RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

[Mark Iverson]

Hi Terry,
Life is so much more interesting when one ponders the implications behind the 
obvious facts!
I have no doubt that your granddaughter's life is much more enjoyable because 
of her grandpa T...

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 12:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I gotta get me one of these!

If you do, I want to borrow it.

I was taking my granddaughter to the theatre and pointed out the smushed 
chewing gum along the
outside walkway to the mall.  As you approached the trash can, the density of 
gum increased
exponentially.
Good trys shooting for the garbage, but few ringers.

T

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

[Mark Iverson]

Jeff, 
You still did NOT read my posting and the simple algebra that is needed...
I can't spoon-feed you knowledge Jeff; I have pointed you at the explanation 
and you refuse to read
it. You obviously aren't interested in learning...

You stated AGAIN:
"yes, the meters measure the humidity of air, not steam quality.
 Galantini used the wrong instrument."

AS I ALREADY STATED, I AGREE THAT THE INSTRUMENT DOES NOT MEASURE STEAM 
QUALITY! 
YOU"RE TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT!  IT DOES GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO 
CALCULATE IT THOUGH!

THE INSTRUMENT DOES PROVIDE MASS OF WATER AS VAPOR, AND SUBTRACTING THAT FROM 
THE MASS OF WATER
GOING IN WILL GIVE YOU THE MASS OF LIQUID WATER THAT IS COMING OUT!! 

Its ALGEBRA-I level math...

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:03 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Mark Iverson  wrote:
>
>>
>> The only way to guage whether the steam flow is adequate is at the 
>> outlet of the chimney, NOT at the end of a 10 foot hose that has 
>> condensation going on inside it. . . .
>
> That is correct.
>
>>
>> I believe that the demo for Essen and Kullander did make the 
>> measurements of the steam at the chimney...
>
> They measured the steam quality at the chimney with the meter. I do 
> not think they actually saw the steam emerge directly from the chimney.
> Many people have asserted that the two meters used in these studies do 
> not measure by mass, or that they cannot combine this measurement with 
> the temperature to measure enthalpy. They are saying the manufacturers 
> of these meters are wrong, and Galantini are wrong.

yes, the meters measure the humidity of air, not steam quality.
Galantini used the wrong instrument


I doubt it. In any case, the
> second test proved that the steam is dry. All other discussion is 
> obfuscation, handwaving, unfounded accusations of fraud, and a waste 
> of time.
> By the way, I have seen 30 kW of steam emerge from a pipe about 1 m 
> from the steam generator. It is impressive, but the plume is 
> surprisingly small. The vapor is visible ~30 cm from the end of the hose.
> Wet and dry steam generators at dry cleaners are not that large. They 
> are 2 to 5 kW. Here is a photo of a 5 kW wet steam stream:
> http://www.chewinggumremovalmachines.com/wet-steam-gum-removal-pressur
> e-washers.php
> 1.5 kW steam cleaners for home use are common. They do not produce an 
> impressive plume.
> This looks like ~2 kW, used to clean an automobile interior:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_pcOgkRbfQ&feature=related
> http://wn.com/ICanSteamCleanwow
> - Jed
>

RE: [Vo]:relative humidity

[Mark Iverson]

Jeff,

Mass of water in = mass of water out

It doesn't get any simpler.

Everyone is assuming (wrongly) that they are using the instrument to measure 
the liquid content
directly, which the instrument clearly cannot do.  That is NOT what they are 
doing.  You obviously
didn't read my posting where I describe the simple algebra required to figure 
out how this can be
done... 

The instrument DOES provide a (calculated) value for the mass of water which is 
in the form of
vapor... Its called the mixing ratio (sometimes referred to as mass ratio) and 
is displayed in
g/cubic meter, which is exactly what Galantini states... "device indicates the 
grams of water by
cubic meter of steam".  From that, one can easily work backward and calculate 
the mass of liquid
water using simple algebra... One can calulate the mixing ratio from the 
humidity.

I agree that this is not the most desirable method, but is valid, unless you're 
claiming that they
are violating the conservation of mass.

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 9:37 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:relative humidity

> Yes, you're on the right track... see my posting at 6/21 at 9:04pm.
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48242.html
>
> I would bet that Galantini is making an indirect measurement of the 
> liquid water content as explained in my posting.
>
> -Mark


no, there is no way to make an indirect measurement of steam quality using a 
humidity probe that is
designed for *air*


HD 37AB1347
HD37AB1347 IAQ Monitor is a tool manufactured by Delta Ohm for the analysis of 
air quality (Indoor
Air Quality , IAQ). The instrument simultaneously measures several parameters: 
Carbon Dioxide CO2,
Carbon monoxide CO, Temperature, Relative humidity and calculates Dew Point, 
wet bulb temperature,
absolute humidity, mixing ratio, enthalpy and atmospheric pressure. All this 
with the P37AB147
SICRAM probe. The probe SICRAM P37B147 does not measure the Carbon Monoxide CO. 
Also combined
temperature and humidity SICRAM probes, Hot wire Air speed SICRAM probes, Vane 
air speed SICRAM
probes and temperature SICRAM probes can be connected to the instrument. The 
instrument, with proper
procedure, calculates the percentage of outdoor air intake (% Outside
Air) as a function of both carbon dioxide CO2 and temperature and the 
Ventilation Rate. HD37AB1347
data logger has a storage capacity of 67,600 presets for each of the two inputs 
divided into 64
blocks. Use the software DeltaLog10 version 0.1.5.0. The instrument is equipped 
with a large dot
matrix graphic display with a resolution of 160x160 points. Standards: ASHRAE 
62.1-2004, Decree Law
81/2008. The rules apply to all enclosed spaces that may be occupied by people. 
Should be
considered, depending on air quality, chemical contaminants, physical and 
biological or outdoor air
flow inside inadequately purified (Ventilation Rate). Typical applications of 
the instrument with
the range of sensors mentioned above are: - Measure IAQ and comfort conditions 
in schools, offices
and indoor. - Analysis and study of sick building syndrome (Sick Building 
Syndrome) and
consequences. - Verification of HVAC system. - Investigation of IAQ conditions 
in factories to
optimize the microclimate and improve productivity. - Audits in Building 
Automation.
DELTA OHM, SIT, calibration centre

http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347



note the work enthalpy in the above text,  it measures the enthalpy of
the humid air!   not steam quality !!!

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

[Mark Iverson]

The vortex-l discussion group has been around for decades, and most here aren't 
really interested in
'pitching' anything other than careful analysis and discussion and debate -- 
something you should at
least try before shouting 'fraud'.  As explained in a posting I made a few 
minutes ago, determining
whether the steam volume or flow rate is adequate cannot be done at the end of 
a 10' piece of hose
that has condensation occurring along its length... 
 
Agreed that this is very unfortunate and a constand source of frustration to 
all on vortex but I
think the jury is still out as to whether we are witnessing what is claimed, or 
human error, or
fraud.
 
-Mark

  _  

From: t...@wonksmedia.com [mailto:t...@wonksmedia.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 9:25 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


Yes, that's why I said 'supposed to be', which implied I didn't know whether it 
was one 2.5 kW unit,
or all four running for a total of 10 kW.  In either case, we're still short 
steam...that's the
point.  And the quality of the steam should be clear based on how it is exiting 
the hose - it's wet
steam unless he's somehow filtering the steam.  Regardless, it's the steam, not 
the water, that does
useful work, and there isn't much steam coming out of the hose.  Since it's not 
my technology, and I
don't review advanced energy technologies for a living, it's not my concern 
beyond showing that what
has been presented to date is inconclusive at best.  

What I WON'T do is pitch this as a valid technology to outside parties, and I 
have also alerted
those who may be directly impacted by this technology to take a MUCH closer 
look, which at the
moment Rossi will not allow.  So with that said, I have no further comment on 
this technology due to
a lack of information beyond what has been presented to date, which again, 
remains inconclusive at
best.  I'll check back in six months to see if anything has changed...fighting 
over which words are
used in a forum post is a waste of time.





---- Original Message 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
From: "Mark Iverson" 
Date: Wed, June 22, 2011 12:09 pm
To: 


Todd:
You really shold take some time and fully verify your facts before accusing 
someone of fraud... 
I believe that the e-Cat Krivit saw was only 2.5kW, not 10.
-Mark

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

[Mark Iverson]

The only way to guage whether the steam flow is adequate is at the outlet of 
the chimney, NOT at the
end of a 10 foot hose that has condensation going on inside it.  That 
condensation will REDUCE the
steam volumn and therefore the flow rate of what steam makes it out to the end 
of the hose.

I believe that the demo for Essen and Kullander did make the measurements of 
the steam at the
chimney...

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 9:12 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

Yes, that is true. But the steam is way too low for 2.5KW. If someone can 
provide me a mathematical
example refuting that, I will be happy.

RE: [Vo]:relative humidity

[Mark Iverson]

EE:
Yes, you're on the right track... see my posting at 6/21 at 9:04pm.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48242.html
 
I would bet that Galantini is making an indirect measurement of the liquid 
water content as
explained in my posting.

-Mark

  _  

From: aieie brazof [mailto:ezechiele.epst...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 4:13 AM
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:relative humidity



Dear all,

this is my guess. I hope it's correct, but thank you very much in advance for 
correction if
necessary.


-The stated probe only measures relative umidity.
 If liquid phase is present, then R.U. is always 100%.

what follows only applies for vapour-air mixture

- knowing the temperature and R.U., data logger can calculate the vapour 
fraction of the mixture,
also known as X=gr(vapour)/kg(dryair). 
 It's just a calculation and no measurement is required.
 If no dry air is present, such calculation is sensless.

-Back to saturated steam: in presence of liquid phase this kind of probe only 
give us 100% UR. (if
not broken down because of too much vapour density and no air!).
 In order to measure the liquid fraction of a saturated steam, 
(Mliquid/Mliquid+gas) this probe is
completely useless.

An "academic" way to carry out the measurement of the liquid fraction of a 
saturated steam, is based
on superheating by isohentalping expansion through a valve.
Perhaps there are transducer for this purpose. For sure not the one we are 
talkin 'bout.


Psychrometry is where we have about 30g of water as gas and 1kg of dry air. 
This is the field of
such probes.

Saturated steam is not the same.

I'm very confused.

Sorry for my poor english.

Best Regards.

EE

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

[Mark Iverson]

Todd:
You really shold take some time and fully verify your facts before accusing 
someone of fraud... 
I believe that the e-Cat Krivit saw was only 2.5kW, not 10.

-Mark

  _  

From: t...@wonksmedia.com [mailto:t...@wonksmedia.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 4:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


Hi All,

I have two Toyota Priuses, one has a 1000W inverter hooked up to the battery, 
the other has a 1500W
inverter.  My water heater unit used to make coffee/tea requires 1.27 kW to 
operate via a standard
outlet, roughly twice the input power of the E-Cat/Rossi unit.  In Krivit's 
video -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E - the steam output is shown against 
a black backdrop
around the 11:26 mark of the video.  Since the amount is clearly shown in the 
video, I chose to
compare that amount to my little water heater.  The coffee/tea water heater 
connected to the
inverter and turned on generates twice as much steam from strictly a 
qualitative standpoint - visual
observations.  In other words, it appears that the Rossi unit is generating 
about as much steam as
one would expect from 3.4 amps X 230 V = 782 W as shown in Rossi's video.  If 
this is supposed to be
his illustrious 10 kW unit, generating enough steam to heat my entire home, 
then this is a scam...as
soon as I find a USB adapter for the SD card used to take this morning's video, 
I'll upload my video
and provide the link tonight for comparison. 

Just take a look at the amount of steam in Krivit's video and ask yourself if 
it's enough to heat a
home...it's paltry...no way is that a 10 kW unit.  MAYBE a 1 kW unit...max.

Todd
202-367-5921




"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy 
is understanding."
   ~Proverbs 9:10

"These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the 
world you have
tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world." 
  ~John 16:33

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax? How Galantini did it...

[Mark Iverson]

Now, I'm going to take a que from Horace (where are you Horace?), and do some 
basic algebra... 
Those who have been beating the measurement issue beyond dead-horse status do 
remember what algebra
is

Water in = Water out  (water in whatever form)

For the e-Cat demos/tests, we have:

Liquid_Water_in  =  Water_Vapor_out + Water_Liquid_out  (by MASS, not volume of 
course)

Now, from your middle school days of elementary algebra, rearrange terms to get:

(mass of liquid Water out) = (mass of Liquid Water in) - (mass of Water vapor 
out)

What we are looking for (mass of liquid Water out), is what's left over when we 
subtract the mass of
the water vapor in the output steam from the total water into the unit.  If 
ABD's research into what
exactly is being measured by the instrument (the mass of water vapor?), then we 
have BOTH terms on
the right side of the equation and we can solve for the left side... 

There is also a reason why Rossi and Galantini ***always make a point of 
saying*** that the pressure
inside the 'chimney' can be considered to be pretty much always at atmospheric 
pressure. Let's see
if you can sit back, think, and figure out why that's important.

-Mark

RE: [Vo]:Something more on the steam

[Mark Iverson]

ABD wrote:

"By the way, I think I erred when I reported the "operating range" as up to 85% 
RH,
non-condensation. That was referring to the unit itself, not to the probe."

That is correct.  All instruments that I've ever dealt with, be it $100K 
microwave analyzers to
simply DMMs and temperature meters, ALL have a spec for operating temperature 
and humidity FOR THE
ELECTRONIC DISPLAY ITSELF, apart from any attachments. For obvious reasons... 
Any condensation
whatsoever inside the device will almost assuredly change the electrical 
circuit properties and
cause erroneous readings.  Even though some companies use a 'conformal coating' 
on the entire
circuit assembly to protect it from condensation and other contaminants, it is 
still likely to cause
errors in the measurements...

If you open up most any older Hewlett-Packard instrument, you will immediately 
see that they almost
always used a thin gold layer on all copper PCB traces... This was done so that 
the instrument would
maintain its sensitivity and accuracy over time, and in harch environments.

-Mark

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?

[Mark Iverson]

ABD wrote:
"Rossi held up the hose, Krivit had also mentioned this. He didn't want to 
allow this to continue,
he said it was dangerous. Really? How?"

I think its quite obvious and simple...
 
If enough water accumulates in the hose, and liquid water has significant mass, 
then it will act
like a plug causing steam pressure to build up behind it until it blows out 
some of the water.  I
would not want to be anywhere near the end of the hose when that happens. Would 
you?  Granted, with
this e-kitten's very modest output of 2.5kW, it would probably take hours for 
enough water to
accumulate with the ~6 feet of hose that was lying level on the floor.

-Mark

RE: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)

[Mark Iverson]

>From my time as a grad student at a place that did atmospheric research, and 
>my research advisor
being an expert on cloud physics...

1) water vapor is invisible, and when its mixed with air (N and O), it LESS 
DENSE than dry air, thus
it rises.  i.e., water evaporating off a lake is invisible and rises as a 
column of moist air
until...
2) it reaches the condensation level, which is determined by the temperature 
and atmospheric
pressure at any point as the vertical column of moist air is rising.
3) when that moist air reaches CL, water begins to condense onto dust 
particles.  I.e., you need a
nucleating particle onto which the water can condense, then the water droplet 
will grow by further
condensation.  Sodium iodide is commonly used as a nucleating agent in cloud 
seeding efforts.
4) Clouds can be VERY turbulent structures, with various vertical columns of 
rising air and columns
of less humid falling air, and a significant shear at the boundaries!!!  Ask 
any pilot who is still
alive and has flown thru a reasonably large cumulus cloud. Can you say, 
E-ticket at Disneyland?
5) Whether the liquid water droplets in a cloud fall out (as rain) is simply a 
matter of how
turbulent the cloud is (how strong the updrafts are) and how big the droplet 
are... As soon as the
droplets reach a size that can no longer be supported by the updrafts, they 
fall out...
6) at the same time, dry air from above the cloud is being entrained (mixed) 
into the cloud causing
dilution of the very humid cloud with drier air... 

This is for the usual convective cumulus clouds that most are familiar with.

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 8:46 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - 
June 14, 2011)

At 08:54 PM 6/20/2011, Terry Blanton wrote:
>Either that or Rossi has discovered antifuggingravity.  Come on!
>Water is heavier than air.

Sure it is, but water droplets can be airborne for a long time. 
Witness any cloud. 

RE: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)

[Mark Iverson]

Just to clarify Terry's statement:

LIQUID or SOLID water is heavier than air...
Moist AIR is LESS DENSE than dry air! So water vapor is LESS DENSE than air...

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 5:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - 
June 14, 2011)

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

> So you're saying the chimney would act like a steam dryer on an old 
> locomotive?
>
> Interesting...

Either that or Rossi has discovered antifuggingravity.  Come on!
Water is heavier than air.

T

[Vo]: Was Dr. Robert Duncan at the MIT colloquium?

[Mark Iverson]

Did any attendees that are on this list see Dr. Duncan there?

Also, is he aware of the e-Cat? 
I can't imagine that he isn't, but I don't think I've read any posts that 
indicate he is...

Same question as to Dr. Bushnell from NASA... Was he there?

Garwin was probably there, but in drag... :-)

-Mark

RE: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam

[Mark Iverson]

Rossi said:
"We have 300 reactors in operation now in our factory, and we are making 
exponential progress day by
day."

How do you say, "damage control", in Italian?  :-)

I just wanted to clarify one thing which was confusing to me... there are two 
factories that are
being mentioned at this stage -- "our" factory and "the customer's" a.k.a. 
Defkalion.

They obviously have a 'factory' which they are using as a testbed -- perhaps 
the one in Italy that
has had a reactor running for 2 years.  They are installing the units for 
Defkalion in this factory
and getting all the bugs worked out of the system.  By the time October rolls 
around, they should be
able to ship the container(s) housing the 300 reactors to Greece and pretty 
much hook up power and
water and turn it on!

-Mark

RE: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam

[Mark Iverson]

>Then earlier assertions that the steam was totally dry 
>must have been ... I hate to use the word ... lies.

Not necessarily... More than likely the % of water in the steam varied 
depending on the power level
they were running the reactor at.  Still, I think they are trying to save some 
face after this
recent breakthru  of 'our reactors now produce a totally dry steam'.  That 
means that everyone,
including Krivit, who has been questioning them on this issue were spot on... 
This is a bit of a
chink in their credibility.

I don't think they're going to be making that error anymore... So I guess 
Krivit's visit achieved
something!

