me the 
temperature data you say exists and is increasing.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 10:28 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is 
irrefutable proof


  Joe Catania  wrote:


That appears to be a graph of power noy yemperature.


  It is derived from Lewan's temperature readings. The flow rate was unchanged 
so correspondence to the temperature is unchanged for the entire dataset. In 
other words, you could replace the vertical axis power numbers with the 
corresponding temperatures and it would look exactly the same.



If its passive cooling? Excuse me but are we discussing something here?


  You claim the heat comes from heat storage with no input power. That would 
mean it is passive cooling, by definition. It has to follow Newton's law of 
cooling. That is how heat storage and release works. You keep talking about 
thermal inertia. I suggest you learn what that is, how it works, and what laws 
of physics govern it.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting

[Joe Catania]

Jed I'm not going to bother to comment on your very flawed analysis. It dosen't 
seem you want us to agree.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 10:54 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting


  Alan Fletcher  wrote:

A ton of water  went through the heat exchanger -- but we don't know 
whether it heated up AT ALL.



  Oh give me a break Alan! Seriously, get real. There was STEAM going in one 
side and TAP WATER going in the other. How could it not be heated up AT ALL?!? 
What the hell do you think a heat exchanger does, anyway? If it does not get 
heated up AT ALL Rossi needs to get his money back from the heat exchanger 
company.

All we know is that SOME water was boiled, that the internal eCat 
thermistor measured SOMETHING to be 120C, and  that SOME water and/or steam 
made it to the heat exchanger and was able to affect the output thermocouple.  
But we don't have ANY idea how much water went through the eCat.


  You can see the hoses going from the sink to the eCat and the heat exchanger. 
Lewan measured the flow in both. Besides, it makes no difference how much went 
through the eCat; there was enough steam to make the inlet 120 deg C. You can 
quibble about how much boiling water there was, but it had to be enough for 
Lewan to hear it, and to make the insulated reactor surface. It wasn't 50 ml, 
that's for sure. It had to be a substantial amount.


  You know how much cooling power 10 L/min water has. A box of that size cannot 
produce heat for 4 hours and remain boiling and heating the heat-exchanger 
water with no input power. You could put the thermocouples anywhere you like in 
that heat exchanger box, and I guarantee that after an hour they will all 
register 25 deg C.



The "loading" power could have heated a 90 kg chunk of metal to well over 
100C


  But it didn't. The metal was 80 deg C. And it stayed at 80 deg C. Four hours 
after the power was cut, it was still at 80 deg C. If it was "loaded" and then 
unloaded, the temperature would have to drop!



-- and that could have been used to heat a small flow of water to any 
desired temperature-vs-time pattern -- and would explain why there was the 
sound of boiling and why the surface of the eCat was hot.


  For crying out loud, look up the specific heat of metal. Read Heffner's 
analysis, p. 1, stored heat. Think about what "loading" or "storing" heat 
means. It means heating up the material. When you store, the temperature goes 
up. When you release the heat, the temperature goes down. When the temperature 
does not go up or down, there is no storage or release -- by definition. When 
the temperature is steady over 4 hours ago, no heat has been stored or released 
during that time.


  This reminds me of Krivit's latest hypothesis that 33 MJ were "stored" in the 
reactor. Before they turned off the power, the reactor and heat exchanger got 
hot, the heat balanced and then went exothermic so obviously all 33 MJ came 
out, plus some more. Not stored, right? Then, I suppose, the same 33 MJ did an 
about face, went back in, and came out again after they turned off the power. 
Zounds! Heat that appears twice! Call Vienna! -- as Howland Owl put it.



I fear that in this test we have a cornucopia of experimental PROBLEMS.



  Yes there are many problems. I pointed out many of them. However, despite 
these problems, the first-principle proof is still obvious. You need to stop 
looking at the problems, and look at the proof instead. Stop inventing ad hoc 
nonsense about "stored heat" that does not change the temperature, or heat 
exchangers that do not exchange heat. Look at the facts, and do not be blinded 
or distracted by the problems. Those problems cannot change the conclusions 
this test forces upon the observer. Forget about those thermocouples if you 
like, and think only about the fact that the water was still boiling and the 
reactor was still hot 4 hours after the power was turned off. That fact, all by 
itself, is all the proof you can ask for.

  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting

[Joe Catania]

Jed I'm not going to bother to comment on your very flawed analysis. It dosen't 
seem you want us to agree.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 10:54 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting


  Alan Fletcher  wrote:

A ton of water  went through the heat exchanger -- but we don't know 
whether it heated up AT ALL.



  Oh give me a break Alan! Seriously, get real. There was STEAM going in one 
side and TAP WATER going in the other. How could it not be heated up AT ALL?!? 
What the hell do you think a heat exchanger does, anyway? If it does not get 
heated up AT ALL Rossi needs to get his money back from the heat exchanger 
company.

All we know is that SOME water was boiled, that the internal eCat 
thermistor measured SOMETHING to be 120C, and  that SOME water and/or steam 
made it to the heat exchanger and was able to affect the output thermocouple.  
But we don't have ANY idea how much water went through the eCat.


  You can see the hoses going from the sink to the eCat and the heat exchanger. 
Lewan measured the flow in both. Besides, it makes no difference how much went 
through the eCat; there was enough steam to make the inlet 120 deg C. You can 
quibble about how much boiling water there was, but it had to be enough for 
Lewan to hear it, and to make the insulated reactor surface. It wasn't 50 ml, 
that's for sure. It had to be a substantial amount.


  You know how much cooling power 10 L/min water has. A box of that size cannot 
produce heat for 4 hours and remain boiling and heating the heat-exchanger 
water with no input power. You could put the thermocouples anywhere you like in 
that heat exchanger box, and I guarantee that after an hour they will all 
register 25 deg C.



The "loading" power could have heated a 90 kg chunk of metal to well over 
100C


  But it didn't. The metal was 80 deg C. And it stayed at 80 deg C. Four hours 
after the power was cut, it was still at 80 deg C. If it was "loaded" and then 
unloaded, the temperature would have to drop!



-- and that could have been used to heat a small flow of water to any 
desired temperature-vs-time pattern -- and would explain why there was the 
sound of boiling and why the surface of the eCat was hot.


  For crying out loud, look up the specific heat of metal. Read Heffner's 
analysis, p. 1, stored heat. Think about what "loading" or "storing" heat 
means. It means heating up the material. When you store, the temperature goes 
up. When you release the heat, the temperature goes down. When the temperature 
does not go up or down, there is no storage or release -- by definition. When 
the temperature is steady over 4 hours ago, no heat has been stored or released 
during that time.


  This reminds me of Krivit's latest hypothesis that 33 MJ were "stored" in the 
reactor. Before they turned off the power, the reactor and heat exchanger got 
hot, the heat balanced and then went exothermic so obviously all 33 MJ came 
out, plus some more. Not stored, right? Then, I suppose, the same 33 MJ did an 
about face, went back in, and came out again after they turned off the power. 
Zounds! Heat that appears twice! Call Vienna! -- as Howland Owl put it.



I fear that in this test we have a cornucopia of experimental PROBLEMS.



  Yes there are many problems. I pointed out many of them. However, despite 
these problems, the first-principle proof is still obvious. You need to stop 
looking at the problems, and look at the proof instead. Stop inventing ad hoc 
nonsense about "stored heat" that does not change the temperature, or heat 
exchangers that do not exchange heat. Look at the facts, and do not be blinded 
or distracted by the problems. Those problems cannot change the conclusions 
this test forces upon the observer. Forget about those thermocouples if you 
like, and think only about the fact that the water was still boiling and the 
reactor was still hot 4 hours after the power was turned off. That fact, all by 
itself, is all the proof you can ask for.