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 3:35 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: our reactors now produce a totally dry steam



On 11-06-18 04:22 PM, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
> Hello group,
>
> I'm quite sure I'm playing his game by reporting this here, but I 
> found this message by Rossi on his blog of interest on many levels and 
> probably bound to generate many reactions:
>
> * * *
>
> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=96&cpage=1#comment-47000
>
> Dear Paolo:
> The 1 MW plant which we will start up in Greece in October will 
> generate heat. For power we are not yet ready, but we made a very 
> important step forward in this week, because our reactors now produce 
> a totally dry steam (no more traces of water in the steam) and this is 
> a step forward to couple the turbines.

Then earlier assertions that the steam was totally dry must have been ... I 
hate to use the word ...
lies.

A "lie" is when someone makes a contrary to fact statement, with the full 
realization that it's
contrary to fact.  That certainly seems to have been the case here, as this 
statement by Rossi seems
to imply he's known all along that the steam wasn't really quite dry.

So if the earlier assertions of dryness were lies, why should we believe the 
new statement that this
time, for sure, the steam really is dry?

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative

[Mark Iverson]

Fran, 
You summed it up quite well...

I think the overall concensus of those vorts who have discussed the e-Cat tests 
agree that the
dryness of the steam is a MAJOR source of concern and there are INADEQUATE 
explanations from the
Rossi camp as to that issue.  Steve was pushing hard to make sure that that 
issue was understood by
Levi/Rossi and an adequate explanation was returned.  I don't think he got what 
he, and most of us,
wanted...

However, what I'd like to see now is some discussion from the collective about 
Levi's written
response, aside from its contentious nature, and to have fellow vorts answer 
these questions:

1) Does Levi, et.al., understand the importance of the dry steam issue?
2) If the answer to #1 is YES, then do you feel that adequate care was taken in 
the tests we've seen
to establish that the steam was truly dry?
3) Has this recent exchange caused by Krivit's visit changed your opinion at 
all? Good or bad...

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X [mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 10:36 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative

OK, Everyone appears to be angry at Krivit but to be fair to the guy his line 
of questioning did
seem to get back directly to the point where we left it on Vortex - My 
recollection was that we
decided the steam measurement was an unreliable calculation but that the 
experiment with only a 5
degree increase in water temperature proved there was real thermal gain. Was 
this difference between
mass and volumetric methods of measuring steam energy already resolved? Levi 
and Rossi are reacting
like this was already abundantly clear but I really don't recall this issue as 
ever have been put to
bed. Did I miss something? 

Fran

-Original Message-
From: Akira Shirakawa [mailto:shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 11:39 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative

On 2011-06-17 16:22, Mark Iverson wrote:
> That's ridiculous... I highly doubt that Krivit did anything like 
> that... What is more likely is that Levi misunderstood something that 
> Krivit said due to the language barrier.  Steve mentioned in his report that 
> he felt Levi had
trouble understanding some elements of what he was saying.
> Interesting...

Regarding that, this an "open letter" (in English) from Giuseppe Levi to Steven 
Krivit that just got
posted on 22passi (I feel it might be subject to slight grammer/wording 
changes, so I'm not
copy/pasting it here). It appears that he is not pleased of Krivit's 
preliminary travel report too:

Short URL: http://goo.gl/2vr0M

http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/quattro-gatti-e-sette-persone-3.html

Cheers,
S.A.

RE: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative

[Mark Iverson]

That's ridiculous... I highly doubt that Krivit did anything like that... What 
is more likely is
that Levi misunderstood something that Krivit said due to the language barrier. 
 Steve mentioned in
his report that he felt Levi had trouble understanding some elements of what he 
was saying.
Interesting...

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 5:05 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative

Krivit extorted Levi?!?  Did he leave his meds at home?

T

RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Greece Could Use the ECat Now

[Mark Iverson]

Fran,
Yes, all other countries will expedite the introduction and adoption of this 
technology if it proves
out and makes it to market... Although not a do-or-die deadline, the Oct date 
is very important.  

I have to wonder that IF the countries around the world were not in such dire 
financial straights,
whether the e-Cat would have a chance?  

I'm a "big picture" mentality, and what comes to mind now is how the earth, and 
the average person
on it, was in desperate need of a better technology for energy production... 
And that global
economic conditions have come about just in time to overcome the power-centers 
that have vested
interests in the status quo.  I don't think those power-centers anticipated 
this monkey-wrench
(CF/LENR) in their plans!!  Thankfully, for us peasants, it has...

Another thought is that the disruption caused by this technology will be felt 
MOST by the financial
markets, and a bit by govts and industry, but very little by us peasants.

Interesting times indeed.

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X [mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:15 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Greece Could Use the ECat Now

Mark,
 I agree with your logic and think other nations will quickly remove 
their own road blocks
and turn on investment for fear of letting Greece become the next OPEC. Recent 
news about the NASA
tests and Secretary Chu would seem to support this shift here in the United 
States and I expect
there is a similar rapid shift in LENR priority occurring overseas. There are 
already additional
pressures being brought to bear on the Rossi development in that Panatelli is 
rumored to be making
up lost ground and then there is also this recent weekends Colloquium at MIT 
with Brian Ahern's
presentation - and let us not forget Black Light is way overdue for an 
announcement -this is the
longest dry spell on their website since 2008! A positive indication on CIHT or 
a reactor demo would
probably start an avalanche, perhaps this is why Mill's has remained silent to 
buy himself a little
more time but it really doesn't matter now - this bus is leaving the station!
Regards
Fran

-----Original Message-
From: Mark Iverson [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 12:34 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Greece Could Use the ECat Now

Whether by plan or chance, Greece was handed a major piece of leverage when 
they desperately needed
it.
You can bet they are going to milk Defkalion for as much as they can get away 
with... It's the way
the game is played.

My bet is that Greece was able to convince its creditors (banks thruout Europe, 
and a large chunk
held by Germany and France) that it has THE energy of the future, and if the 
creditors will prop
them up a little longer, they'll begin to make good on the debt.  Greece HAS to 
make Defkalion
successful...  Which is another BIG reason why big Oil or OPEC won't be able to 
stop this from
making it to the market...

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 5:45 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Greece Could Use the ECat Now

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43381710

Greece's Debt Rating Slashed, Making It World's Lowest
Published: Monday, 13 Jun 2011
By: Reuters


Standard & Poor's downgraded Greece's credit rating by three notches Monday, 
making it the world's
lowest after the agency said a likely debt restructuring would be considered a 
default.

A restructuring of Greece's debt - either with a bond swap or by extending 
maturities on existing
bonds - looks increasingly likely to be imposed by European policymakers as a 
means of sharing the
burden of Greece's crisis with the private sector, S&P said in a statement.

"In our view, any such transactions would likely be on terms less favorable 
than the debt being
refinanced, which we, in turn, would view as a de facto default according to 
Standard & Poor's
published criteria," the agency said.

In such a case, S&P added, Greece's credit rating would be lowered to 
"selective default," or SD,
while the ratings on the country's debt instruments would be cut to D.



Information we have seen here indicates that Defkalion has connections to the 
Greek government and
has purchased a factory in Xanthi Prefecture.  But, the world must wait for the 
megawatt power plant
in October.  Can Greece afford to wait to October?  If the government is truly 
aware of what
Defkalion really has New Fire and exclusive rights in Eastern Hemisphere, would 
not they be
expediting the production of shippable product?  I would think that once the 
products start rolling
off the production line, all talk of a financial default would cease.
Anyone would be willing to buy a stake in Greece's future.  I know I would buy 
their bonds!

T

RE: [Vo]:Greece Could Use the ECat Now

[Mark Iverson]

Whether by plan or chance, Greece was handed a major piece of leverage when 
they desperately needed
it.
You can bet they are going to milk Defkalion for as much as they can get away 
with... It's the way
the game is played.

My bet is that Greece was able to convince its creditors (banks thruout Europe, 
and a large chunk
held by Germany and France) that it has THE energy of the future, and if the 
creditors will prop
them up a little longer, they'll begin to make good on the debt.  Greece HAS to 
make Defkalion
successful...  Which is another BIG reason why big Oil or OPEC won't be able to 
stop this from
making it to the market...

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 5:45 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Greece Could Use the ECat Now

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43381710

Greece's Debt Rating Slashed, Making It World's Lowest
Published: Monday, 13 Jun 2011
By: Reuters


Standard & Poor's downgraded Greece's credit rating by three notches Monday, 
making it the world's
lowest after the agency said a likely debt restructuring would be considered a 
default.

A restructuring of Greece's debt - either with a bond swap or by extending 
maturities on existing
bonds - looks increasingly likely to be imposed by European policymakers as a 
means of sharing the
burden of Greece's crisis with the private sector, S&P said in a statement.

"In our view, any such transactions would likely be on terms less favorable 
than the debt being
refinanced, which we, in turn, would view as a de facto default according to 
Standard & Poor's
published criteria," the agency said.

In such a case, S&P added, Greece's credit rating would be lowered to 
"selective default," or SD,
while the ratings on the country's debt instruments would be cut to D.



Information we have seen here indicates that Defkalion has connections to the 
Greek government and
has purchased a factory in Xanthi Prefecture.  But, the world must wait for the 
megawatt power plant
in October.  Can Greece afford to wait to October?  If the government is truly 
aware of what
Defkalion really has New Fire and exclusive rights in Eastern Hemisphere, would 
not they be
expediting the production of shippable product?  I would think that once the 
products start rolling
off the production line, all talk of a financial default would cease.
Anyone would be willing to buy a stake in Greece's future.  I know I would buy 
their bonds!

T

RE: [Vo]: New driving force for chemical reactions...

[Mark Iverson]

So the $64M question is...
   "What are the conditions that make it favor the QM-tunneling mechanism as 
opposed to the
traditional chemical processes" 

-Mark

  _  

From: Mark Iverson [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 3:30 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]: New driving force for chemical reactions...


http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-chemical-reactions.html
 
This might explain what's going on in LENR systems... with emphasis on these 3 
statements:
 
   "... the observed product of the reaction, acetaldehyde, is the least likely 
outcome among
conceivable possibilities."
 
   "...Tunneling can cause a reaction, that does not have the lowest activation 
barriers, to occur
exclusively."
 
   ... Allen said that tunneling control "can be a general phenomenon, 
especially if hydrogen
transfer is involved, and such processes need not be restricted to cryogenic 
temperatures."
 
 
Further sound-bites...
 
"What we found was that the change was being controlled by a process called 
quantum mechanical
tunneling," said Allen, "and we found that tunneling can supersede the 
traditional chemical
reactivity processes of kinetic and thermodynamic control. We weren't expecting 
this at all."
 
What had happened? Clearly, a chemical reaction had taken place, but only inert 
argon atoms
surrounded the compound, and essentially no thermal energy was available to 
create new molecular
arrangements. Moreover, said Allen, "the observed product of the reaction, 
acetaldehyde, is the
least likely outcome among conceivable possibilities."
 
"We knew that the rate of a reaction can be significantly affected by quantum 
mechanical tunneling,"
said Allen. "It becomes especially important at low temperatures and for 
reactions involving light
atoms. What we discovered here is that tunneling can dominate a reaction 
mechanism sufficiently to
redirect the outcome away from traditional kinetic control. Tunneling can cause 
a reaction that does
not have the lowest activation barriers to occur exclusively."

-Mark

[Vo]: New driving force for chemical reactions...

[Mark Iverson]

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-chemical-reactions.html
 
This might explain what's going on in LENR systems... with emphasis on these 3 
statements:
 
   "... the observed product of the reaction, acetaldehyde, is the least likely 
outcome among
conceivable possibilities."
 
   "...Tunneling can cause a reaction, that does not have the lowest activation 
barriers, to occur
exclusively."
 
   ... Allen said that tunneling control "can be a general phenomenon, 
especially if hydrogen
transfer is involved, and such processes need not be restricted to cryogenic 
temperatures."
 
 
Further sound-bites...
 
"What we found was that the change was being controlled by a process called 
quantum mechanical
tunneling," said Allen, "and we found that tunneling can supersede the 
traditional chemical
reactivity processes of kinetic and thermodynamic control. We weren't expecting 
this at all."
 
What had happened? Clearly, a chemical reaction had taken place, but only inert 
argon atoms
surrounded the compound, and essentially no thermal energy was available to 
create new molecular
arrangements. Moreover, said Allen, "the observed product of the reaction, 
acetaldehyde, is the
least likely outcome among conceivable possibilities."
 
"We knew that the rate of a reaction can be significantly affected by quantum 
mechanical tunneling,"
said Allen. "It becomes especially important at low temperatures and for 
reactions involving light
atoms. What we discovered here is that tunneling can dominate a reaction 
mechanism sufficiently to
redirect the outcome away from traditional kinetic control. Tunneling can cause 
a reaction that does
not have the lowest activation barriers to occur exclusively."

-Mark

RE: [Vo]:OT (Very Political) - Rep. Rob Woodall Won't Give Up Government Health Care 'Because It's Free'"

[Mark Iverson]

Yep, it doesn't matter much their party affiliation... The majority of them are 
their to feather
their own nest and play their political games to see who gets to control the 
ball this term... And
all else is secondary.

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 6:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT (Very Political) - Rep. Rob Woodall Won't Give Up 
Government Health Care
'Because It's Free'"

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:59 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
 wrote:
> Please skip this off-topic post if you are easily offended by an 
> example of a Tea Party lov'in freshman congressmen making a fool of himself.

Just to show that stupidity is bi-partisan in Georgia:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg

Brought to you by Oxicontin, a trademark of Purdue Pharma (no relation to the 
former Governor).

T

[Vo]: Problems with batteries possibly a form of LENR?

[Mark Iverson]

An interesting posting on the yahoo H-Ni_Fusion group about rechargeable 
battery probs:

==
After fully charging some Ni battery types, the cell starts to heat and then 
goes into thermal
runaway, meltdown and fires.

Are there any papers (published or unpublished) on the isotopic analysis of the 
battery materials
both before and after runaway?

Any web cites to the point on the component composition isotopic/nuclide change 
or no-changes?

Have we been seeing LENR in such events or not?
==

Haven't Li batteries also had overheating/fire problems?

Wouldn't that take the cake!  Some chinese battery manufacturer created a LENR 
reactor before Rossi
and it ends up getting recalled!!! LoL  
You send them your 'defective' one and they send you a 'fixed' one!

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 8:10 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Riding Galloping Gertie

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028145.700-wind-power-harnesses-the-energy-of-galloping.html

Wind power harnesses the energy of galloping

02 June 2011 by Paul Marks

THE thought of wind power brings visions of giant turbines, high-altitude kites 
and graceful
sailboats to mind. But the breeze has a more sinister side, full of turbulence 
that can wreak havoc
with bridges and other structures.

Now Hyung-Jo Jung and Seung-Woo Lee at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science 
and Technology in
Daejeon, South Korea, plan to harness these destructive forces to generate 
energy. They have built a
prototype that produces energy using a specific type of unstable airflow called 
wake galloping.

[Vo]:'Entanglement' should have been 'shared enclosure'

[Mark Iverson]

In the comments section of the webpage,
   
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-quantum-physics-photons-two-slit-interferometer.html
is this comment by 'hush1'...

"The translation for 'Verschränkung' was erroneously translated as 
'entanglement' by Erwin. 
The correct translation is:  'shared enclosure'

Just try it. Substitute this translation for all usages of 'entanglement' and 
you will see the
light.
And all your confused contemplations and paradoxes vanish."

 
Anyone care to comment on that?

-Mark

 

RE: [Vo]:Italian Nuclear Physicist Fulvio Frisone on Cold Fusion

[Mark Iverson]

Some important tidbits from the interview...

"In Addition, the theoretical analysis on the process of cold fusion indicates 
high values of the
probability of fusion between deuterons within a micro-crack at room 
temperature and with impure
metals."

"The main point of my argumentation is: since these fusion reactions occur 
within the palladium
lattice, is it possible that the lattice vibrations could facilitate the 
approaching of two positive
charges? The answer is yes..."

If that is the case, then one would think that temperature is an important 
variable...

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 6:28 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:Italian Nuclear Physicist Fulvio Frisone on Cold Fusion

FWIW:

Italian Nuclear Physicist Fulvio Frisone on Cold Fusion

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=128924

Rossi is briefly mentioned in a follow up forum.

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

RE: [Vo]:pesn.com: Cold Fusion #1 Claims NASA Chief

[Mark Iverson]

Alan:
According to Rossi, a reactor has been running for 2 YEARS in a warehouse in 
Italy...
It's only the recent demos/tests that have run for 18 hours or less, and those 
were shut down
intentionally.

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Alan J Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 3:31 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:pesn.com: Cold Fusion #1 Claims NASA Chief

At 10:58 AM 6/1/2011, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
>http://pesn.com/2011/05/31/9501837_Cold-Fusion_Number-1_Claims_NASA_Chi
>ef/

A "partial transcript" is at
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/01/nasas-bushnell-lenr-most-promising-energy-alternative-and-
its-not-fusion/

Bushnell isn't really on top of the facts, though ... he keeps saying that the 
eCat ran for "days"
-- where it's actually only hours (or minutes).

Still, it's starting to get a bit more traction than usual, at least in the 
blogosphere. I wonder if
it will spread this time.

ps No need to listen to part 2 .. it's on the OTHER technologies. 

RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mark Iverson]

So you are postulating that:
 "What mainstream calls a magnetic field is really a 'relativistically 
distorted electric field'."
 
Okay, that's a good start...
But then you say,
"...ignoring the fact that I have already essentially proven that magnetic 
fields are
non-existant..."
 
I'm afraid that simply asserting that you've "proven" something doesn't fly on 
this forum...
What you have done is postulated an alternative explanation, and that is what I 
was looking for, and
is certainly out the box thinking, however, it is NOT PROOF of what you are 
postulating.  Can you
provide some specific examples with calculations???  Are there any examples 
where your theoretical
framework explains aspects of electromagnetics that current theory does not???

-Mark


  _  

From: John Berry [mailto:aethe...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2011 3:00 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?



Ok, as you might guess from my email address I very much disagree that the 
aether was proven false,
nothing of the sort.  Only a static Aether was found to have evidence against 
it.


Secondly if you still want to know why Electric and Magnetic fields are 
perpendicular in an EM wave
etc... then you are ignoring the fact that I have already essentially proven 
that magnetic fields
are non-existant and only a convenient was to understand how relativistically 
distorted electric
fields manifest.

So it is like asking why I am perpendicular to that dark guy lying on the floor 
where I am standing
by a light at night, how come we are always perpendicular when I am standing on 
the floor.

If I have told you that it just looks like a man but it is just my shadow do 
you really need to keep
on being curious when you now understand precisely how it comes to be that way?

I can show you every example where magnetic forces arise are due to electric 
fields/forces that are
distorted by movement that creates precisely the same force we expect and get 
magnetically.
Quite a co-incidence.

If you choose to ignore the simple logical truth that makes sense then it is 
likely you are really
just practicing mysticism, and IMO there are plenty of real mysteries to work 
out, no need to create
them where none exists.

Electrons spin and orbit, Nucleus's spin, and distort their electric fields 
doing so and should
create the forces that we experience with permanent magnets.
Wires attract and repel in theory as experienced.

 

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Mauro Lacy  wrote:


On 05/27/2011 07:50 PM, Charles Hope wrote:


I suppose we are all somewhere on the conservative/crank spectrum. I think 
physics is a difficult
place for novel thought because the current models are so excellent. Yet 
mysteries do remain.
However I didn't know that Cooper pairs was one of them.


But I see the difficulty in our communication. I take epistemic issue with the 
idea that there can
be a mathematical model without true understanding. If we have a model, it 
behooves us to twist our
minds into understanding that! There is no understanding but the use of a valid 
model.
  



Exactly. And once you understood it, you stick with it because "it just works". 
You almost never
question it at the philosophical or epistemological level. During most of the 
last century, there
was a lot of confusion, introduced by Relativity theory, about the concept of 
time, by example.

The case of the aether is also paradigmatic: when the results of some 
experiments were not the
expected ones, the aether was disregarded, and relativity theories appeared. 
Nobody, or almost
nobody, took the time to reflect at the philosophical level on what had 
happened, and as a
consequence, a lot of confusion ensued. What had happened was that the 
mechanical model of the
aether was found to be false by experiment. As a replacement, purely 
mathematical models were
quickly introduced, which agreed with the experiments. But those models were 
now devoid of physical
meaning. Just the general idea of "relativity", and of "all is relative" popped 
up, and stuck like a
grand revelation. That happened during most of the last century, and is still 
happening.
That philosophical thinking is still lacking, and it's coming from outsiders 
like me, because "real
scientists" are so busy trying to understand the math first, and to apply for 
grants and publish
later, that they don't have time to really reflect and think.

Philosophy was disregarded(a big mistake) in the name of results and predictive 
power. The other
consequence of the increasing complexity and the quest for results was 
super-specialization. You
have to be an expert to be able to talk with authority and understanding about 
something. And when
you finally study to be an expert in one field, you cannot talk about anything 
else! Moreover: you
mostly lost the ability to relate and correlate knowledge from different fields 
of knowledge.

That is an unfortunate state of affair

RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mark Iverson]

John:
I think you will find that many regular contributors on this list are of the 
same mind, in that they
consider as a real possibility the existence of some kind of aether.  There are 
numerous alternative
aether-based hypotheses, but the mainstream scientific community doesn't have 
much interest in
them... I have subscribed to a journal called 'Galilean Electrodynamics' for 
over 15 years, and they
have published numerous such articles.  Perhaps you should consider submitting 
an article to them
for publication... they focus on experimental papers that contradict relativity 
theory, but are
happy to publish theoretical papers as well.
 
Part of my motivation for posting the original question as to the 
perpendicularity of E & M fields,
is to stimulate a little out of the box thinking, as the vast majority of 
postings since Jan 14 have
been Rossi-related or debating a pathological skeptic who speaks in 
generalities and doesn't have
the guts to use his real name...
 
-Mark

  _  

From: John Berry [mailto:aethe...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2011 3:00 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?


Ok, as you might guess from my email address I very much disagree that the 
aether was proven false,
nothing of the sort.  Only a static Aether was found to have evidence against 
it.



Secondly if you still want to know why Electric and Magnetic fields are 
perpendicular in an EM wave
etc... then you are ignoring the fact that I have already essentially proven 
that magnetic fields
are non-existant and only a convenient was to understand how relativistically 
distorted electric
fields manifest.

So it is like asking why I am perpendicular to that dark guy lying on the floor 
where I am standing
by a light at night, how come we are always perpendicular when I am standing on 
the floor.

If I have told you that it just looks like a man but it is just my shadow do 
you really need to keep
on being curious when you now understand precisely how it comes to be that way?

I can show you every example where magnetic forces arise are due to electric 
fields/forces that are
distorted by movement that creates precisely the same force we expect and get 
magnetically.
Quite a co-incidence.

If you choose to ignore the simple logical truth that makes sense then it is 
likely you are really
just practicing mysticism, and IMO there are plenty of real mysteries to work 
out, no need to create
them where none exists.

Electrons spin and orbit, Nucleus's spin, and distort their electric fields 
doing so and should
create the forces that we experience with permanent magnets.
Wires attract and repel in theory as experienced.

RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mark Iverson]

Jones said:
   "Maybe I can make this clearer with a bit more contemplation ..."

Contemplation and a Brain Enhancing ElixiR should do the trick!
Or is it too early...
:-)

-Mark

<>

RE: [Vo]:Another 'Italian Job'?

[Mark Iverson]

Jones,
I agree that the trial of the scientist is ridiculous, and a disgrace, but its 
also an indicator of
how warped the political/legal environment is for italian science.

RE: "...impossible to prediction Eqs with any accuracy..."
I see you haven't read my posting on EQ prediction... 5/26 @ 10:34pm
;-)

It isn't a stretch at all that one might see geomagnetic anomalies when very 
large areas (tens of
miles) of rock are under tremendous strain and begin to rupture...

-Mark


> _ 
> From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
> Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 10:38 AM
> To:   vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject:  [Vo]:Another 'Italian Job'?
> 
> What is it with the Italian national identity ? Brilliance in art and science 
> and idiocy in
> politics? 
> 
> Do their politicians completely fear and distrust science and/or do the 
> citizens expect miracles
> of a field that may seem to be closer to magic, in the tradition of 
> alchemy?...  or  more to the
> point - does the national culture unduly influence what is being reported 
> about Rossi, and Mills,
> or Rossi in the context of Mills? 
> 
> Actually, that is not the real point of this post - which started out as a 
> coincidental
> reappearance of particular nickel alloy, known since before Verdi's opera 
> Othello premiered at La
> Scala.
> 
> But talk of alloys is pretty cold, or semifreddo at best, and needs some warm 
> regards... so we go
> back  the shocking story of Italian Law enforcement officials charging the 
> country's top
> seismologist with manslaughter, after failing to predict a 2009 catastrophe! 
> Never mind that
> Earthquakes are impossible to predict with any accuracy. In fact, according 
> to the website for the
> USGS, no major earthquake has ever been predicted in advance ! Never mind the 
> failing efforts by
> seismologists to debunk the myth of a major Roman quake on May 11 which half 
> of Rome thought was
> going to happen - and it did not.
> 
[snip]

> Jones
> 
> 
> 
<>

RE: [Vo]:Blondlot on observing N-rays with the naked eye.

[Mark Iverson]

It is widely known that the 'rod' cells in the retina, which are responsible 
for seeing in low light
levels, are more concentrated just outside the center of focus, and the 'cone' 
cells primarily
responsible for color vision, are more concentrated in the center of the 
retina.  Thus, one can
better see faint objects at night by looking slightly off center...

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 10:57 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Blondlot on observing N-rays with the naked eye.

I've noticed that a star will appear slightly brighter when I shift my focus 
just to the side of the
star.
Harry
 
How the Action of N Rays Should be Observed It is indispensable in these 
experiments to avoid all
strain on the eye, all effort, whether visual or for eye accommodation, and in 
no way to try to fix
the 

eye upon the luminous source, whose variations in glow one wishes to ascertain. 
On the contrary, one must, so to say, see the source without looking at it, and 
even direct one’s
glance vaguely in a neighboring direction. The observer must play an absolutely 
passive part, under
penalty of seeing nothing. Silence should 

be observed as much as possible. Any smoke, and especially tobacco smoke, must 
be carefully avoided,
as being liable to perturb or even entirely mask the effect of the N rays. When 
viewing the screen
or luminous object, no attempt at eye-accommodation should be made. In fact, 
the observer should
accustom himself to look at the screen just as a painter, and in particular an 
"impressionist" 
painter, would look at a landscape. To attain this requires some practice, and 
is not an easy task.
Some people, in fact, never succeed. -- Blondlot

RE: [Vo]:FYI: Dr. Steven E. Jones demonstrates 8x overunity circuit

[Mark Iverson]

Hmmm, the scope used on the video only has a 60Mhz BW... 
I haven't reviewed the schematic so I do not know if that's fast enough to 
capture true power in... 

-Mark

  _  

From: Mark Iverson [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 10:20 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:FYI: Dr. Steven E. Jones demonstrates 8x overunity circuit


The only caveat being that the source is PESN... 
 
Dr. Steven E. Jones demonstrates 8x overunity circuit - Professor Jones has 
developed a variation of
the 'Joule Thief' circuit and has shown that its output is eight times greater 
than the input as
measured by a state-of-the-art oscilloscope. He is open sourcing his solid 
state design to help
speed its development and implementation, as well as to answer the scientific 
question of where the
energy is coming from. (PESN and BeforeItsNews; May 27, 2011).
 
Does anyone on this list know him and can confirm?

-Mark
 

[Vo]:FYI: Dr. Steven E. Jones demonstrates 8x overunity circuit

[Mark Iverson]

The only caveat being that the source is PESN... 
 
Dr. Steven E. Jones demonstrates 8x overunity circuit - Professor Jones has 
developed a variation of
the 'Joule Thief' circuit and has shown that its output is eight times greater 
than the input as
measured by a state-of-the-art oscilloscope. He is open sourcing his solid 
state design to help
speed its development and implementation, as well as to answer the scientific 
question of where the
energy is coming from. (PESN and BeforeItsNews; May 27, 2011).
 
Does anyone on this list know him and can confirm?

-Mark
 

RE: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it

[Mark Iverson]

I too was not aware of Ashmore's paper... But it doesn't surprise me at all.
Especially when Woods was 'recruited' by several scientists who obviously 
thought it was bogus
science... They got the answer they were expecting. 

Further, regarding the polywater debunking...
For those who think that there was nothing to it, you need to view the 
following presentation by
Gerald Pollack, professor of Bioengineering at Univ of Washington.
mms://media-wm.cac.washington.edu/ifs/uw_fac_welife_wm9.asf

It is now firmly established, via peer-reviewed research, that next to an 
interface, water organizes
itself into a regular crystal structure, and this organized structure extends 
much much further out
from the interface that current theory suggests; millions of molecular 
distances unstead of 2 or 3.
Although Dr. Pollack doesn't specifically refer to this region as a polymer, he 
does refer to it as
being a liquid crystal...  

The problem is that very few 'scientists' do their own investigation of these 
'debunking' episodes
in order to truly know what ALL the facts are.  They simply rely on the 
'opinion' of some article in
the Journals they read; or worse yet, the mainstream media.  Once presented 
with all of the source
material, which tells the entire picture, if they choose not to take the time 
to review that
material so they have all the facts as close to the source as possible, then 
they don't deserve the
title of scientist.  This is exactly the reason for Dr. Robert Duncan's 
statement on the 60-Minutes
segment on Cold Fusion, 
 "Don't let others do your thinking for you... 
  Read the literature, visit the labs and talk to the researchers."

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 3:18 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it

At 03:27 PM 5/27/2011, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>>http://tinyurl.com/4256qxb (Give it a minute to load.) Harry
>
>Thanks. Fascinating. First of all, it's long been obvious to me that 
>Wood did not conclusively debunk N-rays. What he did was to set up a 
>plausible alternate explanation of the experimental reports.

Wow! Let me really recommend that paper:

Malcolm Ashmore, "The Theatre of the Blind, Starring a Promethean Prankster, a 
Phoney Phenomenon, a
Prism, a Pocket, and a Piece of Wood," Social Studies of Science, 23:1, 
February, 1993, pp. 67-106.

The author discloses his bias, in a remarkable passage: "I hope to cast 
sufficient doubt on Wood's
credibility as a reporter (not to mention as an ethical actor), to provoke some 
reassessment of
this, and similar episodes."

And he goes on to make it clear what he's talking about:

[snip]

RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mark Iverson]

I explicitly stated my point in the last paragraph... and there were only 2 
paragraphs, so I'm at a
loss as to how you could have missed it.
Here it is again...
 
"Mathematics is an extremely diverse field, and much of it is abstract and/or 
has absolutely NO
relation to any real physical manifestations.  It is my contention that some 
critical aspects of
mainstream physical theories contain such abstract mathematical constructs... I 
think it would be
quite fruitful to re-examine theoretical concepts with a fresh approach based 
on rational physical
constructs."
 
In addition, a subsequenct post goes into much more detail...
 
I don't reject current theories, I just think that much better ones could be 
found...

-Mark

 
  _  

From: Charles Hope [mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?


Not to be troublesome, but if you're looking for a mathematical answer, but you 
don't want the one
based on our best understanding (relativity and electrostatics) then I'm even 
more confused about
what your question meant. 


At least if you were asking for a philosophical metaphysical answer, your 
rejection of Cude's essay
would make sense. 



Sent from my iPhone. 

On May 27, 2011, at 1:58, "Mark Iverson"  wrote:



With all the interaction that JC has had on this discussion group, he should be 
well aware that most
contributors on this list are probably at least as knowledgeable as he, and 
probably much more so.
His statement about "the language of physics is math" is obvious. And CH's 
suspicions are wrong...
"I suspect that the sort of answer that Mark seeks could not be written 
mathematically." 
Of course it could be written mathematically!
 
Mathematics is an extremely diverse field, and much of it is abstract and/or 
has absolutely NO
relation to any real physical manifestations.  It is my contention that some 
critical aspects of
mainstream physical theories contain such abstract mathematical constructs... I 
think it would be
quite fruitful to re-examine theoretical concepts with a fresh approach based 
on rational physical
constructs.

-Mark



  _  

From: Charles Hope [mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 7:54 AM
To:  <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?



On May 26, 2011, at 4:09, Joshua Cude < <mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com> 
joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote:



 The language of physics is math. 






This is a deep statement, worth unpacking. It means that if an idea can't be 
written mathematically,
it is not physics. I suspect that the sort of answer that Mark seeks could not 
be written
mathematically. 

RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mark Iverson]

Don't you get any enjoyment from creative, out-of-the-box thinking?
Do you simply accept hook line and sinker what establishment teaches you?
If that's the case, then what are you doing on vortex?  :-)

Most here are quite familiar with 'textbook' physics, and that it is quite a 
useful set of rules...
It has put men on the moon and millions of transistors on a very small slab of 
sand!!  However, most
here also realize that there are significant problems with it, and the whole 
purpose is to explore
those problems... If you haven't figured it out yet, this isn't a mutual 
admiration society for
establishment thinking. ;-) 

Now to get to your question:
   "How about giving a few examples of the sort of answer you'd find 
satisfactory?"

I know this is going to really stretch your brain cells, and will likely cause 
undue stress, but you
asked...

We were all taught that the fundamental particles that make up an atom are 
electrons, protons and
neutrons... and that there was this concept of electrical 'charge'... And that 
electrons had a
negative charge and protons a positive charge... And that like charges repel, 
unlike attract.  So
far, pretty basic stuff.

Then we discover Cooper pairs... two electrons bound together! WTF  The 
fundamental RULE says
that like charges repel!!!  Gee, I guess that RULE isn't quite reflective of 
ALL electron
interactions!  My contention is that the lack of a physical model has resulted 
in an incomplete
mathematical model; a mathematical model that eventually is violated by some 
new observation... So
then the theorists work feverishly, perhaps for decades, trying to manipulate 
and modify and
'renormalize' their equations in order to explain the new observation.  Well, 
chances are good they
will succeed, NOT because they are right, but because mathematics is such a 
diverse field that they
eventually succeed in shoving a square peg into a round hole.  But, it may or 
may not result in true
understanding!  If that was the case, then we would have been able to explain 
superconductivity by
now... And yet it has been studied intensively for many decades and they still 
don't know WTF is
going on... Why?  Because they are starting with a flawed, abstract model for 
the electron!

Back to the example of what I'd find satisfactory...
Here's a simple physical (not mathematical) model which would allow for the 
existence of two like
charges being attracted/bound to one another...
Assume that the vacuum of space is a medium which is under tremendous pressure 
and has extremely low
viscosity when it comes to movement within that 'medium'.  Set up an 
oscillation in this medium, and
you could see a very fast, periodic oscillation between a higher-pressure area 
and a lower-pressure
area... Not unlike the compressional waves in air or water, but with a twist 
that there is a form of
surface tension that restricts the higher/lower pressure areas to a small 
spherical area.  Another
image that comes to mind, although not entirely accurate, is the oscillations 
of a water droplet in
zero-G. Now visualize the electron as a kind of dumb-bell shaped structure, or 
dipole shaped if that
sounds more sophisticated, one end being the higher pressure area and the other 
the lower pressure
area... The higher and lower pressure areas are NOT static, but are oscillating 
in a linear fashion,
and its happening so fast that we cannot possibly discern their true physical 
manifestation.  Now
imagine two of these coming near each other but their high/low pressure areas 
are 180 degrees out of
phase... One's HP area is next to the others LP area and vice-a-versa... 
Doesn't take a genius to
see that these two entities would just want to couple together naturally! 
Cooper-pair.  

The Point being...
The behavior in this case is simply a result of the makeup of the physical 
structures.

Is there any doubt that one could find a mathematical model for this physical 
model???  No doubt at
all... And it would probably be a whole lot simpler and easily extensible 
compared to what we have
now.

What is missing from much of physical theory is a physical model first... 
Before the mathematics.
After relativity and QM came along, the mathematical physicists began to 
dominate theoretical
physics and the importance of having a foundation of a physical model 
disappeared.

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Charles Hope [mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 5:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

How about giving a few examples of the sort of answer you'd find satisfactory?

RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mark Iverson]

With all the interaction that JC has had on this discussion group, he should be 
well aware that most
contributors on this list are probably at least as knowledgeable as he, and 
probably much more so.
His statement about "the language of physics is math" is obvious. And CH's 
suspicions are wrong...
"I suspect that the sort of answer that Mark seeks could not be written 
mathematically." 
Of course it could be written mathematically!
 
Mathematics is an extremely diverse field, and much of it is abstract and/or 
has absolutely NO
relation to any real physical manifestations.  It is my contention that some 
critical aspects of
mainstream physical theories contain such abstract mathematical constructs... I 
think it would be
quite fruitful to re-examine theoretical concepts with a fresh approach based 
on rational physical
constructs.

-Mark

  _  

From: Charles Hope [mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 7:54 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?