  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof

[Joe Catania]

If its passive cooling? Excuse me but are we discussing something here?
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 9:41 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is 
irrefutable proof


  Excuse me I meant to say that the cooling rate must obey Newton's law if 
there is NO energy generation and the flow rate does NOT change. In other 
words, if it passive cooling in unchanging conditions. Lewan's observations and 
report show that the flow rate and other essential parameters did not change.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof

[Joe Catania]

That appears to be a graph of power noy yemperature.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 9:24 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is 
irrefutable proof


  Joe Catania  wrote:


No the band heater is at 900C but that metal block talk was only for 
illustrative purposes. Newtons LAw is irrelevant.


  Newton's law governs passive heat loss, which is what this has to be if there 
is not energy input and the flow rate does change.



An insulated metal block that loses heat at a rate of 1W loses heat at the 
rate of 1W. You mention lack of monotonicity but what's the example (be 
specific, post link).


  Right here:


  
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg

  The temperature rises several times after the power is turned off.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof

[Joe Catania]

No the band heater is at 900C but that metal block talk was only for 
illustrative purposes. Newtons LAw is irrelevant. An insulated metal block that 
loses heat at a rate of 1W loses heat at the rate of 1W. You mention lack of 
monotonicity but what's the example (be specific, post link).
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 8:14 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is 
irrefutable proof


  Joe Catania  wrote:


With 40MJ of heat in the system it would be impossible for the temperature 
to drop suddenly. I heat a block of steel to 900C, then I stop heating it, and 
drop a gram of water on it. What's the temperature? 900C. Notice there was no 
precipitous drop.


  Please see Newton's law of cooling:


  https://www.math.duke.edu/education/ccp/materials/diffcalc/ozone/ozone1.html

  The other point you are overlooking is the drop is monotonic, that is 
"Varying in such a way that it either never decreases or never increases." When 
heat is released from a system the way you describe, the temperature can only 
drop. It NEVER NEVER RISES. That is a fundamental physical law.


  Note also that this device was at 80 deg C, not 900 deg C.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof

[Joe Catania]

With 40MJ of heat in the system it would be impossible for the temperature to 
drop suddenly. I heat a block of steel to 900C, then I stop heating it, and 
drop a gram of water on it. What's the temperature? 900C. Notice there was no 
precipitous drop. Nor would there be after many grams of water. In fact 40MJ is 
stored in the metal. This is enough to boil ~20kg of water. Where are you 
getting 1.8 tons?
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 4:59 PM
  Subject: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable 
proof


  Or if it is refutable, let's see someone make a serious effort to refute it. 
Stop quibbling about details. Get the heart of the matter, and tell us how a 
box of this size with no input power can boil water for 3 hours and remain at 
the same high temperature while you cool it with 1.8 tons of water.


  I wrote to some friends complaining about the test. My conclusion:

  Despite these problems . . . I think this test produced irrefutable proof of 
anomalous heat. Here is why I think so --

  Look at the graph here:


  
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg


  Nothing happens until 13:22 when the steam begins to flow through the heat 
exchanger.


  At 15:13 output is a little higher than input, even though there is a great 
deal of heat unaccounted for, especially the water from the condensed steam, 
which they poured down the drain.


  At 15:50 the power is cut off. If there had been no source of anomalous heat, 
the power would have fallen off rapidly and monotonically, at the same rate it 
did after 19:55. It would have approached the zero line by 17:25. Actually, it 
would have approached zero before that, based on Newton's law of cooling. In 
other words, it would have been stone cold after 3 hours. During that time, 1.8 
tons of water went through the cooling loop. It is inconceivable that an object 
of this size with no power input could have remained at the same high 
temperature the whole time. Yet Lewan reports that the surface of the reactor 
was still hot, and boiling could still be heard inside it.


  As you see, the temperature did not fall. It went up at 16:26. The cooling 
water flow rate was unchanged, so only a source of heat could have caused this.


  You can ignore the thermocouple data, and look only at the fact that it 
continued to boil for more than 3 hours after the power was turned off, and the 
reactor surface remained hot. That alone is rock solid proof.


  It is possible that the placement of the outlet thermocouple was flawed, and 
it recorded a value midway between the outlet cooling water temperature and the 
steam in the pipe next to that. I do not think much heat can cross from the 
steam pipe to the water pipe next to it. Alan Fletcher did a rigorous analysis 
to demonstrate this. The thermal mass of the cooling water was much larger than 
the steam, so the average temperature was closer to the water than the steam. 
However, for sake of argument let us assume the temperature was too high. In 
that case, we can ignore the actual temperature and look only at the 
temperature trends. We can look at relative temperatures. Whatever the 
temperature was, it goes up after the power turns off. It stays up. It stays at 
a higher level than it was when the power was on! Even if the actual 
temperature was half this value, it still should have fallen monotonically, as 
I said.


  This behavior is simply impossible without some source of heat, at some power 
level. I think that very little wicking from the hot water pipe occurred, so I 
expect the peak anomalous power was ~8 kW as shown in this graph.




  (I also ran this analysis and my complaints past Rossi himself.)


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test

[Joe Catania]

I have to disagree that the change in hydrogen pressure wouldn't be almost 
immediately obvious. IYou should get an immediate rise in delta T across the 
reactor which would immediately boost heat flow. Helium should confirm a 
null result- ie no CF and would be used as a control. You should be able to 
subtract out the helium data to account for thermal inertia and warm up and 
cool down w/ the heater.--- Original Message - 
From: "Jouni Valkonen" 

To: 
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test


2011/10/7 Joe Catania :

Lewan's report states that hydrogen pressure was lowered during shut-down.
This is the angle they should have exploited. With constant heating and
water flow conditions they should vary the hydrogen pressure and record 
the

results. They should also try an inert gas like helium.


Of course, but unfortunately there was not time to do such thing
(doing such correlative analysis would take several days) . And also,
reaction speed did not react too much for the reducing the hydrogen
pressure.

But test excluded all possible hidden power sources (E-Cat was
weighted before and after the test). Therefore what would be the point
of injecting helium?

   –Jouni

Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test

[Joe Catania]

Lewan's report states that hydrogen pressure was lowered during shut-down. 
This is the angle they should have exploited. With constant heating and 
water flow conditions they should vary the hydrogen pressure and record the 
results. They should also try an inert gas like helium.
- Original Message - 
From: "Jed Rothwell" 

To: 
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test


peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:

If the heat exchanger has only 60% efficieny, then the energy loss is 5kW 
* 0.4 = 2kW.
Where does the enrgy go? Energy cannot vanish magically, it must go into 
the ambient.


Correct. It radiates into the surroundings, from the reactor and the
heat exchanger. Lewan reported the reactor surface was "between 60°C and
85°C." I presume he means at different times. I do not know how he
measured that. It has a lot of surface area so it is radiating a lot of
heat. Someone better physics and I can estimate how much.

With a really good calorimeter having a high recovery rate, nearly all
the heat ends up captured by the calorimeter. With the flow calorimeter
it ends up heating the water. With a Seebeck calorimeter it may radiate
out into the room, or if there is a water bath on the outside shell of
the chamber to ensure a stable background, it will be captured by the
water bath.

This reactor is too large for most Seebeck calorimeters.


I think even if the heat exchanger at this size (as visible in the video) 
has no insulation, it cannot lose 2kW.

It is well isolated and the loss must be much lower.

I believe the heat exchanger plus the reactor itself can radiate 2 kW.