On May 26, 2011, at 4:09, Joshua Cude  wrote:



 The language of physics is math. 






This is a deep statement, worth unpacking. It means that if an idea can't be 
written mathematically,
it is not physics. I suspect that the sort of answer that Mark seeks could not 
be written
mathematically. 

RE: [Vo]:Can Atmospheric Heating Predict Future Earthquakes? Geomagnetics can!

[Mark Iverson]

As far as atmospheric heating, I can't say... as far as geomagnetic 
disturbances prior to EQs, I
think its VERY likely!
 
This is based on the following first hand observations...
 
I have a close friend who spent 30 years in electrical engineering, and 20 of 
that was making all
kinds of very sophisticated scientific instruments for an independent 
scientific research institute.
He told me about the EQ monitoring system he had built based on Bise/Rauscher's 
design.  It monitors
magnetic fields from 0 to 100 hertz (i.e., ~ELF).
 
On two completely different occasions, separated by at least a year or three, 
we were sitting there
talking and watching the spectrum analyzer (actually it was an HP 3562 Dynamic 
Signal Analyzer)
screen, when all of a sudden the traces go nuts and off the scale and he says, 
"That's a MAJOR
geomagnetic event... and very likely indicative of a large EQ about to happen." 
 In both instances,
within 24 hours, there was a major EQ (>7.0 richter) within several thousand 
miles.  When asked if
the technology could triagulate in order to localize the source of the 
geomagnetic disturbance he
said yes.  However, his setup only had one 'antenna', so it was not capable of 
any localization;
only that some event was likely to happen.  
 
The antenna was many miles of fine coiled copper wire within a cylindrical 
container about 8 inches
long and 5 inches in diameter... obviously because geomagnetics are very low 
frequency, they
required a very long antenna.  He designed and built the extremely-low-noise 
preamp himself... 
 
How sensitive was it?  He handed me a typical small cylindrical permanent 
magnet, ~0.75" diameter
and 1" long.  He asked me to hold it between the tips of my thumb and 
fore-finger, and to oscillate
it back and forth about once or twice a second.  The 'antenna' was about 30 ft. 
away in another part
of the house, and the periodic oscillations it induced on the signal analyzer 
screen were quite
significant -- perhaps taking up 25 to 30% of the vertical deflection... I 
don't remember what the
vertical scale was (V/div), nor what that might translate to in mag-field 
strength... its been over
7 years since that evening. 
 
EQ's larger than 7.0 don't happen very often, and its fortunate that they 
happened on two of my many
visits.  I've been at his place numerous times, and every time, we sit and talk 
and watch that darn
screen... and the two times that he said, "That's a major geomagnetic event", 
major EQs happened
and not the numerous other times that I was there when we saw NO unusual 
activity.  So its not
exactly a rigorous scientific test, however, the odds are highly unlikely that 
it just happened by
chance on those two occasions and not any of the other times I was there.
 
And yes, the USGS is well aware of this... that's a whole 'nother story.

-Mark

  _  

From: Rock_nj [mailto:rockn...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 1:51 PM
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Can Atmospheric Heating Predict Future Earthquakes?


While many branches of scientific inquiry have made incredible strides over the 
past century,
earthquake prediction science has been woefully slow to make advancements that 
could lead to
accurate scientific forewarning of pending earthquakes.  Reports of unusual 
pre-earthquake
atmospheric phenomena have led inquisitive scientists to initiate research into 
atmospheric
conditions in areas that are prone to experience earthquakes.  The initial 
results of these
atmospheric investigations in earthquake zones have provided enough positive 
data to warrant further
research that could eventually led to accurate earthquake prediction methods.
 
More at:  
http://hubpages.com/hub/Can-Atmospheric-Heating-Predict-Future-Earthquakes?done

RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mark Iverson]

x27;s now look at
another parallel section of wire carrying a current, now there are different 
ways to view this as it
is very much multi choice, however the moving electrons in this other wire for 
arguments sake are
moving in the same direction and they may not see those electrons as pancaked, 
instead they see the
protons in the other wire as pancaking and attracting them toward the other 
wire.
Meanwhile the protons in this wire are seeing the electrons in the other wire 
as pancaking and
attracting them.

This gives rise to the expected forces, only we have looked at the charges and 
the electric field
only.

So please consider when talking about magnetism, only moving electric 
fields/charges create it, and
only moving charges can feel it as an electric field at 90 degrees and in a 
direction dependent of
their sign.

This is as far as I am aware considered conventional and accepted.

John, an INTJ (I feel this post should be proof read, but I can't be bothered :)

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Mark Iverson  wrote:


You're right Terry, I don't like your answer!

And I don't think any of the other explanations answered the question 
adequately...

>From my purely physical model, it would be a natural cause-effect relationship 
>due to a polarizable
vacuum... i.e., the electric and magnetic fields of mainstream physics are 
simply a result of the
polarization of the local vacuum, and how particles respond to that 
polarization.

With all the sophistication and accuracy to umpteen decimal places in atomic 
physics/QM, how come we
can't explain WHY they're perpendicular!  I think any theory should have to 
explain the simple
observations first before delving down into more difficult and esoteric aspects 
of physics.

-Mark



-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 11:37 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

You are not going to like my answer:  "Because it is their nature."

Yeah.  Told you.

It is best understood by studying the Lorentz Force and working your way from 
there.  I like this
site:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html  (click on the bubble to 
expand)

but, there's always Wikipedia.

Now Brian Greene would have me say "Because it is their nature in this 
universe."

T

RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mark Iverson]

Robin beat me to the punch... I was changing spark-plugs and serpentine belts 
on my car!

Robin hits the nail on the head... Anything mathematical is the MODEL, and is 
supposed to reflect
physical reality.  My question was about the physical world -- what I was 
asking got was a rational,
qualitative, cause and effect sort of explanation.

As Robin stated, twice now, and I'll state it a third time, 
"The perpendicular nature of E and B fields existed PRIOR to Maxwell, or even 
cavemen, or even life
on this planet!"

I'm afraid that this reflects very poorly on JC's understanding of what is more 
fundamental, the
experiment (physical reality, facts) or model (theory).  JC has shown a great 
ability to regurgitate
what he has read in his textbooks, in great detail, but his responses to this 
simple question seems
to indicate that he hasn't any idea of the difference between physical reality 
and the mathematical
models that attempt to explain what is observed.

Care to put your horse before the cart this time and give it another stab, 
Joshua?  
And you'd better not have any mathematical jargon in your answer...

PS: I mean, stab at explaining perpendicularity of E and B fields, not stab 
your horse!
:-)

-Mark 


-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 4:35 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

In reply to  Joshua Cude's message of Wed, 25 May 2011 17:54:32 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Maxwell's equations were developed to describe laboratory electricity 
>and magnetism experiments.

...from which the peculiar perpendicular nature of the phenomenon was already 
evident.

>The resulting equations then predicted the existence of electromagnetic 
>waves with the correct speed. As Maxwell put it: "The conclusion was 
>inescapable: light is "an electromagnetic disturbance in the form of 
>waves" propogated in the ether."

True.

>The equations also require that the
>field are perpendicular.

I think that was already evident from the experiments, and the maths was 
designed specifically to
encompass this fact (otherwise it would have yielded incorrect results).

Note that Maxwell actually brought together the work done by a number of others 
and created an
encompassing mathematical treatment of their work, but the perpendicular aspect 
was already in that
work.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mark Iverson]

RE: sounding like a philosopher...
Yep, since I'm an INTP personality type, I tend to focus on the forest... 

RE: our models...
I guess what prompted my intial question to the Collective (re; perpendicular E 
and B fields) was
that, although we do have some good models, they were done over hundreds of 
years and lack
universality... And they fail to explain some of the simplest observations 
which we just take for
granted.  I think a much better theoretical foundation could be developed 
nowadays if we were to
trash all theories and start over from basic observational facts. 

If you have time, please explain a bit more about your insights into 
(nonexistent) torque...

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Mark Iverson  wrote:
> I think any theory should have to explain the simple observations 
> first before delving down into more difficult and esoteric aspects of physics.

You sound more like a philosopher now.  I know it's cliché but, the more I 
learn, the more I see how
little I know.  It took me two years to grasp the meaning of mechanical torque 
only to find out that
it really does not exist.

All of our explanations are based on models and our models are not perfect.  
Can you imagine a body
that must go through 720 degrees of rotation to return to its starting 
orientation?  I'm beginning
to come close.

The real answer to your questions is "We don't really know."  But, we have 
useful tools with our
models!

Terry

RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mark Iverson]

You're right Terry, I don't like your answer!

And I don't think any of the other explanations answered the question 
adequately...

>From my purely physical model, it would be a natural cause-effect relationship 
>due to a polarizable
vacuum... i.e., the electric and magnetic fields of mainstream physics are 
simply a result of the
polarization of the local vacuum, and how particles respond to that 
polarization.

With all the sophistication and accuracy to umpteen decimal places in atomic 
physics/QM, how come we
can't explain WHY they're perpendicular!  I think any theory should have to 
explain the simple
observations first before delving down into more difficult and esoteric aspects 
of physics.

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 11:37 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

You are not going to like my answer:  "Because it is their nature."

Yeah.  Told you.

It is best understood by studying the Lorentz Force and working your way from 
there.  I like this
site:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html  (click on the bubble to 
expand)

but, there's always Wikipedia.

Now Brian Greene would have me say "Because it is their nature in this 
universe."

T

[Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mark Iverson]

Just wanted to throw out a question to the Vort Collective...
 
In an EM wave, why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular to each 
other?

-Mark

 

[Vo]: Of Potentates and Probabilities...

[Mark Iverson]

I kind of just let my mouse wander where it may and I seem to come upon some 
interesting materials
that might be of interest to those more theoretically inclined...  I'd like to 
think that the
universal potentate might be guiding my mouse at times! :-)

I usually try to read the papers in order to get a qualitative understanding, 
however, much of the
QM majic is beyond me!

Besides, the only reason why atomic/nuclear physics has to resort to 
probabilities is because we're
dealing with oscillations that are 10^20 to 10^35.  At that minute scale and 
extreme frequencies,
all experiments done to date had no hope of discerning the actual oscillatory 
element (OE)... all
that has been done is to capture the OE at various positions at random... kind 
of like using a very
slow strobe-light to illuminate a much faster oscillating object, and the 
frequency of the
strobe-light is not harmonically related to the frequency of oscillation of the 
object that it is
illuminating.
Anyone who has used a strobe-light knows what I'm talking about...

-Mark

<>

RE: [Vo]: arXiv paper: Enhanced low energy fusion rate in palladium...

[Mark Iverson]

Yes, I guess I did! 

JSBrown has several papers on arXiv that show the progression of his thinking 
on:
-- deuterated metals, 
-- a possible room-temp BEC state,
-- canceling of Coulomb barrier and 
-- lack of energetic particles... 

All of those papers (4 or 5) were posted in 2006 and 2007, with the last paper 
(the one I just
posted yesterday) posted to arXiv in Nov '07.  
NOTE that these were ALL done well BEFORE Rossi came on the scene...

-Mark

> _ 
> From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:34 AM
> To:   vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject:  RE: [Vo]: arXiv paper: Enhanced low energy fusion rate in 
> palladium...
> 
> Awkshully, Mark -  you covered the H+H situation too, back in Jan:
> 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg42057.html
> 
> but it bears repeating, since Dr Brown did comment directly to Rossi. 
> 
> The important things which Julian misses IMHO - and which makes this 
> energetic reaction both
> NON-fusion, energetic and sub-nuclear - is the Nyman paper: 
> http://dipole.se/ 
>  which explains how the probability of a strong force interaction becomes 
> far more likely than
> ever suspected - but since P+P fusion is forbidden at low energy - we must 
> resort to the Dirac
> alternative for gain, which is the epo-field disruption by the strong force - 
> resulting in 6.8 eV
> photons. 
> 
> This is the excess heat of the Rossi reaction IMO. Fortunately, the 
> hypothesis is falsifiable.
> 
> Jones
> 
> 
> Julian Brown 
> January 27th, 
>  
> Congratulations Mr Rossi. You may have saved the planet.
>  
> The anomaly has a relatively simple explanation:
>  
> Effective potential for H in Ni and Pd is very flat because of surrounding 
> countercharge, so ground state of H has gaussian width of about 0.3 Angstrom.
>  
> H-omega transition to 1st excited state in harmonic well is about 50 meV (8 
> THz). This frequency
> is not attenuated over lattice cell dimensions, so transitions are unscreened.
>  
> Ground->excited -- exited->ground interaction between neighbours causes first 
> excited doublet of two H to mix into bonding and anti-bonding states.
>  
> Splitting, large because of 0.3A width, may be greater than h-omega, so 
> bonding 
> state is actually true ground state.
>  
> Dipole attraction exactly cancels monopole repulsion at very short H-H 
> distances.
>  
> Gaussian tail from neighbouring cell can overlap with other H without any 
> exponential die-off, resulting in nuclear contact and some sort of p+p 
> reaction.
>  
> Multisite coherence forbids emission of short wave quanta, so normal n,p, 
> gamma 
> channels are forbidden.
>  
> See http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0703715 for the details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Mark Iverson 
> 
> No, the one in your post was:
> "H-H dipole interactions in fcc metals"
> which I think has been mentioned on vortex a few times.
>  
> What they have in common is the mind of J.S.Brown.
> -Mark
> 
>  
> From: Axil Axil 
> I beleive that this reference is the same as in my post "the dipole constrant"
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Mark Iverson  wrote:
> FYI:
>  
> "Enhanced low energy fusion rate in palladium (Pd) due to vibrational 
> deuteron dipole-dipole
> interactions and associated resonant tunneling that over-cancels the Jastrow 
> factor between
> deuteron pair wavefunctions"
>  
> Abstract
> We show that interstitial hydrogen nucleii on a metallic lattice are strongly 
> coupled to their
> near neighbours by the unscreened electromagnetic field mediating transitions 
> between low-lying
> states. We then show that in almost-stoichiometric PdD clusters, in which 
> most interstitial sites
> are occupied by a deuteron, certain specific superpositions of many-site 
> product states exist that
> are lower in energy than the single-site ground state, suggesting the 
> existence of a new low
> temperature phase. The modified behaviour of the two-particle wavefunction at 
> small separations is
> investigated and preliminary results suggesting an over-canceling of the 
> effective Coulomb barrier
> are presented.
>  
> Mark N. Iverson
> markiver...@charter.net
>  
>  
> 
<>

RE: [Vo]: arXiv paper: Enhanced low energy fusion rate in palladium...

[Mark Iverson]

No, the one in your post was:
"H-H dipole interactions in fcc metals"

which I think has been mentioned on vortex a few times.
 
What they have in common is the mind of J.S.Brown.

-Mark

  _  

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 6:47 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: arXiv paper: Enhanced low energy fusion rate in palladium...


I beleive that this reference is the same as in my post "the dipole constrant"


On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Mark Iverson  wrote:


FYI:
 
"Enhanced low energy fusion rate in palladium (Pd) due to vibrational deuteron 
dipole-dipole
interactions and associated resonant tunneling that over-cancels the Jastrow 
factor between deuteron
pair wavefunctions"
 
Abstract
We show that interstitial hydrogen nucleii on a metallic lattice are strongly 
coupled to their near
neighbours by the unscreened electromagnetic field mediating transitions 
between low-lying states.
We then show that in almost-stoichiometric PdD clusters, in which most 
interstitial sites are
occupied by a deuteron, certain specific superpositions of many-site product 
states exist that are
lower in energy than the single-site ground state, suggesting the existence of 
a new low temperature
phase. The modified behaviour of the two-particle wavefunction at small 
separations is investigated
and preliminary results suggesting an over-canceling of the effective Coulomb 
barrier are presented.
 

Mark N. Iverson

markiver...@charter.net

 

 

[Vo]: arXiv paper: Enhanced low energy fusion rate in palladium...

[Mark Iverson]

FYI:
 
"Enhanced low energy fusion rate in palladium (Pd) due to vibrational deuteron 
dipole-dipole
interactions and associated resonant tunneling that over-cancels the Jastrow 
factor between deuteron
pair wavefunctions"
 
Abstract
We show that interstitial hydrogen nucleii on a metallic lattice are strongly 
coupled to their near
neighbours by the unscreened electromagnetic field mediating transitions 
between low-lying states.
We then show that in almost-stoichiometric PdD clusters, in which most 
interstitial sites are
occupied by a deuteron, certain specific superpositions of many-site product 
states exist that are
lower in energy than the single-site ground state, suggesting the existence of 
a new low temperature
phase. The modified behaviour of the two-particle wavefunction at small 
separations is investigated
and preliminary results suggesting an over-canceling of the effective Coulomb 
barrier are presented.
 

Mark N. Iverson

markiver...@charter.net

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Peswiki finally reports on Ampenergo

[Mark Iverson]

Hank Mills of PESN states:
"Another rumor on Vortex-L indicates that the Swedish scientists (one of which 
was the former
president of the Swedish Skeptics Society) who tested the E-Cat earlier in the 
year, have submitted
a paper about an additional test of the E-Cat to a peer reviewed journal." 

I read most everything here, but don't remember anything about Kullander/Essen 
submitting a paper to
a peer-reviewed journal... Is that accurate?

-Mark

RE: [Vo]:Rossi's U.S. partner revealed in NyTeknik

[Mark Iverson]

Agree with Jones' statement that greed can be good for society when there's a 
level playing field,
and I wouldn't doubt if that's part of the impetus for this quote: 

"Without morality in our actions, there is no hope for mankind." 
A.Einstein

Unfortunately, the motivation to gain some kind of advantage over competitors 
is quite strong, and
without morality and integrity (and laws) to keep things in check, quickly 
degrades into what we see
now-a-days (e.g., Madoff, Enron, insider trading, political 'favors', etc.).

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 10:36 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's U.S. partner revealed in NyTeknik

[snip]

'Greed' only works well for society, as a motivator, when there is a level 
playing field.

[snip

Jones

[Vo]: Why did the engineer Rossi beat all the scientists? WAS: Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?

[Mark Iverson]

I renamed this thread cuz I'd like to hear opinions as to WHY an engineer 
succeeded where ALL the
scientists failed in optimizing the excess heat and controllability of whatever 
this reaction is???
 
In our conversation about Mills/BLP, Peter wrote:
"His theory is OK, verified by experiment."
 
But an 'engineer' (i.e., someone not real knowledgeable about theoretical 
foundations) optimized the
excess heat effect and controllability of the reaction in only a few years and 
with very little
money compared to BLP (20 years and $60M)...
 
So either Mills' theory has serious errors or holes, or they have incompetent 
scientists/engineering
managers who are making bad decisions as to what tests/experiments to do, thus 
wasting alot of time
and not achieving true UNDERSTANDING of what variables affect the reaction.
 
If Mills' theories were accurate, then optimizing/manipulating the reaction 
mechanisms would have
happened by now... and they would have beat Rossi to the market.  What's more 
likely is that the
conclusions that come out of Mills' theories have caused them to go down 
numerous 'dead-ends'... and
Mills' ego refuses to acknowledge that his theory needs some serious revisions. 

-Mark

  _  

From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 11:43 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?


The reason is, in my opinion, that is very difficult to achieve 
a CONTINUOUS generation of energy- see my paper
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/04/questions-preparing-swot-analysis-of-ni.html
 what
conditions are necessary for a new source of energy.

But I think this year (good for new energy, it seems) Randy will be on the 
market with his CIHT
technology.
His theory is OK, verified by experiment. Technology is more difficult than 
scientific experiments.
Peter
 
<http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/04/questions-preparing-swot-analysis-of-ni.html>
 


On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Mark Iverson  wrote:


I would wager that the reason Mills hasn't got a commercial device, after 20 
years and $60M, is
because his theory is flawed...

-Mark



  _  

From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 9:46 PM 

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?


Perhaps the best person to discuss your hydrino ideas is Randy Mills himself. 
 




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

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?

[Mark Iverson]

I would wager that the reason Mills hasn't got a commercial device, after 20 
years and $60M, is
because his theory is flawed...

-Mark

  _  

From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 9:46 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?

Perhaps the best person to discuss your hydrino ideas is Randy Mills himself. 
 

RE: [Vo]:Re: MAJOR eCat plans : 1MW USA Customer ?

[Mark Iverson]

"Not Impossible" = Highly unlikely...

-Mark

  _  

From: Andrea Selva [mailto:andreagiuseppe.se...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 11:24 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: MAJOR eCat plans : 1MW USA Customer ?


1. Will there be two 1MW stations in november, 1 in greece and other in USA?
1- Not impossible  <= 


How do you exactly translate this answer ? A little poll:


*   Maybe yes 

*   Maybe not 

*   If we can do it 

*   Yes 

*   No


*   ??? 

RE: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?

[Mark Iverson]

I'm no legal expert, but have had a fair amt of experience with patents and 
patent attorneys... and
am on several myself.
The 'Claims' primarily define what's enforceable... i.e., they form the legal 
basis for an
infringement case.
 
The 'ancillary text' serves several purposes, and is to some extent, legally 
important as well.  The
whole thing about how a patent should be 'enabling'; i.e., should be 
descriptive enough to 'teach'
someone 'skilled in the art' to make your invention, is in the "Detailed 
Explanation" section of the
patent.  If there really isn't enough 'enabling' information, then the patent 
could be ruled as
invalid.  In responses to the Patent Examiner during the approval process, this 
'ancillary text'
does indeed come into play.  In addition, that material also serves to document 
other
discoveries/knowledge that, at the time of filing the patent application, you 
didn't want to
incorporate into the Claims.  Thus, you CANNOT use that material as a basis of 
an infringement suit,
but you can refer to it in subsequent patent applications.

-Mark

  _  

From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. [mailto:hoyt.stea...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 8:15 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?


As I understand it, in the US anyway, the "Claims" are the important part of a 
patent.  The
ancillary text doesn't count.
 
 

RE: [Vo]:Slow Neutrons

[Mark Iverson]

Abd wrote:
"Well, if it were that easy to make neutrons, we'd be making them all the time."

Perhaps not... Spectroscopy is everywhere and its only specific wavelengths of 
light that are
absorbed/emitted.  What if the conditions in the lattice are such that there's 
a harmonic
relationship between the electrons and the protons which enhances the 
probabilities of the two
'fusing' into a neutron... 

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 7:39 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Slow Neutrons

At 07:47 PM 5/10/2011, Wm. Scott Smith wrote:
>If we are confining protons in the metal lattice where they encounter 
>thermal electrons which move relatively slow, and it these thermal 
>electrons combine with the proton, then voila!

Well, if it were that easy to make neutrons, we'd be making them all the time. 
What happens when a
slow proton meets a slow electron, assuming they are free, is that a hydrogen 
atom is formed, not a
neutron. The electron cannot reach the nucleus (a proton in this case), it 
stays at a distance, and
the "ground state" is the minimum Bohr "orbit." It takes energy -- a lot of 
energy, apparently, --
to bring an electron and a proton into close proximity.

>Perhaps we then have slow neutrons drifting through the Coulomb Barrier.

Sure, but this would cause many effects, it's called neutron activation and it 
will make lots of
things radioactive. Getting the slow neutrons is the problem. Widom-Larsen 
theory proposes that
"heavy electrons" form on the surface of certain metal hydrides, I think, and 
that these are
captured and result in a series of absorptions. If find it a tad Rube-Goldberg 
for my taste. 

[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?

[Mark Iverson]

It wouldn't doubt it if Rossi has been working tirelessly, 16 hour days or 
more, for 6 months
straight or longer... is there any doubt that he might tend to make more than 
the usual number of
errors in his recollections, and mistakes when writing/reviewing patents and 
such.
 
Don't know about the rest of you, but I have worked 80 to 100 hour weeks for 
months on end and my
accuracy suffers.
 
All the speculations are a distraction until there is a reasonable amount of 
supporting evidence,
circumstantial or direct.
 
-Mark

  _  

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 7:39 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?


I wrote: 
 

I also agree that Rossi has a habit of getting involved with people he should 
not, and making
himself look bad. His web pages are a case in point.


Especially the part where he lists an advisor who does not seem to exist.

Now we learn he made a typo in a patent application.

This is not a careful person. As I said, he is not someone you would put in 
charge of measuring
isotopic ratios. If he did that, and he got the wrong answer, I would not be 
surprised.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Question about Coulomb Barrier

[Mark Iverson]

Perhaps some more pieces to the puzzle... 

1) There was a recent article (within last 2 months) in PhysOrg that had to do 
with how angular
momentum (rotational energy) was converted into other forms of E. 

2) Doppler effect found even at molecular level (PhysOrg, May 11, 2011).

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:07 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Question about Coulomb Barrier

Craig,

I don't if this helps, but most metals tend to be relatively transparent to 
neutrons, due to the
scattering cross-section which is caused by spin, not by anything related to 
charge. The Coulomb
barrier is not involved AFIK with neutrons. 

A few metals like cadmium will absorb neutrons of the correct velocity to 
nullify spin effects, but
in general neutrons must be slowed way-down (thermalized) before they can 
interact with say nickel;
and usually they easily would escape the reactor long before that happens 
unless they are extremely
"cold" - low velocity. Thus the W&L "ULM", which because it is cold/slow can 
stay around longer and
have a much better chance of an interaction.

IOW the approaching neutron will only interact at a significant rate if it 
extraordinarily slow in
velocity.

Jones


-Original Message-
From: Craig Haynie 

Hello all!

I've got a question that I believe you could help me with:

I understand that the coulomb barrier is the point at which the Strong Force 
will become dominant,
and overcome the natural repulsion of two nuclei as they are moved closer 
together. But can neutrons
penetrate the coulomb barrier without any problem, since they are not repelled 
by the positive
charge in the nucleus? Is this why the Widom-Larsen hypothesis posits the entry 
of weak neutrons
into the nucleus?

Craig Haynie
Manchester, NH

[Vo]: On to something potentially useful...at least interesting... isotope ratios need to be rethought.

[Mark Iverson]

This just in...
 
Scientists surprised by solar wind data retrieved from Genesis mission
May 10, 2011 
Amina Khan, Los Angeles Times
 
But much of the collected material did survive the crash, and it's now turning 
up surprises:
 unexpected discrepancies between the composition of the sun and that of the 
inner solar system
(which contains the sun's four closest planets, including Earth).

The early report, published online Monday in the journal Proceedings of the 
National Academy of
Sciences, shows among other things that the pattern of isotopes in the solar 
wind (and thus,
presumably, the sun) is very different from that of the inner planets.

But it appears that there are significant differences. The Earth, for example, 
has more heavier
oxygen in relation to lighter oxygen than does the sun - and that is at odds 
with current theories
of space chemistry
 
-Mark

<>

[Vo]:Greece is in deep deep doo-doo...

[Mark Iverson]

This from Bloomerg...
 
"European Union officials may require Greece to provide collateral for aid as 
policy makers struggle
to prevent the euro area's first sovereign debt restructuring, said a person 
with direct knowledge
of the situation."In other words, for the first time since Weimar, a country 
may soon be forced to
collateralize superpriority debt issuance to foreign creditors: an exercise not 
really seen in
international politics since the Weimar war reparations... and at least Germany 
had its own currency
back then. 
Summary: the EU just told Greece to prepare for Debtor in Possession loan 
issuance.
 
Thus, all the more reason to cooperate with Defkalion!  
They have to increase their tax revenue ALOT, and VERY QUICKLY if they want to 
survive...
 
The savior (Defkalion) has arrived, and will soon be generating alot of large 
sales, and paying alot
of taxes!
Greece will be doing whatever they have to to help the savior make good on its 
promises.
 
-Mark

RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT

[Mark Iverson]

Do we have any idea on what kinds of voltages the heaters are being subjected 
to??? As I stated in a
previous posting, I've tried to look at the oscilloscope screens on some of the 
videos, but cannot
make out the vertical scale nor the timebase scale...

As far as the 'ol-timer' Vorts are concerned, I often feel like I'm 'stating 
the obvious'!

But, for the younger crowd that might be a bit intimidated to contribute, I 
hope this serves to show
that we try to critique our own ideas in order to get to the truth; to not fool 
ourselves.  The
reason I hang here is because this is much closer to true peer-review as any 
official peer-reviewed
journals out there... I think Vorts are driven by 'truth' and facts, and less by
ideologies/theories.. Certainly not tenure and funding. It's not wed to any 
particular theories;
it's open-minded, but requiring facts/empirical data, not anecdotal 'evidence'.


-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 8:18 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT

-Original Message-
From: Mark Iverson 

> If I might provide some additional thoughts/analysis...

> 1) The only way the resistance heaters can 'heat' is if there's a low
resistance path thru the heating element (i.e., a large current flow).  If 
that's the case, then I
doubt you could generate any significant voltage potential between the axial 
heater and the band
heater.

Mark, I agree that it does not seem likely at all ! ... but "low" is a relative 
term and there are
not many other good choices for how the heat gets transferred into the reactor 
(on startup) and why
additional power is needed during operation. Things are not always as they 
seem, so that's why there
is a suggestion that at least some kind of testing should be done to see if 
there can be a
significant current flow between two resistance heaters, as unlikely as it 
sounds. There is a lack
of viable choices to model this.

There is little doubt that in the end - the operation of this device is going 
to surprise all of the
experts, and maybe even Rossi. Nothing really adds up now. 

Jones

RE: [Vo]:The UIBM has granted Rossi's patent

[Mark Iverson]

Sweet Dreams... Of E-Cats jumping over band-gaps!

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 8:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The UIBM has granted Rossi's patent

Oh, heck, the ECat is probably a measurement error anyway.

I'm going to bed.

:-)

T

RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT

[Mark Iverson]

Several thoughts:

1) If there are ANY dielectrics in the path from one heater to the other, then 
this is a NO GO since
one would need a low resistance path.

2) That would require a low resistance (a few ohms at MOST, if not less) path 
thru whatever the
electric current is traversing... What's the resistivity of Ni/NiO

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 7:51 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT

In reply to  Mark Iverson's message of Sat, 7 May 2011 19:39:32 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>2) The only way I see to generate a signif potential between the two 
>heaters is to leave one of the leads floating, thus, BOTH heater leads 
>are at the same potential. However, this means there is no current flow thru 
>that heater and thus,
no heating.
>
[snip]
Unless the current flows to one heater through a wire, then to the next heater 
through the body of
the device, then back to the power supply via one wire of the other heater.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT

[Mark Iverson]

Jones:

If I might provide some additional thoughts/analysis...

1) The only way the resistance heaters can 'heat' is if there's a low 
resistance path thru the
heating element (i.e., a large current flow).  If that's the case, then I doubt 
you could generate
any significant voltage potential between the axial heater and the band heater.

2) The only way I see to generate a signif potential between the two heaters is 
to leave one of the
leads floating, thus, BOTH heater leads are at the same potential. However, 
this means there is no
current flow thru that heater and thus, no heating.

3) Could they be using the heaters as heaters for the pre-ignition phase, and 
then floating one lead
of one of the heaters in order to generate the electric field between the two 
heaters' leads?

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 5:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT

Steven - I did not remember that you were a toroidista :) - but in the end, I 
think you agree that
either it is a toroid or else there has to be some kind of current going 
through the powder,
otherwise - it is not going to heat up. 

Electrical current directly through the nanopowder has theoretical advantages, 
as well, since an
electron flow could be beneficial to any M.O., but that does not mean it is 
happening this way, if
the facts show otherwise.


-Original Message-
From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 

>From Jones,

> > A schematic view of the E-Cat would be something like this:
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/llVoU.png
> 
> Yes, This is exactly the way it appeared to me at first, given all 
> that is known from the images - with only an internal cooling tube and 
> NO external water flow around the outside of the reactor. My original 
> view is
documented
> in the archive and it is precisely this image.
> 
> I was completely overruled on that assessment by everyone else on 
> vortex, without exception AFAIK except for Ed Storms - as they were 
> convinced that there must be external water flow, as well as internal. 
> Rossi also claims there is external flow, and since the 'great man' 
> has spoken, I did not pursue the topic and this layout, which I think 
> could be correct, but for one detail.
> 
> Thanks for reminding me...

As for being "completely overruled" - not quite true, Jones. I recall posting 
my own my personal
thoughts on the idea that the reactor could be designed in the shape of a 
toroid. I certainly never
"overruled" the toroid shape. Makes sense to me.

I also wasn't initially aware of the fact that Ed Storms had apparently come up 
with the same
concept, and no doubt before I had. It certainly wasn't a collaborative effort 
on my part. 

I still think a toroid reactor design makes the most sense. How can one heat a 
heater much above 100
c if the conductive heat has to pass through water first. Not going to happen. 
With that said, I
offer my own disclaimer: Ed Storms obviously knows a lot more about what's 
possibly going on here
that I. I feel like I was just shooting in the dark, and got lucky for once!

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

RE: [Vo]:The UIBM has granted Rossi's patent

[Mark Iverson]

Good find Terry!

As I said in previous posting, the Greek govt is facing major financial 
problems and internal
unrest, and given the fact that they may be in posession of the golden 
egg-laying goose, are going
to exploit that opportunity to its fullest. I don't think this latest move is a 
coincidence... They
are posturing now because they've gained a tremendous amount of leverage (via 
E-Cat/Defkalion).  

Interesting times doesn't even describe what is taking place!

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 7:25 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The UIBM has granted Rossi's patent

And what about this little tidbit:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,761201,00.html

"Greece Considers Exit from Euro Zone

By Christian Reiermann

REUTERS
A protest against austerity measures in Athens. Greece is considering leaving 
the euro zone,
according to sources in the German government.
The debt crisis in Greece has taken on a dramatic new twist. Sources with 
information about the
government's actions have informed SPIEGEL ONLINE that Athens is considering 
withdrawing from the
euro zone. The common currency area's finance ministers and representatives of 
the European
Commission are holding a secret crisis meeting in Luxembourg on Friday night.

Greece's economic problems are massive, with protests against the government 
being held almost
daily. Now Prime Minister George Papandreou apparently feels he has no other 
option: SPIEGEL ONLINE
has obtained information from German government sources knowledgeable of the 
situation in Athens
indicating that Papandreou's government is considering abandoning the euro and 
reintroducing its own
currency.



Well, I might be injecting more to this than I should, but what Sword of 
Damocles might the Greek
government hold over the head of the EU?
A threat of bankruptcy or exclusive rights in the EU to a new energy source?

It all could be coincidence; but, did we know about the patent before today?

Interesting times, indeed!

T

RE: [Vo]:The UIBM has granted Rossi's patent

[Mark Iverson]

Greece (the government) is in a real financial mess, so there is tremendous 
pressure to stimulate
their economy and get tax revenues up.  They've just been handed a goose laying 
golden eggs...
They'd be complete idiots to kill and eat the goose... But governments have 
done stranger things!

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 7:12 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The UIBM has granted Rossi's patent

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>>
>> Patent number 0001387256/ April 6th 2011 on the WIPO application 
>> number MI2008A 000629
>
> This is here:
> http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2009125444
> You can read the whole thing. I assume this is it.

That's the application.  Noone has seen the actual patent #0001387256 and might 
not.  If I were the
Italian government, I would sequester it for security reasons.

Consider that you now have two EU governments who might accept that they have 
the most valuable
asset in their hands since King Midas.
Once convinced, would not you, as the head of the government, see to it that 
the bureaucracy
expedited the paper?

T

RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT

[Mark Iverson]

Yes, I caught that too...
Here is the end of the band heater leads for the middle reactor...
You can clearly see two (dirty-whitish) wires exiting the braided steel sheath.
 


 
-Mark


<>

RE: [Vo]: particle accelerator in a can... Was: cheap ball mill / glove box alternative to Bell jar?

[Mark Iverson]

Do we have a shot of the oscilloscope screen during pre-ignition phase and 
steady-state phase?
I remember stopping the video on the scope screen, and trying to read the 
timebase, but no go...

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Mark Iverson [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 3:07 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]: particle accelerator in a can... Was: cheap ball mill / glove 
box alternative to Bell
jar?

Terry/Steven,
Excellent out of the box thinking!

So we've got a little particle accelerator inside this thing as well! We not 
going to let the H
slowly migrate its way in, we're going to smash it in!  I.e., we're too 
impatient to just let
electrochemistry take its course or wait for adsorption to occur, we'll do it 
exactly when we want,
how often we want and how hard we want.  That way, things happen in the time 
that we need them to
happen.

And if there is a dielectric layer then its not passing DC, which means we're 
dealing with AC,
which, if I remember correctly, there has been a shot of an oscilloscope screen 
with a
negative-going pulse; was it ever explained what that scope was connected to?  
Certainly not the
pump... So the only other possibility was the heater wire?  Is it the 
repetition rate that throttles
the reaction rate?

Pulse the particle accelerator, slam a number of H's into the Ni, back off 
pulse, let reaction occur
which generates a pulse of heat, which needs a little time to disperse, then 
pulse the accelerator
again... Voila!