They look crude to me. Such things are inefficient. See photo of the two
of them (in one box):

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Overall efficiency is not known but it is probably low

[Joe Catania]

Your right after spending millions uselessly Rossi can always promote the 
e-cat as a very accurate calorimeter ( in fact the one that discovered 
profitable CF) and thus mark up the sale price even further.
- Original Message - 
From: "Jed Rothwell" 

To: 
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 4:27 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Overall efficiency is not known but it is probably low



Daniel Rocha wrote:

You must not forget the losses due the conversion between the heat 
exchangers. If it was 70%, that means around 5KW for the core.


I pulled 70% out of a hat, by the way. I do not know what the overall 
efficiency is. I am just guessing, based on large, crude experimental 
calorimeters I have seen in various labs and at Hydrodynamics, Inc.


McKubre's calorimeter is superb, and it recovers something above 95% of 
the heat, as I recall. Or was it 98%? Anyway, the Rossi's reactor is the 
opposite of superb. It has a large surface area which must be hot and must 
be radiating a great deal of heat. Large, uninsulated boxes like this that 
are not engineered with multiple tubes inside and lots of internal heat 
transfer surface area recover no more than 80% in my experience.


I do not know how efficient the heat exchanger is, but top-notch good 
industrial ones are about 90% efficient according to on-line sources. I 
have no idea what this heat exchanger looks like but if it is experimental 
equipment put together by Rossi or by professors in the last month I'll 
bet it is well below good industry equipment. So I am guessing maybe 80% 
again.


That would be 64% recovery overall.

The right way to do this is to perform a calibration with a joule heater 
boiling water. That would tell us the recovery rate. Knowing Rossi I'll 
that they did not do that.


Anyway, it can't be anything close to 100%. You can bet the surface of 
that machine and of the heat exchanger was hot. How hot? I asked several 
people who attended the demonstration to try to measure that surface 
temperature but I doubt any of them did it. I don't think they had time to 
prepare for that.


As I said this test was an improvement over previous ones but I expect I 
will find plenty of ways in which it could have been done better, such as 
calibrating and using a IR sensor.


Having said that, we should not lose sight of the fact that finding out 
how much heat is lost from the system unaccounted for can only improve the 
numbers for Rossi. It can only strengthen the claim. I am sure that total 
output energy exceeded total input by a large measure. With 4 hours of 
heat after death no other result is possible. You cannot begin to store 4 
hours of heat at 3.5 kW in a device this size. That notion is 
preposterous. If the heat recovery was 98% (which it could not be; that is 
far too high) this result is definitive. If the recovery was 70% or 40% it 
is even more definitive. You do not actually need to know what it was. 
Knowing it would be icing on the cake.


In some early cold fusion experiments, there was only excess heat if you 
took into account of the measured losses from the calorimeter, which are 
measured by calibrating with a joule heater. In other words, you would 
only believe there was excess heat if you trusted the calibrations were 
done right, and the recovery rate was correctly measured. Such results 
were close to the margin. In Rossi's case, you can ignore the recovery 
rate. You could pretend it is 100% (which is impossible) and you still get 
large excess in most tests. This inspires much more confidence than the 
early marginal tests. Rossi does not trust precision measurements or 
complicated methods, so he would never ask anyone to trust his recovery 
rate, and he probably does not even bother to measure it. Still, it would 
be a good idea to establish the performance of the instrument.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:July 7th E-Cat test report

[Joe Catania]

I wouldn't evn take more output heat as input heat as the sine qua non. In fact 
there's nothing going on in the e-cat that can proove cold fusion- its not 
about a cold fusion "proof", there just isn't one of those contemplated. If you 
want CF proof maybe look at the Navy's data.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Robert Leguillon 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 1:37 PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:July 7th E-Cat test report


  I think that you're misunderstanding me. If-And-Only-If the power at the 
secondary is LESS than the peak power input to the primary, there will be 
arguments about the "heat after death" or "self-sustaining" operation.  
  If the most energy that you put into the E-Cat is 1 kW, and 2 kW is observed 
at the output, then the H.A.D. operation is totally unnecessary, but may 
impress some people. 
  However, if you put 1 kW into the input for two hours, seeing a slow 
build-to-parity at the secondary (where the secondary only achieves 1 kW), then 
how long the heat takes to decay when power is removed will be a bone of 
contention. 
  I think H.A.D. could serve as a distraction. What we HAVE TO SEE is more kW 
at the secondary than is ever applied to the primary.
  Was that cogent? This was the prediction I'd supplied yesterday - that power 
gains would be reliant on the "no input" mode of operation, less than the peak 
power applied at the primary. And this would leave people arguing over 
residual, or stored, heat vs. a maintained reaction.

  I truly hope that they are observing 3kW out, and less than 10 Amps peak 
power consumption. 


--
  Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 12:58:55 -0400
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:July 7th E-Cat test report
  From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com


  Robert Leguillon  wrote:


We can only hope and pray that there is more power observed on the 
secondary than is supplied to the primary during peak energy application.  
If gains are only observed during "heat after death", we will be arguing 
the results ad infinitum.




  Why do you say that?!? It is much easier to be sure the heat is real when 
there is no input power. It is much more definitive, not less.


  What you say makes no sense to me. Please explain.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos

[Dr Joe Karthauser]

Love it! :)

-- 
Dr Joe Karthauser

On 5 Oct 2011, at 00:27, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> "We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here,"
> says the bartender.
> 
> A neutrino walks into a bar.
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:The faster than light neutrino speed should be determined in a non rotating frame

[Joe Catania]

There would seem to be no other way of explaining a result like: I send a 
photon from point A to point B and measure the time of flight. I then send a 
neutrino. The neutrino gets there faster.

This should show up the fact that neutrinos are faster than photons unless 
there's some error.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Horace Heffner 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 1:47 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:The faster than light neutrino speed should be determined 
in a non rotating frame


  Hopefully this one is correct.  Sorry for the multiple posts on this.  I am 
surprised and happy to see the archives now save and show  jpgs. 


  On Sep 30, 2011, at 11:16 AM, David Jonsson wrote:


I made a calculation in an inertial system and found that the CERN-OPERA 
neutrino speed was by some percent due to the rotation of the Earth around its 
own axis. Do you agree that the calculation should be made in a non rotating 
system? By the time CERN sends and OPERA receives the Earth rotation makes 
OPERA to come a bit closer. How many of you agree or disagree with this?

Silvertooth, Bryan G. Wallace, GPS and laser gyroscopes also supports this 
view. It is not suitable to apply the principle of relativity in a non inertial 
rotating frame.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370






  The OPERA experiment neutrino beam is directed from CERN, 46�14'N   6� 3'E,  
to  Gran Sasso LNGS lab,  42�25'N  13�31'E.  The geometry of this is shown in 
Fig.1, in OPERA.jpg, attached.


  Point C is CERN, the neutrino origin.  Point S is San Sasso at the time of 
neutrino departure.  Since San Sasso is east of CERN, the earth rotates away, 
eastward,  from CERN during the time of flight of the neutrino.  This makes the 
distance longer than would be estimated by distance between geodetic 
coordinates.  The neutrino arrives at the new San Sasso location S', which is 
eastward from S by distance d.  Only the neutrinos initially aimed at point S' 
arrive there.  


  Assume the distance C to S is 730 km stated in the Adam et al. OPERA article. 
 Assume point B to be 730 km from point C on the line from C to S'.  The 
neutrino thus has to travel the additional distance x from B to S' due to the 
eastward motion of the earth during its time of flight. 


  Let point A be the point due south of CERN and due wet of San Sasso, i.e. at 
42�25'N, 6�3' E.  The distance C to A s then about 404 km, and A to S 608 km.  
The angle of the direction of CERN from due wast as seen from San Sasso is thus 
roughly ATAN(404/608) = 33.6�.  


  The earth's radius if 6371 km.  San Sasso is located at latitude 42.42�N.  
Its radius of rotations is thus cos(42.4)*(6371 km) = 4720 km. Its speed of 
rotation is thus 2*Pi*(4720 km)/(24 hr) = 343 m/s.