Tell Garwin we're almost ready to make him some tea! ;-)

In the horse race as to what happens first, October plant going online or 
someone else figuring this
out, I'd have to say that the Vortexian thoroughbred has pulled into the 
lead... Good work guys!
 
-Mark

[Vo]: particle accelerator in a can... Was: cheap ball mill / glove box alternative to Bell jar?

[Mark Iverson]

Terry/Steven,
Excellent out of the box thinking!

So we've got a little particle accelerator inside this thing as well! We not 
going to let the H
slowly migrate its way in, we're going to smash it in!  I.e., we're too 
impatient to just let
electrochemistry take its course or wait for adsorption to occur, we'll do it 
exactly when we want,
how often we want and how hard we want.  That way, things happen in the time 
that we need them to
happen.

And if there is a dielectric layer then its not passing DC, which means we're 
dealing with AC,
which, if I remember correctly, there has been a shot of an oscilloscope screen 
with a
negative-going pulse; was it ever explained what that scope was connected to?  
Certainly not the
pump... So the only other possibility was the heater wire?  Is it the 
repetition rate that throttles
the reaction rate?

Pulse the particle accelerator, slam a number of H's into the Ni, back off 
pulse, let reaction occur
which generates a pulse of heat, which needs a little time to disperse, then 
pulse the accelerator
again... Voila!

Tell Garwin we're almost ready to make him some tea! ;-)

In the horse race as to what happens first, October plant going online or 
someone else figuring this
out, I'd have to say that the Vortexian thoroughbred has pulled into the 
lead... Good work guys!
 
-Mark

[Vo]: refueling process and reserve units...

[Mark Iverson]

I don't understand the concern about refueling... The process is really simple.

You only startup 25 units per day... So it takes 12 days to get the entire 300 
units up and running.
When it comes time to do the 6 months refueling, you only refuel 25 per day and 
the reserve units
are more than enough to handle the job. In two weeks, you're all done with the 
refueling and you're
good to go for another 6 months...

And even if you did start them all up in one day, but only do 25 
refuelings/day, so what if you're 2
weeks over 6 months to complete the refueling... I think there's more than 
enough un-reacted Ni to
last that extra 2 weeks while your busy refueling.

-Mark

RE: [Vo]:Rossi interviewed on Radio24 [ITA]

[Mark Iverson]

With all the challenges that the current economic climate poses, and the 
frustrations that PhDs
can't seem to do at least one test that satisfies all those on Vortex, one has 
to take time to just
have some fun...

I'm grateful for all the intellects and souls on this forum... be well, and 
don't forget to laugh!

And yes, thank  for Sam Adams... both of them!

Jones: dealing with Jed just might make you take up the brew again!
:-)

-Mark

> _ 
> From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 6:52 PM
> To:   vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject:  RE: [Vo]:Rossi interviewed on Radio24 [ITA]
> 
> LOL !!!
> 
> If you are into LENR, Rossi is definitely the guy (of the moment) and "the 
> most interesting man in
> the world" from our narrow perspective.
> 
> BTW, I was not aware of this ad campaign, way-cool. But I did live for a 
> while in Mexico, long
> time ago in San Miguel de Allende ... and can attest that this company does 
> brew the 5-6 out of 10
> of the best beers in N. America... with the Canadians having two of the other 
> 4-5 ... good thing
> we have Sam Adams ...
> 
> ... not that you asked for another fringe opinion. 
> 
> And BTW I gave up beer about the time Rossi got out of the hoosegow ...
> 
> Jones
> 
> 
> From: Mark Iverson 
> 
> Jed wrote:
> "Whatever else Rossi may be, and whatever it is he is drinking (or smoking), 
> he is the most
> interesting man in the world." 
>  
> I thought the guy on the Dos Equis commercial was the most interesting man in 
> the world...
> He's not going to be happy about being #2!
>  
> Stay Thirsty My Friends?
> No way, time for a perfect manhattan!
> -Mark
> 
>  
<>

RE: [Vo]:Rossi interviewed on Radio24 [ITA]

[Mark Iverson]

Jed wrote:
"Whatever else Rossi may be, and whatever it is he is drinking (or smoking), he 
is the most
interesting man in the world." 
 
I thought the guy on the Dos Equis commercial was the most interesting man in 
the world...
He's not going to be happy about being #2!
 
Stay Thirsty My Friends?
No way, time for a perfect manhattan!

-Mark

 

RE: [Vo]:Rossi interviewed on Radio24 [ITA]

[Mark Iverson]

Assuming some E-Cats are reserved for changeout, that means ~7KW/E-Cat  
(1MW/140).

Does this mean that he is NOT satisfied with the kitty-cat (2.5KW), and it 
going back to a slightly
larger reactor?  Or has he been able to push the output up higher?  Or a bit of 
both?

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Michele Comitini [mailto:michele.comit...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 2:44 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Rossi interviewed on Radio24 [ITA]

Interview with Rossi:

http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/radio24_audio/2011/110504-mrkilowatt

the only news is that he tells that the working E-cat number has arrived to 147

as a side note, he says that while being interviewed he is in his Bologna lab  
experimenting new
combinations of catalysts.


mic

RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

[Mark Iverson]

Hi Jones!

I guess at this point my impression of how Rossi optimized the effect is more 
akin to how Edison
discovered what material to use for filaments -- painstakingly long process of 
trial and error!
When you don't have a theoretical model from which to design, T&E is about your 
only option.  In the
video with Mat Lewan's, Rossi looked very stressed/worried... I get the 
impression that the R&D
phase for the 1MW plant E-Cats is not quite out of the 'R' phase! :-)

And at this time, I think it's a CLOSE horserace as to who crosses the finish 
line first -- Rossi,
or one of your more competent groups.  I noticed Dennis ended his subscription 
here... Suppose he
got enough info and jumped onto his thoroughbred?  And they're off and 
running... Hey, I want to be
riding one of them horses! :-)

Did you guys ever hear that humorous audio titled, "Marriage as a horse-race"?
ROTFLMAO!

As for NASA getting involved -- mixed feelings at this point.  First thought is 
great; they have
extremely competent scientists and engineers, and just the fact that they will 
have a 'sanctioned'
Ni-H research program is an immediate elevation of this fields credibility, 
however, if they were to
succeed in understanding the physics, and in fully optimizing the effect, would 
the technology make
it out to the public sector... BEFORE we die!  I didn't spend most of my spare 
time over the last
30+ years following fringe science just to have its commercialization delayed 
by govt bureaucracy
until after I die!  That would be a major pisser... 

No, NASA won't lose the recipe --- the DoD/Govt will simply classify it as TS!  
But there are plenty
of competent people, in this and other countries, who won't let anything stop 
them assuming they can
solve the mystery.

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:41 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional 
analysis.

Mark,

Interesting story, and maybe it is a premonition of what the lame excuse from 
Rossi will be if there
is no megawatt demo in October. 

Rothwell can whine, hem, and haw all day about how he believes in his 
heart-of-hearts that the
sordid TEG business with LTI was not a true scam, but since he has not taken 
the time to personally
investigate the details, his opinion is more of the same pampering and 
pandering of a really strange
character who will probably disappoint all his new fans, in the end.

My prediction is that even before Rossi has a chance to disappoint, others who 
are considerable more
qualified, and honest, will come to the rescue with the answers of what is 
going-on in nickel
hydrogen.

If you look at the big picture from the perspective of who has the skill, 
funding, desire and
teamwork, we should be very glad that NASA is jumping into Ni-H. They may lack 
the spark of
creativity, or the incredible good luck, of the lone inventor - but they will 
not "lose the recipe."

Jones


-Original Message-
From: Mark Iverson
I said:
"Perhaps its because Rossi hadn't given them the proper recipe for making the 
TE devices?"

Let me explain a bit more...

I've been following (and occasionally helping) with a colleague's company that 
has carbon-based
photovoltaic cells that are consistently getting 40% more power than Shell/BP 
panels, and don't
degrade with temperature (interesting stuff!)... This has been going on for 
over a year now and they
are in the process of working with a semiconductor foundry to commercialize the 
technology... I've
visited the foundry in San Jose and I listen in on the weekly phone 
conferences, and the film stacks
and process flows can be very detailed and complex, and even a few degrees of 
temperature or what
one would think of as insignificant 'contamination' from some other molecule or 
gas can mean the
difference between working as expected and dismal failure -- sometimes not much 
grey area! The small
foundry that produced the cells that are beating out the BP panels did not keep 
good notes/logs and
we've had some trouble figuring out exactly what recipe was used to produce 
those cells!!  At this
point, it could even have been a contaminant that has resulted in the much 
greater efficiency!

My point is that, given the fact that Rossi is probably not the best of a 
lab-note taker, even he
may not have the exact recipe that created the 20% TE devices that were 
originally working at LTI...
And maybe he did and didn't divulge it. Its useless to speculate on these kinds 
of topics and just
diverts our collective neurons from focusing on what really matters...

-Mark

RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

[Mark Iverson]

I said:
"Perhaps its because Rossi hadn't given them the proper recipe for making the 
TE devices?"

Let me explain a bit more...

I've been following (and occasionally helping) with a colleague's company that 
has carbon-based
photovoltaic cells that are consistently getting 40% more power than Shell/BP 
panels, and don't
degrade with temperature (interesting stuff!)... This has been going on for 
over a year now and they
are in the process of working with a semiconductor foundry to commercialize the 
technology... I've
visited the foundry in San Jose and I listen in on the weekly phone 
conferences, and the film stacks
and process flows can be very detailed and complex, and even a few degrees of 
temperature or what
one would think of as insignificant 'contamination' from some other molecule or 
gas can mean the
difference between working as expected and dismal failure -- sometimes not much 
grey area! The small
foundry that produced the cells that are beating out the BP panels did not keep 
good notes/logs and
we've had some trouble figuring out exactly what recipe was used to produce 
those cells!!  At this
point, it could even have been a contaminant that has resulted in the much 
greater efficiency!

My point is that, given the fact that Rossi is probably not the best of a 
lab-note taker, even he
may not have the exact recipe that created the 20% TE devices that were 
originally working at LTI...
And maybe he did and didn't divulge it. Its useless to speculate on these kinds 
of topics and just
diverts our collective neurons from focusing on what really matters...

-Mark

RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

[Mark Iverson]

Jones writes:
"Here is a sanitized version of the story cleansed by LTI, but the true grit is 
worse than this
sounds. Bottom of Page 5 is where it gets interesting:"

http://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo%282004%29.pdf

Frankly, I'd prefer to read the unsanitized 'true grit'!  Its usually much more 
interesting and
entertaining!

In the interest of fairness, I think we should put the text from that report 
here and let the
readers decide for themselves...

My reading of the text below is that its about as antiseptic as it gets!  It 
indicates that the New
Hampshire facility, which was set up by LTI and CTC (people in the USA) and 
under their control, had
the same kinds of manufacturing problems as occurred at the Italian 
manufacturer. Perhaps its
because Rossi hadn't given them the proper recipe for making the TE devices?

Did LTI 'sanitize' the Report to save face with the DoD because their decision 
to work with Rossi
turned sour and didn't produce anything of value???  Only the LTI Execs and 
Rossi know the answer to
that Q.

I do wonder why LTI/DoD didn't take the TE devices that were generating 20% 
efficiencies and
sacrifice one in order to perform XRD and other forensic analyses on it to 
determine if they had the
right 'recipe'...

It also wouldn't surprise me if the fire in Rossi's lab was caused by an early 
prototype of the
E-Cat going into a run-away condition and Rossi not being able to stop it in 
time.. Or it happening
at night when no one was there!

-Mark

== EXCERPT FROM DOD REPORT ==

Leonardo Technologies, Inc.

LTI was incorporated as a response to the thermoelectric power generation 
research
by Dr. Andre Rossi. Dr. Rossi indicated that his devices would produce 20
percent efficiencies, a vast increase from the current science of 4 percent 
conversion
of waste heat to electrical power. Dr. Rossi believed that he could increase
the physical size of the TE Devices and maintain superior power generation. In
furtherance of his research, in early 2000, LTI had tests conducted at the 
University
of New Hampshire (UNH), Durham, NH, using a small scale LTI TE Device.
Over a period of 7 days, the UNH power plant staff recorded voltage and
amperage readings every 1/2 hr. The TE Device produced approximately 100
volts and 1 ampere of current, providing 100 watts of power. After this initial 
success, and a fire that destroyed his Manchester, NH location, Dr. Rossi 
returned
to Italy to continue the manufacture of the TE Devices. 

In Italy, Dr. Rossi believed that LTI could manufacture more cost-effective TE 
generating devices with lower labor and assembly costs. Accordingly, Dr. Rossi 
engaged 
a subcontractor to fulfill the requirements of manufacturing and assembly.
Unfortunately, the Italian subcontractor was unable to provide second-generation
TE Devices with satisfactory power generation. Nineteen of 27 TE
devices shipped to CTC, Johnstown, PA, were incapable of generating electricity
for a variety of reasons, from mechanical failure to poor workmanship. The 
remaining
eight produced less than 1 watt of power each, significantly less than
the expected 800-1000 watts each. Appendix C documents TE Device testing.

In an effort to determine, and possibly correct the reasons for TE Device 
failures,
LTI personnel traveled to the Italian laboratory. The common theme that began
to emerge was the inability to upgrade from small-scale TE modules to large 
scale
multiple module TE Devices with large footprints. The most fundamental
reason for the LTI second-generation TE Devices' failure was the complex thermal
expansion interplay among the various components. Contributing to the TE
Device failure were the large number of soldered electrical connections (over 
80),
the inability to match the thermal expansion rates of the mono-block cooling
tanks to the circuit boards and to the semiconductor materials, all within the
clamp pressure or the retaining hardware in the grip of high temperature 
adhesives.

After a month of research and observation at the Italian laboratory, it was 
determined
that the best way to proceed would be to develop an independent laboratory
in New Hampshire so that two development facilities could work at the
problems from two separate locations and viewpoints. During this period of
time, the Italian laboratory continued to deliver TE materials, but none that 
exceed
the current science of TE power generation.

LTI Develops New Hampshire Laboratory

Beginning in mid-2002, the LTI-NH laboratory was designed with the technical
assistance of CTC personnel. By September, TE materials were being manufactured.
The final piece of equipment, the Directional Fusion Machine, was installed
by December of 2002, at which time ingot manufacture was possible. As
in Italy, the New Hampshire laboratory encountered manufacturing challenges.

Outside experts were engaged and were able to assist laboratory personnel in
working through the roadblocks. T

RE: [Vo]:Watts-up with 28, 30, 33 day cycles?

[Mark Iverson]

Sturrock said:
"If the mystery particle is not a neutrino, "It would have to be something we 
don't know about, an
unknown particle that is also emitted by the sun and has this effect, and that 
would be even more
remarkable,"

And this article from a few weeks ago... which was mentioned on Vortex...
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-atom-smasher-nature.html

"There could be some new force beyond the force that we know," said Giovanni 
Punzi, a physicist with
the international research team that is analyzing the data from the US 
Department of Energy's Fermi
National Accelerator Laboratory.

"If it is confirmed, it could point to a whole new world of interactions," he 
told AFP.

While much remains a mystery, researchers agree that this is not the "God 
Particle," or the
Higgs-boson, a hypothetical elementary particle that has long eluded physicists 
who believe it could
explain why objects have mass.

"The Higgs-boson is a piece that goes into the puzzle that we already have," 
said Punzi. "Whereas
this is something that goes a little bit beyond that -- a new interaction, a 
new force."

Punzi said the new observation behaves differently than the Higgs-boson, which 
would be decaying
into heavy quarks, or particles.

The new discovery "is decaying in normal quarks," Punzi said. "It has different 
features," he added.

"One thing we know for sure -- it is not the Higgs-boson. That is the only 
thing we know for sure."

-Mark



> _ 
> From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 9:23 AM
> To:   vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject:  [Vo]:Watts-up with 28, 30, 33 day cycles?
> 
> Curious thing happens when you keep good lab notes over extended periods ...
> 
> Without getting into details yet, or addressing such niceties as Men Are from 
> Mars, Women Are from
> Venus... it is clear that different cosmological cycles can influence 
> activity in subtle ways ...
> and in not-so-subtle ways.
> 
> The same may apply to why experiments with nano-materials work better on 
> certain days than others.
> This is probably NOT a strained metaphor. It may tell us something about the 
> identity of hidden
> influences. Here is a confirming story from which some of the implications of 
> this post are
> loosely based (just so you will know it is not moonshine):
> 
> http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html
> 
> The time between two full moons is ~ 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes but this 
> is longer than the
> time it takes the Moon to make one orbit around the Earth with respect to the 
> fixed stars (the
> sidereal month), which is about two days shorter. This difference is caused 
> by the fact that the
> Earth-Moon system is orbiting around the Sun at the same time the Moon is 
> orbiting around the
> Earth.
> 
> In addition to that, and possibly far more relevant to the experimenter - you 
> have the Sun's
> rotation- or should I say double rotation.  The core of the sun rotates at a 
> different rate than
> its surface, and it works out to every 33 days. The solar core is the source 
> of solar neutrinos
> and is more massive. 
> 
> Neutrinos "weakly interact" in principle but not always ... but that is 
> fodder for another
> grazing.
> 
> Plus the Earth is closer to the sun during the winter months in the Northern 
> Hemisphere (earth's
> orbit is slightly elongated) and this - along the sun and moon cycles - could 
> affect nuclear
> reactions that depend, even remotely on a neutrino flux.
> 
> A few careful researchers, as in the cited article, have noticed that nuclear 
> decay rates vary
> repeatedly every 33 days -- a period of time that matches the rotational 
> period of the core of the
> sun. The surface rotates once every 28 days - so surprisingly the rotation 
> rate of the surface of
> the sun is faster than the core, and yet almost all neutrinos bare believed 
> to come from the core.
> However, the 28 day cycle can also shows up in other data, but it could be 
> lunar.
> 
> It is also strange that these cyclical rates, as different as they are in 
> detail, are similar in
> what humans want to gauge as a "month" but since ancient times have realized 
> is an imprecise value
> of time. So there are really 3-4 overlapping cycles of about a month, but 
> they can be aligned with
> each other or not, and over periods of about 11-12 years which is seen in 
> another variety of solar
> cycle And on a related note, the appearance of the "rogue wave" 
> (superwave) seems to be more
> prevalent when merged and overlapping cycles (heterodyning) which are almost 
> the same, but not
> quite.
> 
> What to make of it all for LANR ?  Hmmm ... Keep good records of experimental 
> results, as there
> could be a "menopauses in the data", so to speak ... not to mention 
> solarpauses ...
> 
> Jones
<>

RE: [Vo]:Just for fun!!!