  The speed of CERN due to earth's rotation is 2*Pi*cos(46.2�)* (6371 km)/(24 
hr) = 321 m/s.  The 22 m/s speed difference between CERN and San Sasso is not 
enough to relativistically affect the measurements, especially given the 
extreme effort put into clock synchronization and geodetic coordinate location. 
 The relative motion however,  is enough.  A non-rotating linear motion 
approximation is sufficient to approximate the expected effect. 


  Light travels 730 km in (730 km)/(3x10^8 m/s) = 2.435x10^-3 s.  In that time 
San Sasso moves d = (2.435x10^-3 s) * (343 m/s) = 0.835 m eastward. The 
distance x added to the travel can thus be approximated as x = cos(33.6�) * d = 
0.833 * (0.853 m)  = 0.71 m.  The travel time of the neutrinos should be 
increased by (0.71 m)/(3x10^8 m/s) = 2.36x10^-9 s = 2.36 ns. The neutrinos were 
observed arriving 60.7 ns early.  This extra 0.71 m, 2.36 ns, had it not been 
taken into account, would have made the neutrino arrival time 60.7 ns + 2.4 ns 
= 63.1 ns early vs speed of light.  


  Failure to account for earth's rotation thus provides approximately a 
2.4/60.7 = 4 % error.  However, this error is in a direction which makes the 
anomaly even greater. 


  Best regards,



  Horace Heffner
  http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/









<>

Re: [Vo]:Inexpensive steam/water calorimeter

[Joe Catania]

It might be nice to know the metal mass and temps as well.
- Original Message - 
From: "Horace Heffner" 

To: "Vortex-L" 
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 12:41 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Inexpensive steam/water calorimeter


A simple inexpensive continuously operating steam/water calorimeter
can be obtained using a combined barrel and flow calorimetry.

A water container, a barrel, or perhaps a trash can which is silicone
sealed for leaks, can be used to condense steam via a submerged
copper coil, preferably mostly located near the top of the barrel to
avoid imposing a steam pressure head on the tested device.  This
water container can be insulated cheaply using construction foam
board and fiberglass.  A stirrer can be driven via a shaft through
the foam board.

A secondary coil can be used for pumped coolant.  A fixed flow rate
pump can be used to deliver the coolant flow.  The coolant flow
circuit can be open or closed. A closed secondary coolant temperature
can be maintained via either water or air heat exchange or ice heat
exchange.  The source of the coolant energy is not important if the
Tin and Tout are measured close to the water container, and any
tubing between the temperature measuring stations and the water
container is insulated.  Ideally the secondary flow rate would be
measured by a digital flow meter, and driven by a variable speed
pump.  The coolant flow rate can then be adjusted to suit the coolant
delta T and the thermal power of the device under test.
Alternatively, an accurate fixed flow rate pump can be chosen with a
flow rate approximately matching the expected thermal power of the
device under test given the expected coolant delta T.  A reasonable
goal for the water container temperature is the range 50°C to 70°C.

Use of a large water container provides some degree of momentary heat
pulse energy integration and confidence in the device thermal power
measurements. It applies a significant time constant to the thermal
data that reduces the frequency temperature data must be taken.  It
even permits manual temperature reading if a modestly stable
condition is established.  This is at the cost of being able to see
instant response thermal and energy output curves. There is no need
to see such fast response curves if the primary goal is to measure
total energy in vs total energy out for a long run.

The primary circuit water flow can be pumped directly from the water
container. Ideally the primary water flow should be measured by
digital flow meter. If a low pressure head is presented to the
primary circuit flow pump, then a precision fixed flow rate pump can
be used.  If precision digital flow meters are not used, and reliance
is placed on precision flow rate pumps, then at minimum simple (flow
integrating) water meters should be monitored periodically to verify
assumed pump mean flow rates. Calibration runs on dummy devices
should be used to verify the calorimeter over the thermal range
expected.  A calibration control run should be used with the device
under test to determine the water capacity of the device so the
volume of water in the barrel is known in order to provide improved
intermediate time thermal power  measurements.  At the conclusion of
a run, the circuits should continue to be driven until thermal
equilibrium is obtained and essentially all thermal energy is drained
form the device under test. A water depth gage for the barrel may be
of use, calibrated to depth vs volume, in order to keep track of the
amount of water in the device under test.

The secondary circuit input and output temperature should be recorded
frequently.  Alternatively, a direct delta T can be measured
frequently using an appropriate dual thermocouple arrangement, thus
providing improved data quality and reducing data acquisition
required. Flow stirrers should be used, if feasible, in the secondary
circuit prior to the thermometer wells. Barrel water temperature
should be monitored. Ideally primary circuit water input temperature
and room temperature should be monitored as well.

A thermal decline curve should be measured for the water container
when there is no primary circuit flow, and the water is stirred.
The calorimeter constant C(dT) as a function of the difference
between room temperature and water contained temperature (dT) should
be determined. The curve C(dT) can be fit to a polynomial using
regression analysis for convenient use in data analysis. Experience
shows this method is not very accurate if the water container is not
well insulated.  This is due to room drafts, variations in humidity
and temperature during the day, etc.  Ideally active insulation could
be used, whereby an extra envelope surrounds the water container
insulation and the temperature there is maintained at the temperature
of the water, thereby producing a dT = 0, and no heat loss.  This is
excessive for this approach, however, the goals of which are "cheap",
"simple",  and "good enough".

In summary, a minimum configur

[Vo]:Neutrinos

[Dr Joe Karthauser]

Neutrinos
xkcd.com
 
Sent with Reeder


-- 
Dr Joe Karthauser

Re: [Vo]: Another advancement toward an atomic 'strobe-light'...

[Dr Joe Karthauser]

On 23 Sep 2011, at 02:33, "Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint"  
wrote:

> 
> According to my model, I would be willing to bet that one would see the 
> electron move thru the nucleus with every oscillation… but it traverses the 
> center region much more quickly than when it reaches the outer bounds of its 
> oscillation where it has to slow down and reverse direction.
> 
> 

Hey Mark,

You're idea is that the electron oscillates through the nucleus, not around it? 
How does that change your picture of the quantised angular momentum?

Thanks
Joe

Re: [Vo]: About measurement of steam with Galantini probe

[Joe Catania]

Who knows enough about sound velocity in various quality steam?
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jouni Valkonen 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 12:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]: About measurement of steam with Galantini probe


  Mattia, you can also measure the steam quality by measuring the speed of 
sound in steam. This is correlated with amount of liquid water droplets in 
steam suspension. Therefore you do not need to condense steam in order to find 
it's quality.

  In close to room pressure it is really not necessary to condense the steam, 
but it is enough to measure steam quality and separate hot water and steam with 
water trap. This gives the mass flow of steam and thus we can calculate the 
total enthalpy from humidity sensor readings. Usually water boilers are 
designed thus that there is build in water trap so that only steam escapes. 
With tube boiler this is however the case due to percolator effect.

  Of course it would be easier and more reliable to condense the steam by 
sparging it into the water bucket and measure the change of water temperature. 
Then we would not need to worry about the amount of overflown water.

  —Jouni

  On Sep 22, 2011 6:21 PM, "Mattia Rizzi"  wrote:
  > It’s the manufacter that say the readings are useless, not me.
  > If you don’t trust the manufacter, then provide a single reference from the 
literature that say that it’s possibile to measure the entalphy/steam 
quality/ecc from a RH reading. I challenge you. Nobody do it. ISO standard is 
to condensate the steam. 
  > From: Jouni Valkonen 
  > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 4:45 PM
  > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  > Subject: Re: [Vo]:About measurement of steam with Galantini probe
  > 
  > Peter, in order to measure the enthalpy you need to know the mass flow of 
steam. This is not known therefore humidity sensor gives only the amount of 
liquid water in suspension with steam. That was measured 1.2% and thus steam 
quality was 98.8%. 
  > 
  > Problem is that critics such as Mattia Rizzi and Krivit has wrong 
definition for steam quality. Measuring steam quality is irrelevant because it 
is always 99-98%. Instead what would have been necessary to measure, was the 
mass flow of steam. This was not measured, therefore steam quality reading is 
useless. It tells only that 98.8% of steam mass flow was vapor and 1.2% was 
liquid water droplets in suspension. But indeed this does not tell us how much 
liquid water was overflown that was not in suspension with water vapor.
  > 
  > I wonder how long people will repeat this Krivit's silly misconception!
  > 
  > —Jouni
  > 
  > On Sep 22, 2011 5:25 PM,  wrote:
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >> - Original Nachricht 
  >> Von: Jed Rothwell 
  >> An: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  >> Datum: 22.09.2011 15:53
  >> Betreff: Re: Aw: [Vo]:About measurement of steam with Galantini probe
  >> 
  >>> peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
  >>> 
  >>> > Now what happens, when an inventor without deep knowledge and experience
  >>> constructs a steam device, makes it unaccessible and then lets 
unexperienced
  >>> scientist measure the steam?
  >>> > Most scientists expect that devices that they use are properly 
constructed
  >>> and work as designed because they know nothing else.
  >>> 
  >>> Some questions for you and other self-appointed experts here:
  >>> 
  >>> How much deep knowledge and experience do you have? How many steam 
  >>> devices have you constructed? Have you done calorimetry on this scale? 
  >>> What do you know about Galantini's background and his previous work?
  >>> 
  >>> You are presumptuous.
  >>> 
  >> 
  >> I do repair professional devices and had contact with many professors and 
doctors in chemical labors using our products.
  >> I have experiences with chromatography devices (with the electronic 
sensors,and computers, not with the chemistry), and with microparticel 
measurement devices and with continuous flow devices.
  >> All these dont only need calibration, fresh calibration is sometimes 
needed before each measurement.
  >> I have no experience with steam measurements, but was reading a lot in the 
last time and I learned that this are heavily nonlinear problems with many 
variable known and unknown parameters and it is too easy to make mistakes and 
too easy to fool others with such measurements.
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Review of Travel report by Hanno Essén and Sven Kullander, 3 April 2011

[Joe Catania]

Congrats! You are doing some good work.
- Original Message - 
From: "Horace Heffner" 

To: 
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 2:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Review of Travel report by Hanno Essén and Sven Kullander, 
3 April 2011




On Sep 21, 2011, at 7:51 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote:


HEAT FLOW THROUGH THE NICKEL CONTAINING STAINLESS STEEL COMPARTMENT

If the stainless steel compartment has a surface area of
approximately S = 180 cm^2, as approximated above, and 4.39 kW heat
flow through it occurred, as specified in the report, then the heat
flow was (4390 W)/(180 cm^2) = 24.3 W/cm^2 = 2.4x10^5 W/m^2.

The thermal conductivity of stainless steel is 16 W/(m K).  The
compartment area is 180 cm^2 or 1.8x10^-2 m^2. If the wall thickness
is 2 mm = 0.002 m, then the thermal resistance R of the  compartment is:

R = (0.002 m)/(16 W/(m K)*(1.8x10^-2 m^2) = 1.78 °C/W

Producing a heat flow of 4.39 kW, or 4390 W then requires a delta T
given as:

delta T = (1.78 °C/W) * (4390 W) = 7800 °C

The melting point of Ni is 1453°C.  Even if the internal temperature
of the chamber were 1000°C above water temperature then power out
would be at best (1000°C)/(1.78 °C/W) = 561 W.

Most of the input water mass flow necessarily must have continued on
out the exit port without being converted to steam.


That presumes that the heat exchange takes place on the surface of  the 
core.


But the heat is (supposedly) produced by thermalization of gamma  rays, 
which could be anywhere nearby. Rossi has said that it is  partly in the 
copper tubing and partly in the lead shielding. The  total available area 
is easily 10 times that of the core, so the  delta T could be 780C, not 
7800C.




This is not likely, because no gammas were detected. As I have shown,
if the gamma energies are large, on the order of an MeV, a large
portion of the gammas, on the order of 25%, will pass right through 2
cm of lead.

The lower the energy of the gammas, the more that make up a kW of
gamma flux.  Consider the following:

 EnergyActivity (in gammas per second) for 1 kW
   --
1.00 MeV   6.24x10^15
100  keV   6.24x10^16
10.0 keV   6.24x10^17

The absorption for low energy gammas is mostly photoelectic.  The
photoelectric mass attenuation coefficient (expressed in cm^2/gm)
increases with decreasing gamma wavelength.  Here are some
approximations:

 Energymu (cm^2/gm)
   --
1.00 MeV   0.02
100  keV   1.0
10.0 keV   80

We can approximate the gamma absorption qualities of the subject E-
cat as 2.3 cm of lead.

Given a source gamma intensity I0, surrounded by 2.3 cm of lead we
have an activity:

   I = I0 * exp(-mu * rho * L)

where rho is the mass density, and L is the thickness.  For lead rho
= 11.34 gm/cm^3.

For 1 kW of MeV gammas we have:

   I = (6.24x10^15 s^-1) * exp(-(0.02 cm^2/gm) * (11.34 gm/cm^3) *
(2.3 cm))

   I = 3.7x10^15 s^-1

For 1 kW of 100 keV gammas we have:

   I = (6.24x10^16 s^-1) * exp(-(1.0 cm^2/gm) * (11.34 gm/cm^3) *
(2.3 cm))

   I = 2.9x10^5 s^-1

For 1 kW of 10 keV gammas we have:

   I = (6.24x10^17 s^-1) * exp(-(0.80 cm^2/gm) * (11.34 gm/cm^3) *
(2.3 cm))

   I = ~0 s^-1


So, we can see that gammas at 100 keV will be readily detectible, but
much below that not so. However, it is also true that 0.2 cm of
stainless will absorb the majority of the low energy gamma energy, so
we are back essentially where we started, all the heat absorbed by
the stainless, and even the catalyst itself, in the low energy range.

If the 2 mm of stainless is equivalent to 1 mm of lead, for 1 kW of
100 keV gammas we have:

   I = (6.24x10^16 s^-1) * exp(-(1.0 cm^2/gm) * (11.34 gm/cm^3) *
(0.1 cm))

   I = 2x10^16 s^-1

and an attenuation factor of (2x10^16 s^-1)/(6.24x10^16 s^-1) = 32%.
Down near 10 keV all the gamma energy is captured in the stainless
steel or in the nickel itself.

To support this hypothesis a p+Ni reaction set including all
possibilities for all the Ni isotopes in the catalyst would have to
be found that emitted gammas only in the approximately 50 kEV range
or below, but well above 10 keV, and yet emitted these at a kW level.
This seems very unlikely.  If such were found, however, it would be a
monumental discovery. And, it would be easily detectible at close
range by NaI detectors, easily demonstrated scientifically.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat

[Joe Catania]

The constriction dosen't necessarily matter as flow will tend to spped up when 
constricted. So you agree that there's no significant extra pressure?
  - Original Message - 
  From: Alan J Fletcher 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 7:46 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat


  At 04:19 PM 9/20/2011, Joe Catania wrote:

Have it your way. 

  We can't see inside the tap (or know what type it is), or if it's only partly 
open  -- it is probably more constricted than the outlet. 


Still there is little pressure necessary. 

  I put up the full table at : 
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_sep11_drain_g.php 

  I was using 30 litres ... but the actual water volume was 25L (based on the 
time to fill the eCat), and it could be even less than that after it's been in 
operation. 