[Mark Iverson]

Wm:
 
Agreed!  I think its all about resonances and harmonics...
You might want to read my following postings:
 
2/26/2011
"Interesting article: exchange of single quantum between two ions... its all 
about resonance."

2/11
"flies in Ockham's face... "

2/12
"RE: flies in Ockham's face..."
 
Nearly all of nuclear physics is about brute force methods of how to get nuclei 
to interact... there
is another way which requires much less energy, but EXTREMELY specific 
conditions (affecting the
resonances) and that's why its so hard to find, let alone reproduce.

-Mark 
  _  

From: Wm. Scott Smith [mailto:scott...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 9:05 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Just for fun!!!


How about Anomalous Heat Energy & Transmutation a la The Hutchinson Effect? 


Maybe weird stuff really does happen at certain combinations of frequency 
changes! 
 

RE: [Vo]:"Non-Chemical Heat Phenomenon" Label more neutral.

[Mark Iverson]

Jed wrote:
"The name is not important."
 
Its not important to you and some others perhaps, but not to the physicists... 
ya know, the guys you
are trying to 'convince'
I asked a friend who is a physics prof at the local University the following 
questions:
 
1) Do you consider neutron capture as 'fusion'?
2) How would the majority of physicists answer that question?
 
and this was his answer...
==

Hi Mark,

I don't think neutron capture is considered as 'fusion'. But funny things could 
happen; the nucleus
that had captured a neutron could undergo beta-decay and then the nuclear 
charge changes, therefore
changing the chemical element from Z to Z+1. Whether that happens depends on 
the energy level of the
two nuclei.

I saw the reports on the Italian cold fusion claims, where nickel was 
transformed into copper - that
may have been caused by a neutron capture with subsequent beta decay. Wikipedia 
says:

"Naturally occurring nickel   (Ni) is composed of five 
stable
 isotopes; 58Ni, 60Ni, 61Ni,  
 62Ni and 64Ni with
58Ni being the most abundant (68.077%   
natural abundance). 18
 radioisotopes have been characterised with the 
most stable being 59Ni
with a   half-life of 76,000 years, 63Ni with a 
half-life of 100.1 years,
and 56Ni with a half-life of 6.077 days. All of the remaining  

radioactive isotopes have half-lives that are less than 60 hours and the 
majority of these have
half-lives that are less than 30 seconds."

When you look at

http://www.webelements.com/nickel/isotopes.html

then you see which nickel isotopes will beta decay to copper. Those are the 
ones with the higher
number of neutrons: 63Ni, 65Ni, and 66Ni but only the last two have a short 
lifetime. Since 66Ni
comes from the unstable 65Ni, the only source would be 64Ni, which is at about 
1% natural abundance.
So that could be the one Ni isotope that can capture a neutron and then 
beta-decay to 65Cu.

With best regards,

S

==

I really don't care one way or the other... what matters is that we figure out 
what is happening and
commercialize it asap...

-Mark 

 

RE: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?

[Mark Iverson]

Robin,
I respectfully disagree...
I think the 'norm' is that the different forces do NOT interact, unless under 
extreme or unusual or
specific conditions.  I.e., for chemistry (electron-level interactions) and 
nuclear interactions,
the ZPE is pretty much a non-player. 

But then, wasn't it Puthoff who suggested that the reason the electron doesn't 
collapse into the
nucleus is due to ZPE? 

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 3:46 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?

In reply to  Mark Iverson's message of Sun, 1 May 2011 13:37:54 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>And if one considers ZPE interactions then one might have to ignore the 
>COE since we have no way of measuring ZPE!  Testing COE requires that 
>ALL energy inputs and outputs, of ANY kind, must be measurable.

Note that if ZPE exists, then it has always existed and interacted with every 
experiment ever done.
IOW the conservation laws were developed in an environment in which the ZPE 
existed, so one might
expect that it's effects are already "built in", except perhaps under extremely 
exceptional
circumstances. Those circumstances would need to be determined if one expects 
an exception in this
case.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?

[Mark Iverson]

So, NaI detectors aren't affected by other forms of energetic particles... 

I'm afraid I can't contribute much in the way of detailed knowledge in atomic 
physics, and I'm an
INTP personality so I tend to see the forrest more than a tree… and look at 
qualitative things and
potential cause/effect relationships.  The best I can do is perhaps provide 
food for thought.  That
being said… let me serve up the next course!

If its new physics (which I'm leaning towards at this point), then branching 
ratios and all the
associated decay chains and such can be thrown out!!!???  Seems to me that all 
attempts that use
current laws/theories are simply trying to stuff a square peg in a round hole.  
About the only
guidelines one can rely on are the Conservation laws.  And if one considers ZPE 
interactions then
one might have to ignore the COE since we have no way of measuring ZPE!  
Testing COE requires that
ALL energy inputs and outputs, of ANY kind, must be measurable.

Given that, the question is:
How do we convert the energy from the mass->energy reaction into (100%) HEAT??
Is the energy going directly into lattice vibrations (phonons), or are there 
intermediate steps and
the energy eventually ends up as heat?

How's that tickle your taste-buds?  :-)

-Mark


>_ 
>From:  Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
>Sent:  Sunday, May 01, 2011 1:11 PM
>To:vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Subject:   RE: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
>
>Mark,
>
>Good point. However, neutron detectors generally are designed to register only 
>neutrons, otherwise
>the results would be ambiguous.
>
>At any rate, the “axial beam” suggestion is probably not valid anyway - so we 
>are essentially back
>to the problem of either a “new physics” nuclear reaction, without any 
>radioactivity at all, or
>Randell Mills’ CQM, or a ZPE/Casimir influenced reaction, when the only great 
>evidence to go on for
>that is the Reifenschweiler effect. We need a real model to base this on, and 
>since Moddel was not
>successful in practice, we cannot base this on only his hypothesis.
>
>Reifenschweiler has the advantage of already proving a way that chemistry 
>(cavity confinement)
>alters low energy nuclear decay rates. But that effect is with tritium, which 
>is the only decay
>candidate which would seldom reach the 200 keV level (even with the 
>Boltzmann’s tail of the
>distribution). 
>
>The leap of faith is to suggest that Reifenschweiler works to increase the 
>decay rate of a nucleus
>not known to decay, or new kind of virtual particle - and in such a way that 
>there is never more
>than 200 keV even with the Boltzmann’s tail of the distribution, or otherwise 
>it would have been
>seen. “Virtual tritium” from spillover … nah…
>
>Not many good horses in this race - and it is looking like Mills’ stallion is 
>pulling way ahead at
>the first turn. Too bad he did not patent the gas-phase approach, or did he? I 
>spent hours checking
>and found nothing that would help Mills to prevail - even if Rossi is using 
>“his” reaction. You
>cannot patent a theory. But he gave it a good effort, so who knows?
>
>Jones
>
>_
>From: Mark Iverson 
>
>Jones:
>Sorry of this is obvious, but…
>
>On page 8 of the consolidated report (2nd page of Bianchini's report) he shows 
>that the neutron
>detector was positioned on the horizontal axis of the main tube… and it did 
>take data before,
>during and after 'ignition'.  I take it the neutron detector would not detect 
>the photons that you
>were referring to?
>
>-Mark
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Mattia Rizzi 
>
>> Villa & Bianchini reports are available on-line.
>
>It can be found here:
>http://ebookbrowse.com/levi-bianchini-and-villa-reports-pdf-d62074366
>
>The person who will probably most enjoy reading this, based on a theory of 
>operation is Fran
>Roarty, if he has not already read it - since the conclusions of Villa & 
>Bianchini are unambiguous.
>
>THIS CANNOT BE A NUCLEAR REACTION 
>
>However, I would add that they did NOT test in the axial vector; but aside 
>from that:
>
>"Assuming that the observed energy excess production rate (≈ 11 kW) is coming 
>from nuclear
>reaction, knowing that a typical energy release is of the order of 1 MeV, it 
>is possible to
>estimate the total fusion rate to be of the order of 7 · 10^16 reaction/s 
>(fusions or decays)" 
>
>"This rate is so huge that there is no possibility for it to escape detection
>provided that the γ have an energy above the 200 keV threshold." 
>Conclusions
>
>The main findings of the p

RE: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?

[Mark Iverson]

Jones:
Sorry of this is obvious, but…

On page 8 of the consolidated report (2nd page of Bianchini's report) he shows 
that the neutron
detector was positioned on the horizontal axis of the main tube… and it did 
take data before, during
and after 'ignition'.  I take it the neutron detector would not detect the 
photons that you were
referring to?

-Mark


>_ 
>From:  Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
>Sent:  Sunday, May 01, 2011 12:03 PM
>To:vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Subject:   RE: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Mattia Rizzi 
>
>> Villa & Bianchini reports are available on-line.
>
>It can be found here:
>http://ebookbrowse.com/levi-bianchini-and-villa-reports-pdf-d62074366
>
>The person who will probably most enjoy reading this, based on a theory of 
>operation is Fran
>Roarty, if he has not already read it - since the conclusions of Villa & 
>Bianchini are unambiguous.
>
>THIS CANNOT BE A NUCLEAR REACTION 
>
>However, I would add that they did NOT test in the axial vector; but aside 
>from that:
>
>"Assuming that the observed energy excess production rate (≈ 11 kW) is coming 
>from nuclear
>reaction, knowing that a typical energy release is of the order of 1 MeV, it 
>is possible to
>estimate the total fusion rate to be of the order of 7 · 10^16 reaction/s 
>(fusions or decays)" 
>
>"This rate is so huge that there is no possibility for it to escape detection
>provided that the γ have an energy above the 200 keV threshold." 
>Conclusions
>
>The main findings of the present study are the following:
>
>• the present reactor was actually able to vaporize a cold liquid water for 
>about 40 minutes,
>showing a sizeable output-input power
>difference and an integrated power production of several kWh;
>
>• no gamma radiation above the background level in the energy region
>Eγ > 200 keV has been observed, neither in single counting, not in
>Coincidence…
>
>• regardless of the internal details of the reaction chamber, shielding
>and other industrial secrets, the γ rates measured with the NaI counters seem 
>not compatible with
>the rates deduced or expected assuming
>that the energy production was due to nuclear fusion or decay reactions…
<>

RE: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?

[Mark Iverson]

Yes, Piantelli's patent is certainly more "enabling" than Rossi's...
 
I think the most interesting statement in the patent excerpt is:
"...heating is needed to cause lattice vibrations, i.e. phonons, whose energy 
is higher than a first
activation energy threshold, through non-linear and an harmonic phenomena."
 
"thru NON_LINEAR and a HARMONIC phenomena."  
 
For the theorists out there, what do you make of that statement?

-Mark 

  _  

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 6:30 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?


>From the 2010 Piantelli patent an important section is excerpted for your 
>convenience as follows:

 

[quote] The H- ions can be obtained by treating, under particular operative 
conditions, hydrogen H2
molecules that have been previously adsorbed on said transition metal surface, 
where the semi-free
valence electrons form a plasma. In particular, a heating is needed to cause 
lattice vibrations,
i.e. phonons, whose energy is higher than a first activation energy threshold, 
through non-linear
and an harmonic phenomena. In such conditions, the following events can occur: 

a dissociation of the hydrogen molecules that is adsorbed on the surface; an 
interaction with
valence electrons of the metal, and formation of H- ions;

- an adsorption of the H- ions into the clusters, in particular the clusters 
that form the two or
three crystal layers that are most close to the surface. The H- ions can just 
physically interact
with the metal, or can chemically bond with it, in which case hydrides can be 
formed.

 

RE: [Vo]:Can there be some D2 in the H2?

[Mark Iverson]

ratio of D2 to H2 in gaseous hydrogen:
1 in 5400 (NIST)
 
ratio of deuterium to hydrogen in sea water:
1 in 6400 (wikipedia)
with only slight variations between most natural waters.
 
Hmmm, close enough to be a cause/effect relationship?

-Mark

  _  

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 1:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Can there be some D2 in the H2?


Mark Iverson  wrote:


Can't remember if this has ever been discussed...
Is the (industrial-grade?) hydrogen gas pure, or is there some D2 in it?


There is always the natural abundance of D2 in ordinary H2. It is 1 part in 
5,400 according to NIST.

You would have to go to a lot of trouble to remove it.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Can there be some D2 in the H2?

[Mark Iverson]

But if you start out with pure water (H2O, w/o any D2O) and generate the 
hydrogen gas via
electrolysis, then the gas would be pure hypothetically speaking of course.

-Mark

  _  

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 1:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Can there be some D2 in the H2?


Mark Iverson  wrote:


Can't remember if this has ever been discussed...
Is the (industrial-grade?) hydrogen gas pure, or is there some D2 in it?


There is always the natural abundance of D2 in ordinary H2. It is 1 part in 
5,400 according to NIST.

You would have to go to a lot of trouble to remove it.

- Jed

[Vo]:Can there be some D2 in the H2?

[Mark Iverson]

Can't remember if this has ever been discussed...
Is the (industrial-grade?) hydrogen gas pure, or is there some D2 in it?
 
If so, and its the D2 that is participating in the reaction, then wouldn't that 
affect the expected
reaction products and isotope ratios?

-Mark

[Vo]:How scientists think today...

[Mark Iverson]

A revealing comment from one scientist to another...

"I have quite a few seismologist friends in Europe attempting to develop a 
EuroArray, one of whom
said, 'Well, it looks like you have a machine producing Nature and Science 
papers.'

-Mark

[Vo]:Space has no time dimention

[Mark Iverson]

FYI:
 
Here's an article for all you theorists...
 
"Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension"
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html
-Mark 
 

RE: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

[Mark Iverson]

Jed wrote:
"let us prepare for more trouble"...
and
"I think we should marshal arguments and prepare to present our views, if the 
mass media calls.
Let's face it, they are not likely to get a good initial impression of Rossi, 
from his blog or the
way he talks. The field has suffered from the worst PR imaginable for 22 years, 
with researchers and
others saying the wrong thing and giving the wrong impression time after time. 
For once, I would
like to see us present the facts in a good light. And for once, I would like to 
see us prepared for
an onslaught of opposition, rather than being caught with no response to the 
attacks, or with
statements that seem to give credence to them."
 
Now that's a good idea... and one can start by simply scanning all the comment 
sections of websites
where a CF story ran, and summarize each skeptic's question or statement, and 
counter it with the
facts.  Keep it short and sweet, with links to references... the list of 
Rossi's 'clues' was put
together in a matter of a week... perhaps 10 days.  Wouldn't take long to do 
something similar, and
I think I've got the perfect title:
 
 Cold Fusion or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
  Fact vs Fiction -- Reality vs Perception
 

-Mark

  _  

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 7:42 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right


Mark Iverson  wrote:


Have to disagree with Jed's conclusions as to the extreme level of opposition 
that this will face...


Those are not conclusions so much as worst case scenarios. I think we should be 
prepared for a
continuation of what we have seen for the past 22 years. However much we might 
hope that things will
improve, let us prepare for more trouble.

Years ago, I never would have imagined the extreme opposition at Nature and DoE 
would continue this
long, in the face of experiment such as the ones at SRI, Energetics Tech. or 
the Italian labs, yet
it has continued. It is unabated, as if these experiments never too place. Also 
as if the "60
Minutes" program was never broadcast. The opposition at Nature, and for that 
matter Wikipedia, is as
strong as it was in the weeks after the announcement, when the professors at 
MIT were attacking the
research in phone calls to the Boston papers. Not only is the opposition as 
strong as it was, the
ignorance displayed by major scientists and editors is as powerful as it ever 
was. Like the Bourbon
dynasty, they "learn nothing and forget nothing."



I don't think there is any situation in the history of modern economics that 
can compare with what
is happening...


That is certainly true.

 

Sure, there are powerful centers that don't want to see this technology make it 
to market... but
there are 100 times that many powerful entities that want to have a piece of 
the pie...



I hope so.

But I do not think it would be wise for Rossi, or the rest of us, to count on 
that. I think we
should marshal arguments and prepare to present our views, if the mass media 
calls. Let's face it,
they are not likely to get a good initial impression of Rossi, from his blog or 
the way he talks.
The field has suffered from the worst PR imaginable for 22 years, with 
researchers and others saying
the wrong thing and giving the wrong impression time after time. For once, I 
would like to see us
present the facts in a good light. And for once, I would like to see us 
prepared for an onslaught of
opposition, rather than being caught with no response to the attacks, or with 
statements that seem
to give credence to them.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

[Mark Iverson]

Have to disagree with Jed's conclusions as to the extreme level of opposition 
that this will face...
 
I don't think there is any situation in the history of modern economics that 
can compare with what
is happening...
 
Sure, there are powerful centers that don't want to see this technology make it 
to market... but
there are 100 times that many powerful entities that want to have a piece of 
the pie... that want to
exploit the innumerable opportunities that this globally disruptive technology 
will have.  If that
first 1MW plant starts up, and makes it to operational status, barring some 
minor glitches, there
will be no stopping further development.

-Mark

  _  

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 5:17 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right


Axil Axil  wrote:
 

With the exception of the natural gas industry and the centralized electric 
industry, all cold
fusion obstructive forces are unpopular, weak and can be overcome.


I think you are right. I hope you are right!

Still, I expect severe opposition, especially in the early stages. If the 
public gets the wrong idea
about cold fusion at first -- that it is dangerous or it resembles fission -- 
the public relations
campaign may be arduous, and it may fail. The opposition will make every effort 
to give people the
wrong idea. That fellow Bjorn Lomborg is the most skilled person at doing this 
I have ever seen. His
ability to twist facts in support of the unsupportable is awesome. I expect 
they will hire him to
lead the charge against cold fusion.

The battle against cold fusion for the last 22 years was almost successful. It 
almost extinguished
the research. It was carried out by a handful of academic hacks -- Robert Park, 
Maddox and a few
dozen others. They had the quiet backing of many professors and editors who are 
sure that cold
fusion is pathological science. (They remain as sure of that as they were in 
March 1989.) They used
no money, but only their positions of power and ability to publish ad hominem 
attacks in the
Washington Post and other mass media. The next battle will be in far larger in 
scale, and I am sure
that hundreds of millions will be spent by the opposition on advertising 
campaigns and bribes to
members of Congress, mass media reporters, and others. It will not be easy to 
overcome this.

- Jed

[Vo]: Something to keep in mind...

[Mark Iverson]

All:

Now that the emotional vortex has subsided... Funny, so have the atmospheric 
vortices in the
southeast USA!  Nah... No possible connection there... Right?