  A draining time of 7 minutes fits 1 Bar better than 2 Bar.

Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat

[Joe Catania]

Have it your way. Still there is little pressure necessary.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Alan J Fletcher 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 7:18 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat


  At 04:00 PM 9/20/2011, Joe Catania wrote:

But look at the size of the orifice in the video. 

  http://lenr.qumbu.com/steampics/110920_sept_0007.jpg 
  http://lenr.qumbu.com/steampics/110920_sept_0009.jpg 

  1cm diameter, maximum.

Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat

[Joe Catania]

But look at the size of the orifice in the video.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Alan J Fletcher 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 6:54 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat


  At 03:36 PM 9/20/2011, Joe Catania wrote:

BTW you should run those time-to-drain numbers again. The outlet looks like 
its about 2cm in diameter. The sound seems to be mostly water impacting on the 
side of the pail.

  Tank height 25
  Radius 0.20Time 1 Bar 44.94 minTime 2 Bar 3.52 min
  Radius 0.30Time 1 Bar 19.97 minTime 2 Bar 1.56 min
  Radius 0.40Time 1 Bar 11.23 minTime 2 Bar 0.88 min
  Radius 0.50Time 1 Bar 7.19 minTime 2 Bar 0.56 min
  Radius 0.60Time 1 Bar 4.99 minTime 2 Bar 0.39 min
  Radius 0.70Time 1 Bar 3.67 minTime 2 Bar 0.29 min
  Radius 0.80Time 1 Bar 2.81 minTime 2 Bar 0.22 min
  Radius 0.90Time 1 Bar 2.22 minTime 2 Bar 0.17 min
  Radius 1.00Time 1 Bar 1.80 minTime 2 Bar 0.14 min

  2cm diam is MUCH too quick. 

Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat

[Joe Catania]

 I can't agree w/ a diameter of 1 cm.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Alan J Fletcher 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 6:49 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat


  At 02:33 PM 9/20/2011, Joe Catania wrote:

Clearly your calculations are a bit off. The running time on video is more 
like 1:20, still greater than drain time for 2 atm, showing there is less than 
2atm pressure. But since we don't know for how long the draining continues we 
dont know how much less. Since the E-Cat is open to atmosphere (by report) we 
can assume the pressure is 1 atm. Also 1/4 cm seems a bit small for the orifice 
and drain time would seem to affected by height of water column.

  I corrected the run time. 

  The time to drain goes as  1/orifice_area  * sqrt(column_height)
  1/4 is the radius -- 1/2cm diameter

  At 02:50 PM 9/20/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

Considering Akira's temperature graph, we can take that draining took about 
5-7 min.

  That's about 23:15 to 23:22

  Hmmm  since the outlet is still open cool air will be sucked past the 
temperature probe, cooling it.
  When it's completely drained this flow will stop, and the thermal mass will 
cause the air to heat up again.

  Tank height 20
  Radius 0.25Time 1 Bar 25.72 minTime 2 Bar 1.80 min
  Radius 0.30Time 1 Bar 17.86 minTime 2 Bar 1.25 min
  Radius 0.35Time 1 Bar 13.12 minTime 2 Bar 0.92 min
  Radius 0.40Time 1 Bar 10.05 minTime 2 Bar 0.70 min
  Radius 0.45Time 1 Bar 7.94 minTime 2 Bar 0.56 min
  Radius 0.50Time 1 Bar 6.43 minTime 2 Bar 0.45 min
  Tank height 22.5
  Radius 0.25Time 1 Bar 27.28 minTime 2 Bar 2.03 min
  Radius 0.30Time 1 Bar 18.95 minTime 2 Bar 1.41 min
  Radius 0.35Time 1 Bar 13.92 minTime 2 Bar 1.04 min
  Radius 0.40Time 1 Bar 10.66 minTime 2 Bar 0.79 min
  Radius 0.45Time 1 Bar 8.42 minTime 2 Bar 0.63 min
  Radius 0.50Time 1 Bar 6.82 minTime 2 Bar 0.51 min
  Tank height 25
  Radius 0.25Time 1 Bar 28.76 minTime 2 Bar 2.25 min
  Radius 0.30Time 1 Bar 19.97 minTime 2 Bar 1.56 min
  Radius 0.35Time 1 Bar 14.67 minTime 2 Bar 1.15 min
  Radius 0.40Time 1 Bar 11.23 minTime 2 Bar 0.88 min
  Radius 0.45Time 1 Bar 8.88 minTime 2 Bar 0.70 min
  Radius 0.50Time 1 Bar 7.19 minTime 2 Bar 0.56 min
  Tank height 27.5
  Radius 0.25Time 1 Bar 30.16 minTime 2 Bar 2.48 min
  Radius 0.30Time 1 Bar 20.95 minTime 2 Bar 1.72 min
  Radius 0.35Time 1 Bar 15.39 minTime 2 Bar 1.26 min
  Radius 0.40Time 1 Bar 11.78 minTime 2 Bar 0.97 min
  Radius 0.45Time 1 Bar 9.31 minTime 2 Bar 0.76 min
  Radius 0.50Time 1 Bar 7.54 minTime 2 Bar 0.62 min
  Tank height 30
  Radius 0.25Time 1 Bar 31.50 minTime 2 Bar 2.70 min
  Radius 0.30Time 1 Bar 21.88 minTime 2 Bar 1.88 min
  Radius 0.35Time 1 Bar 16.07 minTime 2 Bar 1.38 min
  Radius 0.40Time 1 Bar 12.31 minTime 2 Bar 1.05 min
  Radius 0.45Time 1 Bar 9.72 minTime 2 Bar 0.83 min
  Radius 0.50Time 1 Bar 7.88 minTime 2 Bar 0.68 min

  So ... pick a number (or two!) and draw your conclusions.

Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat

[Joe Catania]

A 5-7 min draining time is completely consistent with 1 atm (ie no 
additional pressure). That represents a flow of ~50ml/s or a velocity of 
~15cm/s which is ~ 1/66 of the velocity obtained from dropping for 1 sec in 
a gravity field. Since mgh=1/2mv^2, h= 1/2 (.15m/s)^2 /10ms^-2 or h=0.1125cm 
so the water only has to drop a 1/10 cm to gain enough KE to drain the tank 
at 50ml/s.
- Original Message - 
From: "Jouni Valkonen" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat


Alan, excellent work again. Considering Akira's temperature graph, we
can take that draining took about 5-7 min. In the beginning pressure
was 210 kPa or 122°C. But it is needed to take into consideration,
that valve was opened slowly. In the end of video, valve was only half
open.

http://i.imgur.com/lU42G.png

Therefore I think that we have now rather conclusive proof, that
indeed, temperature gives us at least approximately the pressure
inside E-Cat. It is not anymore just an assumption, but data supports
the idea.


   –Jouni



2011/9/21 Alan J Fletcher :

I just ran the calculations for draining a 30L eCat through a 0.25 cm 
radius

tap.

http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_sep11_f.php

The drain-time says 2 Bars !

6. Discharge at the End

I can't figure out the "dumping" of the water at the end, either. Is it 
100C

water, or is it 118C water? 1 Bar or 2 Bars ?

I've never seen 25L of boiling water dumped through a tap, so I don't know
what it should look like. It does appear to come out under pressure, and 
it

does seem to flash to steam at the edge of the stream -- both supporting
evidence for an internal pressure of 2 Bars. The video ends before the
discharge is complete.

Time to drain tank

The drain is at a depth of 30 cm and 30 liters is to be drained (based on
the dimensions of 60 x 50 x 30 cm). The radius of the outlet tap is about
0.25 cm.

For atmospheric pressure (1 Bar) the time to drain is 1260.18 secs ( 21.00
min)

For a pressure of 2 Bar we can ADD 33 feet of water to the tank height
(draining from 33 feet + 30cm to 33 feet + 0 cm). The time to drain is 
then

108.02 secs ( 1.80 min)

Although the video ended before the eCat was completely drained, the time
shown on the video (6:44 to 8:05) -- or 1.83 minutes tends indicate 2 bars
pressure, not 1 bar.

The time to discharge, the fact that the flow did not diminish, and that 
the

water seemed to flash into steam around the edge, all support the
"pressurized" hypothesis.

The general argument is the same as for the hose outlet -- 118C water 
would

flash rapidly.

Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat

[Joe Catania]

BTW you should run those time-to-drain numbers again. The outlet looks like its 
about 2cm in diameter. The sound seems to be mostly water impacting on the side 
of the pail.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Alan J Fletcher 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 6:09 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat


  At 02:56 PM 9/20/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:

At 02:33 PM 9/20/2011, Joe Catania wrote:
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_sep11_f.php 
I seem to have broken my file ... back soon! 

  It's back ... I added a table of draining time vs tap radius, and corrected 
the video time.
  I'm still open to revising my conclusion. (!!!)

Re: [Vo]:stopping

[Joe Catania]

Take some aspirin and see a doctor.
- Original Message - 
From: "OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:stopping



Horace,

Needless to say... call your doctor or optometrist right away.

Could be a number of serious issues. Migraine, retinal detachment, 
mini-stroke.


Don't wait.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat

[Joe Catania]

Clearly your calculations are a bit off. The running time on video is more like 
1:20, still greater than drain time for 2 atm, showing there is less than 2atm 
pressure. But since we don't know for how long the draining continues we dont 
know how much less. Since the E-Cat is open to atmosphere (by report) we can 
assume the pressure is 1 atm. Also 1/4 cm seems a bit small for the orifice and 
drain time would seem to affected by height of water column.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Alan J Fletcher 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 5:03 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat


  At 12:49 PM 9/20/2011, Joe Catania wrote:

The point is that a gallon empties very quickly even though not vented at 
the top. The sound it makes is immaterial and is most like caused by the water 
hitting the barrel. I don't know why you feel the water is under inordinate 
pressure. The E-CAt is open to the atmosphere unless Lewan seals the other 
valve. I doubt this as the water seems to be drainig with venting. Why not ask 
Lewan how long it took to empty the E-Cat?
- Original Message - From: "Horace Heffner" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.



On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Joe Catania wrote:


  Yes a sealed galon bottle may dribble if a hole is poked but if its 
vented at the top you should get a steady stream. Or if air enters through the 
bottom you don't get a dribble! I scan't confirm high velocity flow in the 
video. Since you can't tell me the rate of  flow out the valve we have nothing 
to discuss. The video runs for  about 1 minute 20 seconds before ending and the 
tank is still  emptying. I assume ~20L of water in the tank.


Sigh.  Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a
high powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure.
The couple atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem
off.   You need a numerical velocity to determine the difference?


  I just ran the calculations for draining a 30L eCat through a 0.25 cm radius 
tap.

  http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_sep11_f.php 

  The drain-time says 2 Bars !  


  6. Discharge at the End
  I can't figure out the "dumping" of the water at the end, either. Is it 100C 
water, or is it 118C water? 1 Bar or 2 Bars ?

  I've never seen 25L of boiling water dumped through a tap, so I don't know 
what it should look like. It does appear to come out under pressure, and it 
does seem to flash to steam at the edge of the stream -- both supporting 
evidence for an internal pressure of 2 Bars. The video ends before the 
discharge is complete.

  Time to drain tank

  The drain is at a depth of 30 cm and 30 liters is to be drained (based on the 
dimensions of 60 x 50 x 30 cm). The radius of the outlet tap is about 0.25 cm.

  For atmospheric pressure (1 Bar) the time to drain is 1260.18 secs ( 21.00 
min)

  For a pressure of 2 Bar we can ADD 33 feet of water to the tank height 
(draining from 33 feet + 30cm to 33 feet + 0 cm). The time to drain is then 
108.02 secs ( 1.80 min)

  Although the video ended before the eCat was completely drained, the time 
shown on the video (6:44 to 8:05) -- or 1.83 minutes tends indicate 2 bars 
pressure, not 1 bar.

  The time to discharge, the fact that the flow did not diminish, and that the 
water seemed to flash into steam around the edge, all support the "pressurized" 
hypothesis.

  The general argument is the same as for the hose outlet -- 118C water would 
flash rapidly.

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Joe Catania]

That wasn't me. I've never posted to that site. But so what? Is that the 
best you can do?
- Original Message - 
From: "Terry Blanton" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.


On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Horace Heffner  
wrote:



Sigh. Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high
powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure. The couple
atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem off. You need a
numerical velocity to determine the difference?


http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51256.html

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51289.html

I don't think Joe has bothered to see the video. The steam screams! ;-)


I don't see why you bother to waste your time on Catania.  Look at his
question that no one bothered to answer:

http://www.industrycommunity.com/bbs/mfg_1_2805.html

Where is the world is there a 5 GW (electric) turbine?  Maybe in a UFO!  

T

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Joe Catania]

To ay the matter to rest I was not the one to use the word dribble. It was 
HH.
- Original Message - 
From: "Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:41 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.


Horace:
The first thing I thought of when Joe used the word "dribble" was that he
had not seen the video where they opened the water inlet valve on the bottom
and a VERY strong stream of liquid water and steam came out!  To refer to
that as a dribble, is clearly the wrong adjective... "forceful expulsion" is
much closer to an accurate decription.

Joe:
Perhaps you should go back and watch that video several times, and then look
up the word 'dribble' to see if the definition accurately describes what you
saw coming out of that valve... if so, then we're looking at wo different
videos.

-Mark

-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:46 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.


On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Joe Catania wrote:


Yes a sealed galon bottle may dribble if a hole is poked but if its
vented at the top you should get a steady stream. Or if air enters
through the bottom you don't get a dribble! I scan't confirm high
velocity flow in the video. Since you can't tell me the rate of
flow out the valve we have nothing to discuss. The video runs for
about 1 minute 20 seconds before ending and the tank is still
emptying. I assume ~20L of water in the tank.



Sigh.  Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a
high powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure.
The couple atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem
off.   You need a numerical velocity to determine the difference?



- Original Message - From: "Horace Heffner"

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote:


I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but
the water does not come dribbling out.


Of course it does. I didn't say "dripping".  The water flows from a
gallon container in an unsteady stream.  It doesn't spray out at high
velocity as if it were from a pressure washer nozzle. Besides, the
opening on the E-cat was much smaller than a typical gallon bottle.
If you poke a small hole in a gallon bottle it will dribble or drip.

One estimate given for the tank pressure was 2 bar. The water was
above 100°C so some of it flashed to steam. It came from the bottom
of the tank so was likely entirely water before being ejected.


Since its open to the atmosphere it won't dribble. Or if air can
infiltrate from the bottom it won't dribble. I'm not saying the
overlying water dosen't give it pressure. We also don't know how
long it takes to drain.


Aha.  We have a dribble quibble.  8^)

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/







Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Joe Catania]

The screaming does not indicate high pressure. It could be a whistle effect 
as bubbles of steam are forming in the outlet. Why not experiment and see 
how fast a container drains through an outlet the size of the E-Cat's?
- Original Message - 
From: "Terry Blanton" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.


On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Horace Heffner  
wrote:



Sigh. Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high
powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure. The couple
atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem off. You need a
numerical velocity to determine the difference?


http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51256.html

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51289.html

I don't think Joe has bothered to see the video.  The steam screams!  ;-)

T

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Joe Catania]

Still I'm not convinced that those tests you mentioned weren't exactly like 
the September test. Why shouldn't they be?
- Original Message - 
From: "Peter Heckert" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.