I share Jones' frustration in that here we have what is very likely a valid new 
discovery that we've
ALL been waiting for, for decades, and being worried that it is still 
vulnerable to control or
suppression by very powerful entities.

I'm less worried each day because there are a lot of details we do have, and 
there are many very
bright, passionate people with principles and integrity that will make this 
happen regardless of
what happens to Rossi's efforts...

i.e., the cat's out of the bag and it ain't gonna let anyone stuff it back in!
;-)

Keep this in mind:
Let's not lose site of the fact that all our collective analysis seems to 
conclude that, despite
differences of opinion on some of the details, we're on the verge of a whole 
new branch of physics,
and technologies that will greatly help the overall condition of people on the 
planet...  I want to
look out across the Truckee Meadows here in Reno, and see how crystal clear it 
is EVERY day, not
just some days.

What's even more amazing is that this global revolution could all transpire in 
less than a year..
from initial public demo to commercial validation!  What other global game 
changing technology in
the history of civilization happened so fast???  Jed, how long did it take the 
Wright Bros to go
from first controlled flight to commercial use?  Years at least... A decade?

On a side note... 
Perhaps we should do a correlation study of emotional outbreaks in the Vort 
collective and tornado
activity in the US...  You know, a butterfly flaps its wings here, and triggers 
a sequence of events
that result in a tornado over there!

-Mark

RE: [Vo]: shrinking felines

[Mark Iverson]

RE: reference for the 50 reactors at 20kW...
>From the very recent posting of "Rossi's Hints" on peswiki that Jed and 
>several others have
contributed to...
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator:Rossi's_Hints
 
I have to take issue with your insistence that even the Feb test was only about 
3kW... but it really
doesn't matter at this point... I think it was more but he was operating it at 
the edge of what the
heat exchange rate could xfer rendering it a bit unstable.  Given a good 
thermodynamics engineer,
there's no doubt that reactor designs could be built with more than adequate 
heat exchange
performance to scale it back up.
 
Regardless of who's 'right' about the details, I think things are moving along 
way faster than any
of us would have anticipated since we've seen true frauds out there that drag 
the spectacle out for
years!  Thanks to Rossi's willingness to entrust some units to others to test, 
which can't be an
easy thing to do, the establishment of the reality of the technology is really 
picking up steam!
;-) 
 
Meow,

-Mark

  _  

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 4:24 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]: shrinking felines



Mark - For future reference - when did he mention 50 reactors at 20 kW ?

 

Moving on. Awkshully, and in complete candor - as for the rest of it - this 
appears to be consistent
with what we would expect from the same identical reactor as in the Jan demo, 
but with a present
realization (or reappraisal) that the initial output was exaggerated by 
incorrect testing (the junk
data that I have been referring too, with little support from other vorticians) 
. and that in point
of fact, the large units were never much more than 3 kW to being with. Not 16, 
15, 12, or 10 but 3.

 

Still great but at a level which is consistent of my predicted COP in the 
Swedish testing of COP of
10.

 

I have made it abundantly clear by now, that the assertion (which I do not take 
credit for, but
which seems accurate): that wet steam gives the appearance of triple or more - 
the actual thermal
content of dry steam, is in fact the case here.

 

Again - before the flood of denials, character assassination and finger 
pointing - let's wait a
couple of days for the Swedish results, please.

 

Jones

 

From: Mark Iverson 

 

So Rossi has gone from:

 

  50 modules of 20 kW each  

130   "  10 kW units 

300   "3 kW each

 

or more poetically stated, from bobcat, to tom-cat, to kitty-cat!  :-)

 

So Steven Vincent Johnson's comment may prove insightful:



"However, there is a subtle point that might have been overlooked here.  
Consider the flip side. As
overall volume decreases excess surface area becomes LESS critical because what 
volume exists can
more easily escape - since all "volume" is relatively close to a surface area.  
Therefore... it IS
conceivable, from my POV, that Rossi's smaller e-kittins might be able to more 
efficiently transfer
heat due to their inherent smaller volume as compared to the bigger sisters, 
the e-cat."



 

Perhaps this is why the "production" units have been shrinking in size and 
power output... more
stability because heat exchanger has more room for excursions before going into 
steam flashing mode
(unstable).  Perhaps Rossi hasn't found a solution to the heat-exchanger issue 
-- or more likely,
hasn't had time since he's wasted hundreds of hours politely answering blog 
questions and doing
interviews!  So right now the simple solution is e-kittens.

 

-Mark

 

[Vo]: Rossi's Marketing spokes-feline

[Mark Iverson]

The marketing for the entire line of e-Cats will be Halley Berry dressed up in 
black skin tight
leather as Cat-woman... "Hear me roar!"  And e-Cats of various sizes will be 
purring along all
around her.  
:-) 

-Mark

[Vo]: shrinking felines

[Mark Iverson]

So Rossi has gone from:
 
  50 modules of 20 kW each  
130   "  10 kW units 
300   "3 kW each
 
or more poetically stated, from bobcat, to tom-cat, to kitty-cat!  :-)
 
So Steven Vincent Johnson's comment may prove insightful:

"However, there is a subtle point that might have been overlooked here.  
Consider the flip side. As
overall volume decreases excess surface area becomes LESS critical because what 
volume exists can
more easily escape - since all "volume" is relatively close to a surface area.  
Therefore... it IS
conceivable, from my POV, that Rossi's smaller e-kittins might be able to more 
efficiently transfer
heat due to their inherent smaller volume as compared to the bigger sisters, 
the e-cat."

 
Perhaps this is why the "production" units have been shrinking in size and 
power output... more
stability because heat exchanger has more room for excursions before going into 
steam flashing mode
(unstable).  Perhaps Rossi hasn't found a solution to the heat-exchanger issue 
-- or more likely,
hasn't had time since he's wasted hundreds of hours politely answering blog 
questions and doing
interviews!  So right now the simple solution is e-kittens.
 
-Mark

 

RE: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi Device new version 4/19/2011

[Mark Iverson]

RE: my source for Rossi's statement about seeing 100-300keV particles...
 
Sure, here it is, on March 18:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3126617.ece
 
Titled: "And here are 36 more questions - with Rossi's answers"
 
Specifically, here is the Q&A:
 
-
Peter Ekström: In the fusion of a proton with Ni-58 a substantial activity of 
Cu-59 is formed. Cu-59
decays with a half-life of 82 seconds by beta+ decay. In the Focardi and Rossi 
article it is stated
that: "No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from the 
process". Considering
the very high activity of Cu-59 that is produced, it is surprising that no 
activity is detected.
Even ten half-lives after the end of a run the activity should be of the order 
of 1013 Bq, which is
not only easily measurable (with a detector far away from the source) but also 
deadly for everybody
present in the room! (Could you explain?)
 
Rossi: No radioactivity has been found in the residual metals, it is true, but 
the day after the
stop of the operation. In any case you are right, if 59-Cu is formed from 58-Ni 
we should have the
couples of 511 keV at 180° and we never found them, while we found keV in the 
range of 100-300 keV.
I think no 59Cu is produced, I suppose only stable Cu is produced from the 
transmutation of the
isotopes 62Ni and 64Ni. I desume this from what we find after the operations. 
Your observation is
correct.
-
 
Perhaps we should capture that whole Q&A session since it has numerous other 
answers by Rossi that
are relevent... including yet another seemingly contradictory statement where 
he says the output
heat is regulated by "modulating the parameters of insertion of hydrogen we 
regulate the power of
the E-Cat."
 
But I've also recently seen on his website blog that he can control the 
temperature of the water by
varying the (power to the) resistive heaters!  Which is the right one??? Or, 
are they both accurate
in that both hydrgen pressure and resistive heater power will control the 
reaction rate (heat
output)...

-Mark

  _  

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 2:24 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi Device new version 4/19/2011


Below is the latest version. Not many changes. The original is in .docx format. 
If anyone wants a
copy let me know. 


Question for Mark Iverson:


Do you recall the source of this claim? Date? Anything specific about the type 
of particles?


"The device produces 100 keV and 300 keV particles. (Rossi? – Iverson reports)"


- Jed


 

RE: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze

[Mark Iverson]

Jones writes:
"it was claiming that there was neither room nor extra mass for fins or 
channels. I listed that as
the caveat. Rossi also says the water flow is straight thru."
 
Ever look at how a steam locomotive boiler is constructed?  The flow is 
straight thru and the heat
xfer surface area is many many times the surface area of the outer enclosing 
cylinder.  I posted a
reply about this and attached a jpeg, but I guess Bill hasn't had time to let 
it thru the filter.
Come to think about it, a nuclear reactor core looks similar, but is vertically 
oriented instead of
horizontal...

-Mark

RE: [Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant

[Mark Iverson]

Giving points made by Jed, Jones and (Steven) Johnson validity, and the fact 
that Rossi admits to
not being a genius but requests people give him some credit for being 
reasonably bright and
competent, I would bet that the heat xfer issue was something that needed to be 
solved long ago and
has been solved to a large degree if Johnson's (Steven's) caveat is 
correct, would that not
explain the reason why Rossi has tended to scale his eCats DOWN instead of UP!
 
-Mark

  _  

From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 12:29 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant


I like to ask answerable questions, and I could not formulate this one 
without touching know how elements. Plus we had some indirect dialogue with 
Rossi re. the role of
Piantelli's work in the area of Ni-H LENR. Rossi has declared that his system 
is different from
Piantelli's.
So I have asked him relatively nice things as E-lion, E kittens. I understand 
well his problems and
tactics.
If you can put this question in an innocent form.. I am ready to ask.
But probably he will not tell how the pancreas or the kidneys of the E-cat work.
peter


On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:55 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson 
 wrote:


On a more serious note, someone who may have achieved some street
creed with Rossi might want to pop this interesting heat transfer
question to Ross at his blog. It might be interesting to see how Rossi
responds. Could be highly revealing.

Peter Gluck, comes to mind as the "volunteer" for his dangerous mission! ;-)

Perhaps we should first wait for Beene's forthcoming heat-transference
data before popping the question.

Heat transference is indeed a tricky engineering problem. As volume
increases it becomes vital to increase the amount of surface area
where heat transfer can occur. Thus heat flanges and fins are created
to assist in this endeavor. Internal cooling coils and tubes can also
be built into solid blocks of "volume", to assist in the dissipation
of heat.

However, there is a subtle point that might have been overlooked here.
Consider the flip side. As overall volume decreases excess surface
area becomes LESS critical because what volume exists can more easily
escape - since all "volume" is relatively close to a surface area.
Therefore... it IS conceivable from my POV that Rossi's smaller
e-kittins might be able to more efficiently transfer heat due to their
inherent smaller volume as compared to the bigger sisters, the e-cat.


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






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

[Vo]: resistive heaters not for heating?

[Mark Iverson]

Could the magnetic field generated by the resistive heaters be inducing some 
other effects that help
promote the reaction, or inductively heat the Nickel???

-Mark

RE: [Vo]:A wiki for compiling Rossi's hints

[Mark Iverson]

I think the wiki needs a REALLY BIG BANNER at the top explaining that nickel 
powder is toxic and
hydrogen gas is highly combustible...

-Mark

  _  

From: Esa Ruoho [mailto:esaru...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 3:35 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A wiki for compiling Rossi's hints


http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator:Rossi%27s_Hints

If anyone wants to send me the current state of the current article via email, 
I'll just post it
there and let's get a move on. It surely is at least a good idea to have it 
related to the
already-existing FAQ on PESWiki. 


On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:18 AM, Charles Hope  
wrote:


If everyone wants to start keeping our list there, on a new page, that would be 
great. If there is
no concern about their policies, I suggest it. 




Sent from my iPhone. 

On Apr 17, 2011, at 17:35, Esa Ruoho  wrote:



BTW, is this not a good place to set one up at?
 

http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_Rossi's_Cold_Fusion_Energy_Catalyzer_(E-Cat):_Freq
uently_Asked_Questions
 



On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Esa Ruoho <  
esaru...@gmail.com> wrote:


Hear hear! 



On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Charles Hope < 

lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com> wrote:


I'll look into setting up a wiki, which will be more convenient than passing 
around a word document.


Sent from my iPhone.

RE: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based & combustible

[Mark Iverson]

RE: Yves Rossy, the Jet Man.
Of all the people that would have the exact same date of birth, it had to be 
someone like him.

-Mark

  _  

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 12:39 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based & combustible



Peter,

 

An authority to contact for anyone interested in the safety issues would be the 
"Swiss Rocket Man" -
since he puts his life on the line with this stuff daily. It is very dangerous 
at full strength but
less so when diluted.

 

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

 

Notice his name is Rossy - instead of Rossi, and that he is also known as the 
"fusion man" due to
the surprising shock wave power of peroxide (which has little heat energy but 
high brisance)

 

His old website, where he explains how it is done with peroxide is not active 
any more AFAIK. 

 

That could be for liability reasons.

 

Jones

 

RE: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based & combustible

[Mark Iverson]

Jones:
 
I know we're all a bit frustrated by the way details have come out, and what 
seems like some
contradictory statements, but it is what it is.  What's that saying about not 
wasting time on things
you cannot change... you're one of the more knowledgeable ones on this forum 
and if you choose to
devote energy to analyzing this story as it unfolds, perhaps its best to expend 
the energy analyzing
what we do have!  If nothing else, you learn things you didn't know, you pass 
on that knowledge and
insight, and when this is accepted by the mainstream, you just might get 
offered a cushy (and
exciting) job since you're on top of the technical details!!   
 
I'd give my left nut to be working in this field!  Heck, I'd give BOTH of 
'em since I'm not
going to be using them anymore in my life... they're just hangin around these 
days and not of much
use. 
LoL  :-)

-Mark


  _  

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 12:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based & combustible



Mark,

 

It goes without saying that this was a hasty fiction put together to show how 
this demo (or any
similar demo by anyone) could be partially faked (i.e. "enhanced") in a way 
that could fit into a
coherent story. and certainly was not intended to be anything more than that. I 
should have prefaced
the post - to make that clear. 

 

However, I am in the outspoken minority (minority of one?) who do not trust 
Rossi to be honest about
important details, especially when they contradict, as they often do, more 
reliable sources. like
the Swedish isotope analysis, for instance.

 

However, I vaguely recall the video interview a week or so ago - with the CEO 
of the Greek company .
in which he indicated that a goodly portion of the $100 million has already 
been released. Did
anyone else catch this interview?

 

Jones

 

 

From: Mark Iverson 

 

Items 5 and 7 are not fitting with the details that Rossi has stated, which is 
that he ONLY receives
money when the plant is producing energy... so there is no "up-front cash".  
Don't think that the
scenario is consistent with first-hand information...  

 

5)At this time, Rossi is already arranging a deal with the Greeks, possibly 
for far less money
than was finalized after the demo.

 

7)Then . flash . Rossi decides he can "enhance" the demo, and possibly 
close the deal with the
Greeks for more up-front cash - by using the low COP of about 4 to heat a 
peroxide blend and get the
'apparent' COP up to maybe 30.

 

-Mark

 

RE: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based & combustible

[Mark Iverson]

Items 5 and 7 are not fitting with the details that Rossi has stated, which is 
that he ONLY receives
money when the plant is producing energy... so there is no "up-front cash".  
Don't think that the
scenario is consistent with first-hand information...  
 

5)At this time, Rossi is already arranging a deal with the Greeks, possibly 
for far less money
than was finalized after the demo.

 

7)Then … flash … Rossi decides he can “enhance” the demo, and possibly 
close the deal with the
Greeks for more up-front cash - by using the low COP of about 4 to heat a 
peroxide blend and get the
‘apparent’ COP up to maybe 30.

 
-Mark

  _  

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 9:42 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based & combustible



First, don’t get me wrong. I thought the Bologna demo was robust and legitimate 
at the time, and
still think it could have been strongly OU – but less so than appearances might 
indicate. 

 

However, there is no real proof of any huge gain until better controls are 
implemented. I agree
fully with Horace that the demo was shoddy. However, all of us must realize by 
now, that any further
public testing CANNOT HELP Rossi. Deals are signed and he has nothing to gain 
till he gets the
megawatt device ready.

 

A scenario which can answer a lot of questions would be this:

 

1)Focardi, Piantelli and many others have built Ni-H experiments for years 
that showed modest
gain

2)Mills has built Ni-H systems that purportedly show much higher gain

3)Rossi teamed with Focardi circa 2006, and they were able to get a system 
up to say – COP of 4
by using nanopowder and Mills’ catalysts – maybe less, but reliable.

4)Focardi is in ill-health and recently asks for a public demo while he can 
still enjoy it

5)At this time, Rossi is already arranging a deal with the Greeks, possibly 
for far less money
than was finalized after the demo.

6)Rossi decides to do the Bologna demo for the benefit of his old friend 
and mentor

7)Then … flash … Rossi decides he can “enhance” the demo, and possibly 
close the deal with the
Greeks for more up-front cash - by using the low COP of about 4 to heat a 
peroxide blend and get the
‘apparent’ COP up to maybe 30.

8)He would already know about this blend, since the Chinese have been 
promoting it for a year or
so.

9)Then the demo in Bologna and the positive PR.

10) The Greeks see this demo, are very impressed, fear competition - and sign 
the check in January
for more than they wanted to. 

11) Of course a part of the funds are in escrow, but remember, Rossi can still 
build reactors that
are OU, so he can pull off something impressive in the end, even without the 
peroxide boost and get
the full payment. 

12) Thus he has worded the contract in such a way that in the end a showing of 
strong overunity is
the criterion – not the full 30-1 gain 

13) ERGO even without the ‘enhancement’ he used in the demo – he can be 
successful on the contract
clauses and claim his fee, but it might require 700 reactors to get to the 
megawatt instead of 100.

14) Even with 700 it still makes economic sense but at 3 cents per kW-hr 
instead of 1 cent.

15) In the mean time Rossi thinks that by using U of Bologna, the Swedes and 
others - to figure out
the underlying details that he realizes he does not know, he might actually get 
the device into a
more robust range than his fall-back gain (COP = ~4)

16) Everyone lives happily ever after

 

 

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

Jones Beene  wrote:

 

Considerably less than the $100 million Euros that a Greek investor might be 
willing to advance ….

 

Ha, ha. And how would this work now that they are testing it in Rossi's 
absence? I imagine they will
notice. Surely the hidden tank will run out, or they will try another source of 
water.

 

 

BTW – calculations based on heat content can be thrown out the window with 
peroxide blends, which
produce cold steam with less energy than seems physically possible …

 

What is "cold steam"? This stuff boils at 150°C, it seems.

 

The Rossi device steam is 101°C, if you believe thermometers work.

 

- Jed