Am 20.09.2011 21:51, schrieb Joe Catania:

They state there is an auxillary heater.
Yes but they examined all cables and even lifted the devices to see whats 
below and I think this extra heater was connected to the blue control box 
where they measured the input current. If not, then they should have 
reported this.

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Joe Catania]

The point is that a gallon empties very quickly even though not vented at 
the top. The sound it makes is immaterial and is most like caused by the 
water hitting the barrel. I don't know why you feel the water is under 
inordinate pressure. The E-CAt is open to the atmosphere unless Lewan seals 
the other valve. I doubt this as the water seems to be drainig with venting. 
Why not ask Lewan how long it took to empty the E-Cat?
- Original Message - 
From: "Horace Heffner" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.



On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Joe Catania wrote:

Yes a sealed galon bottle may dribble if a hole is poked but if its 
vented at the top you should get a steady stream. Or if air enters 
through the bottom you don't get a dribble! I scan't confirm high 
velocity flow in the video. Since you can't tell me the rate of  flow out 
the valve we have nothing to discuss. The video runs for  about 1 minute 
20 seconds before ending and the tank is still  emptying. I assume ~20L of 
water in the tank.



Sigh.  Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a
high powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure.
The couple atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem
off.   You need a numerical velocity to determine the difference?




- Original Message - From: "Horace Heffner" 


To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.



On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote:

I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but   the 
water does not come dribbling out.


Of course it does. I didn't say "dripping".  The water flows from a
gallon container in an unsteady stream.  It doesn't spray out at high
velocity as if it were from a pressure washer nozzle. Besides, the
opening on the E-cat was much smaller than a typical gallon bottle.
If you poke a small hole in a gallon bottle it will dribble or drip.

One estimate given for the tank pressure was 2 bar. The water was
above 100°C so some of it flashed to steam. It came from the bottom
of the tank so was likely entirely water before being ejected.

Since its open to the atmosphere it won't dribble. Or if air can 
infiltrate from the bottom it won't dribble. I'm not saying the 
overlying water dosen't give it pressure. We also don't know how   long 
it takes to drain.


Aha.  We have a dribble quibble.  8^)

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/







Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Joe Catania]

Really?
- Original Message - 
From: "Peter Heckert" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.


Am 20.09.2011 19:49, schrieb Horace Heffner:


I think my conclusion was good: "None of this indicates for sure whether 
Rossi has anything of value or not. Maybe he does. The continued failure 
to obtain independent high quality input and output energy measurements 
prevents the public from knowing.


There is one thing that was unfortunately ignored in allmost all public
discussions:

In all demonstrations, January demo, Essen Kulander demo, 3 Ny Teknik
demos, the electrical input energy was not enough to heat the water to
100° Celsius. (I dont know aout the Krivit demo)
There was without doubt some considerable boiling in all experiments and
so the COP should be larger than 2.
This is mass flow calorimetry.
There /must/ be more energy than the /measured/ electrical energy.
So there is something, lets hope it is not a trick.

Peter

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Joe Catania]

They state there is an auxillary heater.
- Original Message - 
From: "Peter Heckert" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.


Am 20.09.2011 20:38, schrieb Horace Heffner:


On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
In all demonstrations, January demo, Essen Kulander demo, 3 Ny Teknik 
demos, the electrical input energy was not enough to heat the water to 
100° Celsius. (I dont know aout the Krivit demo)
There was without doubt some considerable boiling in all experiments and 
so the COP should be larger than 2.

This is mass flow calorimetry.
There /must/ be more energy than the /measured/ electrical energy.
So there is something, lets hope it is not a trick.

Peter



I don't recall at all that there was not enough power to boil the water in 
the initial tests. (My memory is not very good though!)  Do you mean there 
wasn't enough power applied to convert all the water flow to steam?



Yes. Kullander and Essen have calculated this explicitely and I
recalculated it and can confirm.
Also I dont think two Physics Professors can do errors here because this
is too simple to calculate.
Look here: 
At Page 2 they write:
"It is worth noting that at this point in time and temperature, 10:36
and 60°C, the 300 W from the heater is barely sufficient to raise the
temperature of the flowing water from the inlet temperature of 17.6 °C
to the 60 °C recorded at this time. If no additional heat had been
generated internally, the temperature would not exceed the 60 °C
recorded at 10:36. Instead the temperature increases faster after
10:36,"

I recalculated this. I did not recalculate the other documents, but
reliable persons said this and I made some rule of thumb estimations.

I guess one of the problems with making that assertion is not actually 
knowing the true flow rate at all times.  Mattia Rizzi observed pump rates 
on a video which indicated much less than 2 gm/s.

Essen & Kullander measured it with a carafe. (See page 1, chapter
"Calibrations").
In the january experiment they measured the weigt of the water bottle.
They use a peristaltic pump. I was often in chemical labors in my life.
( I did electronics and computer servicing there)
They use peristaltic pumps, (equipped with calibrated hoses) when
accurate flow is required.
This should be pretty constant and a big variation would be audible.
If I recall correctly the Krivit demo was for the most part 1.94 gm/s, 
input temp 23°C, and 748 W input, which makes for all the flow heated to 
100°C plus 83 cc/sec steam generated.   All that is hard to know too 
because apparently Rossi touched the control panel.  Manual adjustment is 
apparently part of the process, as is changing duty factors.  This is one 
reason why a good kWh meter would be of use.

Yes but the heater is controlled by a zero crosspoint switch. The heater
should be on some seconds and off some seconds.
The current that they measured should be the maximum current and it
corresponded to the 300W rating of the band heater.


A technical problem exists because the thermal mass of the E-cats is so 
high. Momentary power readings don't mean very much.

I think Kullander and Essen where there all the time and they watched
carefully what was going on.
Of course this cannot prove that there ai no hidden fake energy source
and that there are no tricks, but I think in the Kullander and Essen
demo we can be sure there was more energy than 300W. 600W would have
been required to heat the water flow to 100° and some additional 100
Watts are needed to get reasonable steam and boiling.

Only fast sampled power measurements integrated to cumulative energy is 
meaningful, or first principle energy integrating techniques.  Total 
energy in vs total energy out for a long period is the meaningful number.

Yes of course for a scientific publication test this is necessary, but
not for a qualitative plausibility test.

Best,
Peter

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Joe Catania]

Yes a sealed galon bottle may dribble if a hole is poked but if its vented 
at the top you should get a steady stream. Or if air enters through the 
bottom you don't get a dribble! I scan't confirm high velocity flow in the 
video. Since you can't tell me the rate of flow out the valve we have 
nothing to discuss. The video runs for about 1 minute 20 seconds before 
ending and the tank is still emptying. I assume ~20L of water in the tank.
- Original Message - 
From: "Horace Heffner" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.



On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote:

I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but  the 
water does not come dribbling out.


Of course it does. I didn't say "dripping".  The water flows from a
gallon container in an unsteady stream.  It doesn't spray out at high
velocity as if it were from a pressure washer nozzle. Besides, the
opening on the E-cat was much smaller than a typical gallon bottle.
If you poke a small hole in a gallon bottle it will dribble or drip.

One estimate given for the tank pressure was 2 bar. The water was
above 100°C so some of it flashed to steam. It came from the bottom
of the tank so was likely entirely water before being ejected.

Since its open to the atmosphere it won't dribble. Or if air can 
infiltrate from the bottom it won't dribble. I'm not saying the  overlying 
water dosen't give it pressure. We also don't know how  long it takes to 
drain.


Aha.  We have a dribble quibble.  8^)

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/